The coalition’s got problems, but Tory government can still survive, albeit perhaps with a different, older head.
The end of this week sees George Osborne retreat on three high-profile sections of his 2012 Budget, with the cap on charity tax relief (previously blogged here) joining u-turns on the VAT status of pasties and static caravans.
To negate embarrassment, the Treasury made these announcements in the true tradition of choosing good days to bury bad news, with pasties and caravans being announced just prior to recess and thus avoiding any awkward parliamentary questions, and the charity tax cap, despite the promise of a summer consultation, being ditched just as Jeremy Hunt gave evidence to Leveson on Thursday.
According to the Financial Times, Osborne has sacrificed these measures in order to avoid the politicking: “Mr Osborne presented the retreats as a sensible piece of housekeeping – defusing awkward and relatively trivial political rows to allow him to focus on his role as the country’s economic helmsman: ‘Keeping Britain safe in the gathering storm.’”
Nonetheless, this embarrassing muddle does nothing to diffuse the growing perception that Cameron’s government are out of touch toffs. Denying the plebs the pleasures of sausage rolls and a week by the sea in a caravan. Not realising that those wealthy benefactors don’t just magically appear at the appeals of charities and arts organisations in need, but require cajoling.
Like a stopped clock, Nadine Dorries is, occasionally, right. Or she was at least once last month when she called Cameron and Osborne “two arrogant posh boys” with “no passion to understand the lives of others”. While Osborne is beset by Budget troubles, Cameron is increasingly suffused by the omnishambles generated by Leveson, from the arrest of his mates Rebekah and Andy, to having to defend Hunt.
It’s no surprise that recent elections to the 1922 Committee saw backbenchers like Priti Patel, Guto Bebb and Simon Kirby elected, all part of the 301 Group loyal to the leadership and less likely than the 1922 Committee old guard to criticise government policy. The lack of coincidence is reaffirmed by Nick Pritchard, who complained that Downing Street “should spend more time trying to fix the economy and less time trying to fix the 1922 elections” as he stood down as one of its secretaries.
So the wagons are circling, as we approach Westminster’s mid-term. The Tories’ hope is that current controversies become chip paper, the economy starts to recover and grow, and that those 301 Conservative MPs (hence the name of the faction) are elected in 2015 for a full Tory government.
Labour, of course, revel in each and every crisis plaguing the coalition, whether condemning the budget u-turns as a shambles, or forcing a vote on Jeremy Hunt. But whether these issues will lead to any electoral benefit to Labour is yet to be seen.
Despite shoring up the 1922 Committee with supporters, the Tories do have a streak for being ruthless when their leaders let them down. If Cameron and Osborne can’t get the coalition show back on the road, the knives will be drawn by their backbenchers.
Any obvious successors? Osborne is right that the focus has to be on steering the economy – the foremost issue in voters’ minds. -So it needs a good, calm pair of hands. Possibly someone already tried and tested, known by voters.
Despite claiming he has no ambition to lead his party for a second time, William Hague seems an obvious choice. A competent Foreign Secretary, with a Yorkshire accent and comprehensive schooling to boot, just to get rid of all those Tory toff jibes.
This week Hague and Miliband look like leaders, while Cameron looks like anything but. Hague is promising that military action on Syria is not being ruled out, and launching campaigns against sexual violence in war zones with Angelina Jolie. Meanwhile Ed Miliband is visiting troops in Afghanistan and calling for action to protect soldiers from abuse back home. Meanwhile 1 in 10 people apparently think David Cameron is an alien.
Hague now seems a lifetime away from his aborted leadership during Tony Blair’s heyday. Where once was naivety and bluster there is parliamentary oration and political instinct. He would be a far more difficult, heavy-weight opponent than Cameron for Miliband to take on at a General Election. I doubt a Conservative Party, led again by Hague, could be beaten.
Nobody wants to join Peter Bone, in his morbid fascination with who gets to run Britain should Cameron be killed, but I think his preference for that person to be Hague is telling. Should the present omnishambles not clear any time soon, Hague’s definitely the one to watch.
#1 by Nikostratos on June 2, 2012 - 8:28 am
Kirsty
Cameron’s government ‘ARE’ out of touch toffs…..err! do keep up
#2 by Allan on June 2, 2012 - 10:40 am
Given New Labour’s strange truce with Michael Gove, i’d have thought that he would have been one to watch as well given his performance this week at Levenson.
Of course, the funny thing is that when this question first popped up last year, Osborne wasn’t at the top of that list either, Theresa May was many people’s tip for if Cameron had to make a sharp exit – safe pair of hands and all that. This leaves one wondering whether Osborne’s status as Cameron’s heir apparent was anything more than hype, just like his supposed tactical nous.
BTW – Mad Nad’s quip about the posh boys is the only thing she has ever got right.
#3 by scottish_skier on June 2, 2012 - 11:27 am
What puzzles me is why Labour and the Conservatives do not form a government of national unity in this time of crisis. On socio-economic political scales they are quite similarly matched; both being centre-right and authoritarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
In fact I was surprised at the Tory-Liberal coalition in 2010 as at that point the Liberals presented a far less suitable coalition partner for the Tories in terms of socio-economic stance when compared with Labour.
The similar nature of Labour and the conservatives allows them to work together in Scotland, both at council/Holyrood level and on constitutional matters (e.g. Darling’s recent strategy meeting), so why can’t they do this at Westminster and reach consensus for the good of all? All they seem to be arguing about recently are tiny differences in policy such as the price of hot snacks.
Certainly, the Tories might want to listen to Ed Milliband as he seems to be gaining some popularity with his take on how to woo the right-wing (e.g. UKIP voters will be very pleased if the rumours of an EU referendum from the Labour party become reality) and it looks like – from polls at least – that if the UK is to have another right-wing PM, it won’t be Theresa or George, but Ed.
#4 by Nikostratos on June 2, 2012 - 12:06 pm
skier
‘why Labour and the Conservatives do not form a government of national unity’
Because I (a lifelong labour supporter as my was my father before me) and many many others would never ever vote Labour again………….In fact id probably vote for Independence and the snp and i would hate to do either yuk.
It would be an act of political suicide
#5 by Allan on June 2, 2012 - 1:13 pm
“Because I (a lifelong labour supporter as my was my father before me) and many many others would never ever vote Labour again………….In fact id probably vote for Independence and the snp and i would hate to do either yuk.
It would be an act of political suicide”
And sharing the same stance as the Cambot on Independence V the Status Quo V Fiscal Autonomy isn’t political suicide here in Scotland? I’m sure we’ll see Milliband the younger’s true treachery after the No vote when Fiscal Autonomy is kicked into the very long grass…