It must be serious: Tory ties are back

Just back from Birmingham. A strange mood, as the Conservative conference competes for attention with the turmoil in the financial markets. Ties are very much back in fashion, as the opposition adapts its tone to the new age of serious.

David Cameron’s non-partisan approach to his unscheduled statement today was well received by the commentariat. (You can watch the video on Nick Robinson's blog).

But will he keep it up? One of his first pledges as opposition leader was a commitment to ending ‘punch and judy’ politics. Yet he has admitted that he ditched that idea – and indeed he chose to make unusually personalised attacks on the prime minister once Blair gave way to Brown.

Unless the new statesmanlike approach was intended to last for only one 24 hour news cycle, it would suggest a rather different opposition leader’s keynote speech tomorrow. Let’s see. Read more...

It must be serious: Tory ties are back

Just back from Birmingham. A strange mood, as the Conservative conference competes for attention with the turmoil in the financial markets. Ties are very much back in fashion, as the opposition adapts its tone to the new age of serious.

David Cameron’s non-partisan approach to his unscheduled statement today was well received by the commentariat. (You can watch the video on Nick Robinson's blog).

But will he keep it up? One of his first pledges as opposition leader was a commitment to ending ‘punch and judy’ politics. Yet he has admitted that he ditched that idea – and indeed he chose to make unusually personalised attacks on the prime minister once Blair gave way to Brown.

Unless the new statesmanlike approach was intended to last for only one 24 hour news cycle, it would suggest a rather different opposition leader’s keynote speech tomorrow. Let’s see. Read more...

Inheritance tracks

IDS also said that he wanted to see a broader definition of poverty, particularly suggesting that inequalities in assets should be seen as important, and not merely inequalities in income. It is assets – he suggested – which are particularly important in terms of developing a stake in society, speaking at the Fabian/Webb Memorial Trust/Centre for Social Justice fringe event in Birmingham.

However, robustly challenged by Derek Draper from the fringe floor, IDS would not admit to any contradiction between that view and the priority given by the Conservatives to increasing the tax free threshold for inheritance tax to not just £1 million but now to £2 million for a married couple. ‘Its not a zero-sum game’, he said.

That was challenged by both Martin Narey and myself. Politicians can not, argued Narey, worry about social immobility in one breath and then adopt policies which would entrench social immobility and inequalities in wealth. I suggested that IDS’s concern with asset inequalities must mean that he should push his own party to retain the child trust fund (and indeed that Martin Narey’s social justice commission should seek to persuade the LibDems to ditch their policy of scrapping it too).

IDS couldn’t speak for the party as to whether the child trust fund would be safe under a Conservative government – but he reiterated his own belief that his party should pay more attention to asset inequalities.

I argued that the major political parties should call a halt to an auction on inheritance tax thresholds – and put the receipts from (rather modest) taxation on inherited wealth above the (already rather generous) tax thresholds. And put the receipts into a universal approach to ensuring there are assets for all in society.

Why wouldn’t any politicians who wants concerns about social mobility to be taken seriously be able to sign up to that? Read more...

Inheritance tracks

IDS also said that he wanted to see a broader definition of poverty, particularly suggesting that inequalities in assets should be seen as important, and not merely inequalities in income. It is assets – he suggested – which are particularly important in terms of developing a stake in society, speaking at the Fabian/Webb Memorial Trust/Centre for Social Justice fringe event in Birmingham.

However, robustly challenged by Derek Draper from the fringe floor, IDS would not admit to any contradiction between that view and the priority given by the Conservatives to increasing the tax free threshold for inheritance tax to not just £1 million but now to £2 million for a married couple. ‘Its not a zero-sum game’, he said.

That was challenged by both Martin Narey and myself. Politicians can not, argued Narey, worry about social immobility in one breath and then adopt policies which would entrench social immobility and inequalities in wealth. I suggested that IDS’s concern with asset inequalities must mean that he should push his own party to retain the child trust fund (and indeed that Martin Narey’s social justice commission should seek to persuade the LibDems to ditch their policy of scrapping it too).

IDS couldn’t speak for the party as to whether the child trust fund would be safe under a Conservative government – but he reiterated his own belief that his party should pay more attention to asset inequalities.

I argued that the major political parties should call a halt to an auction on inheritance tax thresholds – and put the receipts from (rather modest) taxation on inherited wealth above the (already rather generous) tax thresholds. And put the receipts into a universal approach to ensuring there are assets for all in society.

Why wouldn’t any politicians who wants concerns about social mobility to be taken seriously be able to sign up to that? Read more...

Two strands of Tory thinking

The possibility and difficulties of cross-party political consensus was the theme too of a Fabian Society and Webb Memorial Trust fringe event, in association with the Centre for Social Justice and the End Child Poverty campaign.

Iain Duncan Smith and Martin Narey were again on the platform as our ‘child poverty challenge’ fringe roadshow moved from Manchester to Birmingham, though we had lost Polly Toynbee to commitments in London. IDS thought he had better say pretty much the same thing to his own party as he had said to Labour. The panel also included Samantha Callan, Ben Page of MORI and myself as a late substitute for Polly T.

We were addressing the question: Child Poverty: is it the warmth or the wealth? This was partly a tribute to the Conservative leader, who told his conference last year that he could not offer a hard luck story as he had a fantastic upbringing but that ‘it wasn’t the wealth; it was the warmth’. Or, perhaps more seriously, while everybody agrees that addressing poverty must be about more than income, is there still a disagreement about whether income poverty must remain central? And have the Conservatives converted, or not, to the idea that poverty must be understood in relative terms?

IDS’ emerging theme is that intergenerational problems can not be dealt with effectively if there is a stop-go approach where one party coming to power tears up everything the other has done. On this, he is right. The ambition should be a poverty prevention settlement which is as deeply embedded as the NHS was in the post-war political consensus. And that is why many of us on the left concerned with inequality and poverty pushed for, and then welcomed, the Conservative shift on the language of relative poverty and inequality – including the apparent willingness in 2006 to acknowledge that relative poverty matters, and to at least aspire to the progressive goal of ending child poverty. This was, at least, a major improvement on John Moores' claim in 1988 that poverty in Britain had been abolished.

Yet we remain a very long way from a consensus on ending child poverty which is fit for purpose. There have been major shifts across the parties in political language, but not on policy. That all parties talk about child poverty and inequality is progress – but, while the Labour government has delivered progress since 1999, none can claim to have done enough to will the means.

Most of the civil society and non-party experts on poverty and inequality believe that the Conservatives have moved backwards since 2006. The extreme vagueness of any Tory policy agenda undoubtedly increases scepticism that the aim was a rebranding and repositioning exercise. The frontbench have done nothing substantial to address that at this conference, as both Stuart White and Jenni Russell report that they found when trying to pin the jelly to the wall during yesterday’s ippr fringe,

But that is not a charge that I think can fairly be levelled against IDS. I would certainly differ on several points of analysis and policy recommendations with the social justice agenda he is developing on the centre-right. But his sincerity can not be in doubt. He is pushing his party to go further – but it is unclear how big a constituency he will have.

Tonight, there was a lot of consensus on the importance of the early years. IDS said he had criticisms of SureStart, but argued that his party should not rip it up. Rather he wants to see a cross-party agreement over increased investment in the early years over the next twenty years.

Martin Narey had some eye-watering examples to support the idea that this would be, in the long-term, extremely good value for the taxpayer. It will be expensive in the short-term.

I am not sure how far we got on relative poverty. IDS was pretty clear that ‘of course, income must be part of this’ but stressed the wider social determinants. We don’t know how the Conservatives will respond to the government’s commitment to legislate on this ‘progressive end’

What struck me is that there are two different approaches influencing Conservative thinking in this area, which point in very different policy directions. One possibility is that the small c conservative instinct – that conservatives adapt to change once it has happened – will see a perhaps reluctance acquiescence to New Labour innovations, like the early years. This was the Conservatism which informed Churchill and Macmillan after 1951 – it was politically highly effective, if rather philosophically promiscuous and unrooted, and the public politics of Cameronism stand in this tradition.

But the other instinct points in an opposite direction: the right’s renewed interest in social justice has also revived a long-standing right-of-centre critique of the welfare state, as crowding out voluntary provision and individual initiative. This is a much more radical prospectus, challenging the foundational principles of post-war welfare provision, and indeed links directly to the arguments of Helen Bosanquet against Beatrice Webb’s 1909 arguments for a welfare settlement along the lines of what was to become the Beveridge settlement. It is an argument which combines localism with a desire for a significant rolling back of the state – and a sometimes vague hope that a ‘rolling forward’ of society might follow.

Both of these strands of thinking can be found in Conservative social justice thinking and analysis. It is too early to judge as to which will prevail. However, it is interesting that the detailed research of the Centre for Social Justice on areas like relationships support, and the early years, is leading to detailed policy recommendations which challenge the simplistic analysis of ‘state failure’ in which rather too much of the new would-be progressive Toryism is still couched. Read more...

Two strands of Tory thinking

The possibility and difficulties of cross-party political consensus was the theme too of a Fabian Society and Webb Memorial Trust fringe event, in association with the Centre for Social Justice and the End Child Poverty campaign.

Iain Duncan Smith and Martin Narey were again on the platform as our ‘child poverty challenge’ fringe roadshow moved from Manchester to Birmingham, though we had lost Polly Toynbee to commitments in London. IDS thought he had better say pretty much the same thing to his own party as he had said to Labour. The panel also included Samantha Callan, Ben Page of MORI and myself as a late substitute for Polly T.

We were addressing the question: Child Poverty: is it the warmth or the wealth? This was partly a tribute to the Conservative leader, who told his conference last year that he could not offer a hard luck story as he had a fantastic upbringing but that ‘it wasn’t the wealth; it was the warmth’. Or, perhaps more seriously, while everybody agrees that addressing poverty must be about more than income, is there still a disagreement about whether income poverty must remain central? And have the Conservatives converted, or not, to the idea that poverty must be understood in relative terms?

IDS’ emerging theme is that intergenerational problems can not be dealt with effectively if there is a stop-go approach where one party coming to power tears up everything the other has done. On this, he is right. The ambition should be a poverty prevention settlement which is as deeply embedded as the NHS was in the post-war political consensus. And that is why many of us on the left concerned with inequality and poverty pushed for, and then welcomed, the Conservative shift on the language of relative poverty and inequality – including the apparent willingness in 2006 to acknowledge that relative poverty matters, and to at least aspire to the progressive goal of ending child poverty. This was, at least, a major improvement on John Moores' claim in 1988 that poverty in Britain had been abolished.

Yet we remain a very long way from a consensus on ending child poverty which is fit for purpose. There have been major shifts across the parties in political language, but not on policy. That all parties talk about child poverty and inequality is progress – but, while the Labour government has delivered progress since 1999, none can claim to have done enough to will the means.

Most of the civil society and non-party experts on poverty and inequality believe that the Conservatives have moved backwards since 2006. The extreme vagueness of any Tory policy agenda undoubtedly increases scepticism that the aim was a rebranding and repositioning exercise. The frontbench have done nothing substantial to address that at this conference, as both Stuart White and Jenni Russell report that they found when trying to pin the jelly to the wall during yesterday’s ippr fringe,

But that is not a charge that I think can fairly be levelled against IDS. I would certainly differ on several points of analysis and policy recommendations with the social justice agenda he is developing on the centre-right. But his sincerity can not be in doubt. He is pushing his party to go further – but it is unclear how big a constituency he will have.

Tonight, there was a lot of consensus on the importance of the early years. IDS said he had criticisms of SureStart, but argued that his party should not rip it up. Rather he wants to see a cross-party agreement over increased investment in the early years over the next twenty years.

Martin Narey had some eye-watering examples to support the idea that this would be, in the long-term, extremely good value for the taxpayer. It will be expensive in the short-term.

I am not sure how far we got on relative poverty. IDS was pretty clear that ‘of course, income must be part of this’ but stressed the wider social determinants. We don’t know how the Conservatives will respond to the government’s commitment to legislate on this ‘progressive end’

What struck me is that there are two different approaches influencing Conservative thinking in this area, which point in very different policy directions. One possibility is that the small c conservative instinct – that conservatives adapt to change once it has happened – will see a perhaps reluctance acquiescence to New Labour innovations, like the early years. This was the Conservatism which informed Churchill and Macmillan after 1951 – it was politically highly effective, if rather philosophically promiscuous and unrooted, and the public politics of Cameronism stand in this tradition.

But the other instinct points in an opposite direction: the right’s renewed interest in social justice has also revived a long-standing right-of-centre critique of the welfare state, as crowding out voluntary provision and individual initiative. This is a much more radical prospectus, challenging the foundational principles of post-war welfare provision, and indeed links directly to the arguments of Helen Bosanquet against Beatrice Webb’s 1909 arguments for a welfare settlement along the lines of what was to become the Beveridge settlement. It is an argument which combines localism with a desire for a significant rolling back of the state – and a sometimes vague hope that a ‘rolling forward’ of society might follow.

Both of these strands of thinking can be found in Conservative social justice thinking and analysis. It is too early to judge as to which will prevail. However, it is interesting that the detailed research of the Centre for Social Justice on areas like relationships support, and the early years, is leading to detailed policy recommendations which challenge the simplistic analysis of ‘state failure’ in which rather too much of the new would-be progressive Toryism is still couched. Read more...

Gordon Brown: a dream speech

Last night I had a dream, in which Gordon Brown appeared and made a speech which went something like this (it was more eloquent, but I can just about remember the gist):

'Good evening. All of us are worried by the financial turmoil that has hit the world economy in the past couple of weeks. Rest assured that my government will do everything necessary to prevent the crisis hurting your savings and prospects.

But as we get to grips with the immediate crisis, now is the time to ask ourselves some searching questions about the kind of world we are living in - and the kind of world we want to live in.

Is it right - is it right - that our hard-earned savings and wealth can be at the mercy of such an unstable system? Is it right that our livelihoods are subject to the unpredictable swings and roundabouts of a financial system that offers huge, undeserved rewards for a tiny minority? Capitalism is one thing; but this 'casino capitalism', as it has rightly been called, is quite another.

Now I know what some of you will say. You'll say: 'But Gordon, this has happened on your watch. You sat back and let the financial sector have the freedoms it demanded, the very freedoms that have produced this mess.'

I have to tell you, in all candour, that you would be right to say this. It was a mistake. Now we must put this mistake right.

But why did we make this mistake? We made it because after the huge changes that Margaret Thatcher brought about, and the collapse of Communism, virtually everyone started to believe in the free market. People of all parties - Labour, Liberal and Tory - believed that the way forward was through privatization and deregulation.

But the difference between Labour and the Tories is this: as social democrats we are always ready to learn the hard lessons of experience and to do what is necessary to bring capitalism back under control. That is why I am announcing today the setting up of a new Royal Commission to consider what reforms are necessary to the financial sector. Finance must serve the real economy, and not the other way around.

Perhaps the Tories will support us in this. But probably not. After all, the philosophy of deregulation which has brought us to this mess is, more than anyone else's, their philosophy. It is what - since the days of Margaret Thatcher - they have been in politics to do. That is why their ideological soulmates in the US, the Republicans in Congress, refused to support the vital rescue plan for the US economy. Be in no doubt: the blind free-market ideology of the US Republicans puts our economy at risk as well as their own. That free-market ideology threatens us all.

In 1979, Margater Thatcher led our country in a new direction: away from the state and towards the market. That philosophy, whatever its strengths, has been pushed to excess, and we are now all suffering the results of that. This is the moment when the Age of Thatcher comes to an end. This is the moment when we must learn not only that the state has to be put in its place, but the market too.' Read more...

Gordon Brown: a dream speech

Last night I had a dream, in which Gordon Brown appeared and made a speech which went something like this (it was more eloquent, but I can just about remember the gist):

'Good evening. All of us are worried by the financial turmoil that has hit the world economy in the past couple of weeks. Rest assured that my government will do everything necessary to prevent the crisis hurting your savings and prospects.

But as we get to grips with the immediate crisis, now is the time to ask ourselves some searching questions about the kind of world we are living in - and the kind of world we want to live in.

Is it right - is it right - that our hard-earned savings and wealth can be at the mercy of such an unstable system? Is it right that our livelihoods are subject to the unpredictable swings and roundabouts of a financial system that offers huge, undeserved rewards for a tiny minority? Capitalism is one thing; but this 'casino capitalism', as it has rightly been called, is quite another.

Now I know what some of you will say. You'll say: 'But Gordon, this has happened on your watch. You sat back and let the financial sector have the freedoms it demanded, the very freedoms that have produced this mess.'

I have to tell you, in all candour, that you would be right to say this. It was a mistake. Now we must put this mistake right.

But why did we make this mistake? We made it because after the huge changes that Margaret Thatcher brought about, and the collapse of Communism, virtually everyone started to believe in the free market. People of all parties - Labour, Liberal and Tory - believed that the way forward was through privatization and deregulation.

But the difference between Labour and the Tories is this: as social democrats we are always ready to learn the hard lessons of experience and to do what is necessary to bring capitalism back under control. That is why I am announcing today the setting up of a new Royal Commission to consider what reforms are necessary to the financial sector. Finance must serve the real economy, and not the other way around.

Perhaps the Tories will support us in this. But probably not. After all, the philosophy of deregulation which has brought us to this mess is, more than anyone else's, their philosophy. It is what - since the days of Margaret Thatcher - they have been in politics to do. That is why their ideological soulmates in the US, the Republicans in Congress, refused to support the vital rescue plan for the US economy. Be in no doubt: the blind free-market ideology of the US Republicans puts our economy at risk as well as their own. That free-market ideology threatens us all.

In 1979, Margater Thatcher led our country in a new direction: away from the state and towards the market. That philosophy, whatever its strengths, has been pushed to excess, and we are now all suffering the results of that. This is the moment when the Age of Thatcher comes to an end. This is the moment when we must learn not only that the state has to be put in its place, but the market too.' Read more...

Washington's blame game

The House of Representatives vote to reject the $700 billion bailout, by 228 votes to 205, has sent shockwaves through the financial markets, hitting London this morning following the dramatic fall in the US in response yesterday.

Efforts are being made to rescue the rescue, but almost as much energy seems to be going into the blame game. House Republicans split two to one (65 to 133) against the bill, though 95 Democrats also opposed it, with 140 (60%) of Democrats in favour. That was about ideological aversion to government intervention - but it was also about electoral politics. Nate Silver's analysis shows that representatives in competitive races voted heavily against.

Still, Republicans want to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making a partisan speech, though it is hard to credit the idea that this could have swung a dozen Republican votes.

Few have taken John McCain's dramatically erratic interventions in the bailout negotiations seriously - not least because he didn't manage to find time to read the original three page Bill, still less to express a clear view on it. But McCain had already claimed the credit for bringing the House Republicans on board, somewhat prematurely.

And John McCain's latest response - its time to leave the politics out of it, as long as everybody realises that this is the fault of Barack Obama and the Democrats!

Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems. Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.I would hope that all our leaders, all of them, can put aside short-term political goals and do what’s in the best interest of the American people.

Shameless. But at least it isn't working. The economic crisis has significantly damaged McCain's prospects of winning the White House. Read more...

Washington's blame game

The House of Representatives vote to reject the $700 billion bailout, by 228 votes to 205, has sent shockwaves through the financial markets, hitting London this morning following the dramatic fall in the US in response yesterday.

Efforts are being made to rescue the rescue, but almost as much energy seems to be going into the blame game. House Republicans split two to one (65 to 133) against the bill, though 95 Democrats also opposed it, with 140 (60%) of Democrats in favour. That was about ideological aversion to government intervention - but it was also about electoral politics. Nate Silver's analysis shows that representatives in competitive races voted heavily against.

Still, Republicans want to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making a partisan speech, though it is hard to credit the idea that this could have swung a dozen Republican votes.

Few have taken John McCain's dramatically erratic interventions in the bailout negotiations seriously - not least because he didn't manage to find time to read the original three page Bill, still less to express a clear view on it. But McCain had already claimed the credit for bringing the House Republicans on board, somewhat prematurely.

And John McCain's latest response - its time to leave the politics out of it, as long as everybody realises that this is the fault of Barack Obama and the Democrats!

Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems. Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.I would hope that all our leaders, all of them, can put aside short-term political goals and do what’s in the best interest of the American people.

Shameless. But at least it isn't working. The economic crisis has significantly damaged McCain's prospects of winning the White House. Read more...

Inheritance tax: will Labour take a stand for fairness?

At today's ippr fringe event on poverty policy at the Conservative party conference ('Can the Conservatives be the Party of the Poor?'), Martin Narey of Bernado's criticised the Conservatives for proposing to raise further the threshold at which inheritance tax is paid. If ending child poverty is truly a Conservative aspiration, then why give up this crucial stream of revenue that could make all the difference between hitting and missing the child poverty target?

Richard Reeves, of Demos, argued that while this proposal doesn't necessarily undermine their anti-poverty credentials, it does throw a question-mark over the Conservatives' wider claim to be a party of 'fairness'. Invoking the radical liberal, John Stuart Mill, Richard argued that it is obviously very unfair to tax transfers of inherited wealth to a much lesser extent than labour incomes.

It is a year since George Osborne turned the political tide against Labour with his speech announcing the Conservative intention to raise the threshold at which inheritance tax is paid (back then, only to £1m). Labour's response then was one of panic and retreat. This time round, as the Conservatives call for further cuts, will Labour be willing to take a stand for fairness? Read more...

Inheritance tax: will Labour take a stand for fairness?

At today's ippr fringe event on poverty policy at the Conservative party conference ('Can the Conservatives be the Party of the Poor?'), Martin Narey of Bernado's criticised the Conservatives for proposing to raise further the threshold at which inheritance tax is paid. If ending child poverty is truly a Conservative aspiration, then why give up this crucial stream of revenue that could make all the difference between hitting and missing the child poverty target?

Richard Reeves, of Demos, argued that while this proposal doesn't necessarily undermine their anti-poverty credentials, it does throw a question-mark over the Conservatives' wider claim to be a party of 'fairness'. Invoking the radical liberal, John Stuart Mill, Richard argued that it is obviously very unfair to tax transfers of inherited wealth to a much lesser extent than labour incomes.

It is a year since George Osborne turned the political tide against Labour with his speech announcing the Conservative intention to raise the threshold at which inheritance tax is paid (back then, only to £1m). Labour's response then was one of panic and retreat. This time round, as the Conservatives call for further cuts, will Labour be willing to take a stand for fairness? Read more...

Tories: a poverty on policy

I am just back from Birmingham where I chaired an ippr fringe event, 'Can the Conservatives be the Party of the Poor?' Greg Clark MP, shadow minister for Charities, Social Enterprise and Volunteering, was the Conservative tasked with convincing the audience that the answer is 'Yes'. Other panelists were Lord Victor Adebowale (Turning Point), Richard Reeves (Demos) and Martin Narey (Bernado's).

So, do the Conservatives have a credible anti-poverty policy?

Well, its hard to say since Greg Clark was rather vague on what Conservative policy is. His main presentation focused on what he saw as the weaknesses in New Labour's approach: too much focus on a specific child poverty target and on poverty as a purely cash phenomenon.

This led Jenni Russell of The Guardian to ask, quite reasonably, what the Conservatives themselves would do. Greg Clark replied, in essence, that the Conservatives would seek to 'empower communities'. To this, Jenni Russell replied, quite reasonably: 'Yes, but what would you DO?' Richard Reeves concluded that the Conservatives had not yet made the shift from a critique of New Labour to offering any concrete alternative. (Jenni Russell has written up her account of the event here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/toryconference.economy)

Moreover, what we do know about the Conservative approach is worrying. Greg Clark was keen to stress the multidimensionality of poverty. But this seemed to mean that we shouldn't place so much emphasis on the present government's income-based child poverty target. Two or three people, including Kate Green of Child Poverty Action Group, expressed concern about this. The good thing about the current child poverty target is that it offers a very clear way of holding government accountable for what its doing on poverty. The target offers a clear benchmark against which progress can be gauged. If the target is deemphasized, how do we hold a Conservative government accountable for its policy on poverty? What other target would the Conservatives set so that we could judge the success of their policies? So far as I could tell, Greg Clark had no answer to this question.

So the Conservatives, apparently, have little or no concrete policy on poverty and, apparently, little or no concrete idea of how to measure success or failure of any policy that they happen to develop.

Not exactly a 'government in waiting'.... Read more...

Tories: a poverty on policy

I am just back from Birmingham where I chaired an ippr fringe event, 'Can the Conservatives be the Party of the Poor?' Greg Clark MP, shadow minister for Charities, Social Enterprise and Volunteering, was the Conservative tasked with convincing the audience that the answer is 'Yes'. Other panelists were Lord Victor Adebowale (Turning Point), Richard Reeves (Demos) and Martin Narey (Bernado's).

So, do the Conservatives have a credible anti-poverty policy?

Well, its hard to say since Greg Clark was rather vague on what Conservative policy is. His main presentation focused on what he saw as the weaknesses in New Labour's approach: too much focus on a specific child poverty target and on poverty as a purely cash phenomenon.

This led Jenni Russell of The Guardian to ask, quite reasonably, what the Conservatives themselves would do. Greg Clark replied, in essence, that the Conservatives would seek to 'empower communities'. To this, Jenni Russell replied, quite reasonably: 'Yes, but what would you DO?' Richard Reeves concluded that the Conservatives had not yet made the shift from a critique of New Labour to offering any concrete alternative. (Jenni Russell has written up her account of the event here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/toryconference.economy)

Moreover, what we do know about the Conservative approach is worrying. Greg Clark was keen to stress the multidimensionality of poverty. But this seemed to mean that we shouldn't place so much emphasis on the present government's income-based child poverty target. Two or three people, including Kate Green of Child Poverty Action Group, expressed concern about this. The good thing about the current child poverty target is that it offers a very clear way of holding government accountable for what its doing on poverty. The target offers a clear benchmark against which progress can be gauged. If the target is deemphasized, how do we hold a Conservative government accountable for its policy on poverty? What other target would the Conservatives set so that we could judge the success of their policies? So far as I could tell, Greg Clark had no answer to this question.

So the Conservatives, apparently, have little or no concrete policy on poverty and, apparently, little or no concrete idea of how to measure success or failure of any policy that they happen to develop.

Not exactly a 'government in waiting'.... Read more...

Who are these New Tories and what do they think?

Meet the Shadow Cabinet, is the enticing offer on a gizmo on the flash new Conservative website.

It is a chance to see if you can do better than the general public, who can recognise only David Cameron and William Hague.

The Sunday Telegraph spot poll of forty voters found one in ten could recognise Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, but just as many thought he was David Miliband. That is enough to give Osborne the bronze, as third most famous Shadow Cabinet member. There are more amusing alter egos and possible career changes in the public responses. But, to be fair, even those unusually well informed followers of politics who can spot a Gove or a Willetts at fifty paces may struggle to tell their Jeremy Hunts from their David Lidingtons.

More important than face recognition is what the new Tories think. What, if anything, is different about them? Lesley White's long Sunday Times Magazine group profile tries to dig behind the smooth David Bailey photoshoot and lift this shadow of anonymity.

She concludes:

In my conversations with Cameron’s chosen few, I find myself listening hard for a hint of disavowal of their past, the way one used to hear it from new Labour in the run-up to 1997, admitting that their government had been feeble against the unions, stifled social mobility and enterprise. But I hear no Conservative equivalent.

Nobody I speak to believes Mrs T’s necessary economic reforms went too far, that the deregulated markets and focus on individualism had contributed in some minor way to Cameron’s “broken society”, despite this being what turned millions away from the “natural party of government” in 1997. None of these senior strategists engaged in the “remoralisation” of politics seem to consider that the Lady’s moral agenda of “community care” and frozen child benefits was flawed. I hear only that the party has been misunderstood. That there has been a problem “of perception”. And when Sayeeda Warsi announces that the Tories have always been on the side of the poor because it’s Conservatives you find working in charity shops, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

White finds that the party's heart still beats very much on the right. There is a similar message in the ConservativeHome grassroots poll, reported in Saturday's Independent.

But the Shadow Cabinet may find cheer in a glowing accolade in this morning's Times from William Rees-Mogg who finds the 'brightest and the best' to be the most impressive frontbench for fifty years. Former Times editor Rees-Mogg, who has an unparalleled record for making astonishingly inaccurate political predictions, doesn't find time to mention that two of his children are contesting key seats for David Cameron at the next general election. Read more...

Who are these New Tories and what do they think?

Meet the Shadow Cabinet, is the enticing offer on a gizmo on the flash new Conservative website.

It is a chance to see if you can do better than the general public, who can recognise only David Cameron and William Hague.

The Sunday Telegraph spot poll of forty voters found one in ten could recognise Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, but just as many thought he was David Miliband. That is enough to give Osborne the bronze, as third most famous Shadow Cabinet member. There are more amusing alter egos and possible career changes in the public responses. But, to be fair, even those unusually well informed followers of politics who can spot a Gove or a Willetts at fifty paces may struggle to tell their Jeremy Hunts from their David Lidingtons.

More important than face recognition is what the new Tories think. What, if anything, is different about them? Lesley White's long Sunday Times Magazine group profile tries to dig behind the smooth David Bailey photoshoot and lift this shadow of anonymity.

She concludes:

In my conversations with Cameron’s chosen few, I find myself listening hard for a hint of disavowal of their past, the way one used to hear it from new Labour in the run-up to 1997, admitting that their government had been feeble against the unions, stifled social mobility and enterprise. But I hear no Conservative equivalent.

Nobody I speak to believes Mrs T’s necessary economic reforms went too far, that the deregulated markets and focus on individualism had contributed in some minor way to Cameron’s “broken society”, despite this being what turned millions away from the “natural party of government” in 1997. None of these senior strategists engaged in the “remoralisation” of politics seem to consider that the Lady’s moral agenda of “community care” and frozen child benefits was flawed. I hear only that the party has been misunderstood. That there has been a problem “of perception”. And when Sayeeda Warsi announces that the Tories have always been on the side of the poor because it’s Conservatives you find working in charity shops, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

White finds that the party's heart still beats very much on the right. There is a similar message in the ConservativeHome grassroots poll, reported in Saturday's Independent.

But the Shadow Cabinet may find cheer in a glowing accolade in this morning's Times from William Rees-Mogg who finds the 'brightest and the best' to be the most impressive frontbench for fifty years. Former Times editor Rees-Mogg, who has an unparalleled record for making astonishingly inaccurate political predictions, doesn't find time to mention that two of his children are contesting key seats for David Cameron at the next general election. Read more...

Political earthquake in Bavaria; uncertainty in Austria

50 years of conservative dominance of Bavarian politics are over following state elections in which the Christian Social Union (CSU) won 43 per cent of the vote, fully 17 points down on its 60% share in the 2003 elections.

It is difficult to imagine a greater shock result in European politics. The CSU's dominance far outstrips that of Labour in Scotland, for example. But the party has struggled to modernise its appeal or to emerge from the shadow of its strongman leader Edmund Stoiber, who dominated the state's politics for fifteen years before resigning amidst a political scandal last year.

This was not a great result for the Social Democrats, who polled 19 per cent. A coalition between the CSU and the pro-market liberals of the FDP seems the most likely outcome.

But the Bavarian result could considerably shift the prospects for the national election. Angela Merkel has had a difficult relationship with the autonomous sister party of the Christian Democrats, but the centre-right has been much boosted by the contribution of the Bavarian bloc to their national share. The Christian Democrats have been confident that Angela Merkel's popularity would make them the leading party at the next election - and perhaps polling 40% - but this result may see a rethink.

---

In Austria, the Social Democrats have come top of the poll, defeating the centre-right partners with whom they governed in a fractious grand coalition. Both coalition partners have lost support - but the Social Democrats lead on 29.7% (down 5.6%) because the People's Party have dropped further by 8.7 points to 25.6%.

But most attention will go to the improved performance of the two right-wing populist parties, the infamous Jorg Haider's BZÖ and the Freedom Party from which he split. Together they have 29%, outpolling the main centre-right party.

Another Grand Coalition seems the most plausible outcome - the two far right parties detest each other, and so the question of whether a controversial deal with the more centre-right People's Party is possible is unlikely to arise.

There is a detailed discussion and analysis on PoliticalBetting.com - including on whether it makes sense to regard the two right-wing populist parties as 'far right' or not. Read more...

Political earthquake in Bavaria; uncertainty in Austria

50 years of conservative dominance of Bavarian politics are over following state elections in which the Christian Social Union (CSU) won 43 per cent of the vote, fully 17 points down on its 60% share in the 2003 elections.

It is difficult to imagine a greater shock result in European politics. The CSU's dominance far outstrips that of Labour in Scotland, for example. But the party has struggled to modernise its appeal or to emerge from the shadow of its strongman leader Edmund Stoiber, who dominated the state's politics for fifteen years before resigning amidst a political scandal last year.

This was not a great result for the Social Democrats, who polled 19 per cent. A coalition between the CSU and the pro-market liberals of the FDP seems the most likely outcome.

But the Bavarian result could considerably shift the prospects for the national election. Angela Merkel has had a difficult relationship with the autonomous sister party of the Christian Democrats, but the centre-right has been much boosted by the contribution of the Bavarian bloc to their national share. The Christian Democrats have been confident that Angela Merkel's popularity would make them the leading party at the next election - and perhaps polling 40% - but this result may see a rethink.

---

In Austria, the Social Democrats have come top of the poll, defeating the centre-right partners with whom they governed in a fractious grand coalition. Both coalition partners have lost support - but the Social Democrats lead on 29.7% (down 5.6%) because the People's Party have dropped further by 8.7 points to 25.6%.

But most attention will go to the improved performance of the two right-wing populist parties, the infamous Jorg Haider's BZÖ and the Freedom Party from which he split. Together they have 29%, outpolling the main centre-right party.

Another Grand Coalition seems the most plausible outcome - the two far right parties detest each other, and so the question of whether a controversial deal with the more centre-right People's Party is possible is unlikely to arise.

There is a detailed discussion and analysis on PoliticalBetting.com - including on whether it makes sense to regard the two right-wing populist parties as 'far right' or not. Read more...

Labour have learned from Northern Rock

Labour have learned from the Northern Rock crisis: just witness the relative alacrity with which the government are taking Bradford & Bingley into public ownership, compared to the protracted and tortuous scramble for a private buyer for the Rock last year. Perhaps they have been imbued with some of the curious interventionist confidence of Hank Paulson and the Bush administration. It's a dire situation, of course, but it's good to see that no longer does a fear of "back-to-the-70s" jibes from the right stop Labour from taking necessary steps to stabilise the economy.

And though it's hopelessly naive to see the post-conference "bounce" as indicating any certain trend back to Labour, rather than predictable voter capriciousness, the party should be heartened by the fact that voters now prefer (albeit very marginally) Brown and Darling on the economy over Cameron and Osborne. The Conservatives start their conference today planning to convince voters they can manage the economy - but look increasingly out of step with these strange new economic times. Vince Cable - that wellspring of economic literacy and common sense - said Osborne was "not living in the real world" in trying to keep B&B in the private sector. Osborne's concentration on "reckless" public debt looks particularly peculiar given that, at 43% of GDP, UK public debt is a lot less than many comparable countries, and will surely have to rise in this situation, as Yvetter Cooper argued yesterday.

So there is some clear blue water between Labour and the Conservatives. And between Labour and the Lib Dems, too - Vince Cable notwithstanding. "Move to the right" was always a crude way of saying what the Lib Dems are doing, but in a sense it is correct. Cutting tax for low earners is good, as is restoring the parity between capital gains and income tax. But their tax cuts do aim at shrinking the amount the state takes in taxes, and that is a move to the right. Moreover, and more subtly, the Lib Dems are being pulled along by this Cameron-Conservative narrative which says that Brown's "top-down" "centralised" "bureaucratic" (etc., etc...) method has juddered to a halt, and that further attempts down this route would just be an exercise in idly "throwing money" at things which are inevitably more complex than crude, simple money can get a hold on. (See Vince's speech to conference, and Norman Lamb's, for some good old-fashioned public bureaucracy bashing.)

Labour should see that they have something worth defending, and worth advancing, in the face of the other parties. On the face of it, Labour look like the right party for the job. Now is no time to worry about the political costs of, say, nationalising a bank - the political costs of being perceived as "ditherering" are far dearer. Voters will reward those who act with conviction and certainty. Read more...

Labour have learned from Northern Rock

Labour have learned from the Northern Rock crisis: just witness the relative alacrity with which the government are taking Bradford & Bingley into public ownership, compared to the protracted and tortuous scramble for a private buyer for the Rock last year. Perhaps they have been imbued with some of the curious interventionist confidence of Hank Paulson and the Bush administration. It's a dire situation, of course, but it's good to see that no longer does a fear of "back-to-the-70s" jibes from the right stop Labour from taking necessary steps to stabilise the economy.

And though it's hopelessly naive to see the post-conference "bounce" as indicating any certain trend back to Labour, rather than predictable voter capriciousness, the party should be heartened by the fact that voters now prefer (albeit very marginally) Brown and Darling on the economy over Cameron and Osborne. The Conservatives start their conference today planning to convince voters they can manage the economy - but look increasingly out of step with these strange new economic times. Vince Cable - that wellspring of economic literacy and common sense - said Osborne was "not living in the real world" in trying to keep B&B in the private sector. Osborne's concentration on "reckless" public debt looks particularly peculiar given that, at 43% of GDP, UK public debt is a lot less than many comparable countries, and will surely have to rise in this situation, as Yvetter Cooper argued yesterday.

So there is some clear blue water between Labour and the Conservatives. And between Labour and the Lib Dems, too - Vince Cable notwithstanding. "Move to the right" was always a crude way of saying what the Lib Dems are doing, but in a sense it is correct. Cutting tax for low earners is good, as is restoring the parity between capital gains and income tax. But their tax cuts do aim at shrinking the amount the state takes in taxes, and that is a move to the right. Moreover, and more subtly, the Lib Dems are being pulled along by this Cameron-Conservative narrative which says that Brown's "top-down" "centralised" "bureaucratic" (etc., etc...) method has juddered to a halt, and that further attempts down this route would just be an exercise in idly "throwing money" at things which are inevitably more complex than crude, simple money can get a hold on. (See Vince's speech to conference, and Norman Lamb's, for some good old-fashioned public bureaucracy bashing.)

Labour should see that they have something worth defending, and worth advancing, in the face of the other parties. On the face of it, Labour look like the right party for the job. Now is no time to worry about the political costs of, say, nationalising a bank - the political costs of being perceived as "ditherering" are far dearer. Voters will reward those who act with conviction and certainty. Read more...

Debate verdicts: as you were

If there was no clear winner, most people seem to have ended the night thinking pretty much what they did when they began. A debate transcript is available from RealClearPolitics.

One of the most interesting pieces of analysis is from Nate Silver on The New Republic's The Plank blog, arguing that the pundits don't understand why voters put Obama ahead.

The CNN poll [detail] suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness ... Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters.

But here are the best of the pundits' verdicts anyway ...

Ezra Klein says that McCain's passion came from contempt for his opponent and a failing ideology.

McCain has every right to be angry: He would have been an excellent, maybe unbeatable, candidate in 2000 or 2004. Instead, he's facing down the excesses of his own ideology in 2008. And that's what McCain doesn't understand. He's not behind because he doesn't deserve this, or because he's not served his country honorably. He's behind because events have disproven his agenda. Because the success of the surge does not outweigh the blunder of Iraq. Because the appeal of tax cuts does not outweigh the costs of deregulation and wage stagnation. And even the best debate performance can't obscure that.

Joe Klein says McCain was tactical where Obama was strategic.

Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces ... Neither man closed the sale, and I don't think many votes, or opinions, were changed.

Matthew Yglesias says McCain failed to gain the ground he needs.

All things considered, it’s about a draw. McCain got a couple of good punches in and so did Obama. Insofar as the idea is supposed to be that McCain has a domineering advantage on national security he certainly didn’t prove that point. And for the candidate who’s losing, a tie amounts to a loss.

Jim Geraghty of National Review thinks it was a surprisingly strong night for John McCain, after a bad week, perhaps proving his own point.

My guess is, everybody thinks their guy won tonight. From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night — it'll change the storyline from "uh, what was he thinking?" ... it's really hard to say McCain had a bad night, and I think Obama seemed a little shaky at times tonight - his performance didn't boldly and clearly say, "I know I'm new on the scene, but you can trust me; I am ready to succeed in the hardest job in the world."

Andrew Sullivan - an Obamacon - believes the Democrat was more focused.

It strikes me as a mistake for McCain to end the debate on his commitment to staying in Iraq indefinitely. Obama's emphasis on the broader global conflict and our broader responsibilities will reach more people. His vision seems broader, wiser, and more focused on ordinary people. A masterful performance tonight, I think. Obama's best ever debate performance. McCain was fine, but it's wrong for him to attack his opponent at the end. And then he gave a slightly rambling defense of his experience. I give Obama an A - and I give McCain a B.

Chris Cillzilla of the Washington Post thought McCain gave his most relaxed debate performance to date and is not convinced that Obama pinned the Bush record on McCain.

Obama had a simple goal in this debate: tie McCain to the policies of George W. Bush. Right from the start, Obama sought to link the economic policies responsible for the financial crisis to Bush and McCain; he noted at another time that although McCain as casting himself as a maverick, he had voted with the current president 90 percent of the time ... It's a smart strategy on paper. But, will the average voter become convinced that McCain and Bush are one in the same? Remember that the lasting image most voters have of McCain is as the guy who ran against Bush in 2000.

Michael Tomasky of The Guardian wants more time to decide before accepting the instant reaction.

Let's watch what happens over the next two or three days. The McCain campaign, as I've written a hundred times, is geared toward winning news cycles. They will see the above numbers and go into overdrive to counter-spin. I don't think Obama's win, if that's what it was, was so decisive that the McCain team can't reverse spin it. It's McCain who's behind, and it's McCain who needs to change minds here.

Read more...

Debate verdicts: as you were

If there was no clear winner, most people seem to have ended the night thinking pretty much what they did when they began. A debate transcript is available from RealClearPolitics.

One of the most interesting pieces of analysis is from Nate Silver on The New Republic's The Plank blog, arguing that the pundits don't understand why voters put Obama ahead.

The CNN poll [detail] suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness ... Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters.

But here are the best of the pundits' verdicts anyway ...

Ezra Klein says that McCain's passion came from contempt for his opponent and a failing ideology.

McCain has every right to be angry: He would have been an excellent, maybe unbeatable, candidate in 2000 or 2004. Instead, he's facing down the excesses of his own ideology in 2008. And that's what McCain doesn't understand. He's not behind because he doesn't deserve this, or because he's not served his country honorably. He's behind because events have disproven his agenda. Because the success of the surge does not outweigh the blunder of Iraq. Because the appeal of tax cuts does not outweigh the costs of deregulation and wage stagnation. And even the best debate performance can't obscure that.

Joe Klein says McCain was tactical where Obama was strategic.

Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces ... Neither man closed the sale, and I don't think many votes, or opinions, were changed.

Matthew Yglesias says McCain failed to gain the ground he needs.

All things considered, it’s about a draw. McCain got a couple of good punches in and so did Obama. Insofar as the idea is supposed to be that McCain has a domineering advantage on national security he certainly didn’t prove that point. And for the candidate who’s losing, a tie amounts to a loss.

Jim Geraghty of National Review thinks it was a surprisingly strong night for John McCain, after a bad week, perhaps proving his own point.

My guess is, everybody thinks their guy won tonight. From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night — it'll change the storyline from "uh, what was he thinking?" ... it's really hard to say McCain had a bad night, and I think Obama seemed a little shaky at times tonight - his performance didn't boldly and clearly say, "I know I'm new on the scene, but you can trust me; I am ready to succeed in the hardest job in the world."

Andrew Sullivan - an Obamacon - believes the Democrat was more focused.

It strikes me as a mistake for McCain to end the debate on his commitment to staying in Iraq indefinitely. Obama's emphasis on the broader global conflict and our broader responsibilities will reach more people. His vision seems broader, wiser, and more focused on ordinary people. A masterful performance tonight, I think. Obama's best ever debate performance. McCain was fine, but it's wrong for him to attack his opponent at the end. And then he gave a slightly rambling defense of his experience. I give Obama an A - and I give McCain a B.

Chris Cillzilla of the Washington Post thought McCain gave his most relaxed debate performance to date and is not convinced that Obama pinned the Bush record on McCain.

Obama had a simple goal in this debate: tie McCain to the policies of George W. Bush. Right from the start, Obama sought to link the economic policies responsible for the financial crisis to Bush and McCain; he noted at another time that although McCain as casting himself as a maverick, he had voted with the current president 90 percent of the time ... It's a smart strategy on paper. But, will the average voter become convinced that McCain and Bush are one in the same? Remember that the lasting image most voters have of McCain is as the guy who ran against Bush in 2000.

Michael Tomasky of The Guardian wants more time to decide before accepting the instant reaction.

Let's watch what happens over the next two or three days. The McCain campaign, as I've written a hundred times, is geared toward winning news cycles. They will see the above numbers and go into overdrive to counter-spin. I don't think Obama's win, if that's what it was, was so decisive that the McCain team can't reverse spin it. It's McCain who's behind, and it's McCain who needs to change minds here.

Read more...

McCain snark hands Obama slight edge

There was no great dramatic moment, certainly no knockout blow, in a close fought and reasonably substantive opening Presidential candidate's debate.

John McCain began shakily on the economic crisis, where Obama was better. However, the Democrat made a tactical error in allowing the discussion to remain so focused on a traditional 'cut government spending' debate about earmarks for so long. McCain's detailed view of what should happen on the financial bailout remains rather opaque, yet was largely untested.

On foreign policy, I felt that Obama had the better of the exchanges on Afghanistan, and probably Iraq too. McCain's strongest debating passage was on Georgia and Russia, where he projected his experience most effectively. However, his claim that he saw only the letters 'KGB' behind Vladimir Putin's eyes sat slightly oddly with, in more or less the next sentence, his assertion that he had no interest whatsoever in any new cold war. On negotiations with Iran, what Henry Kissinger has said is somewhere in between what both candidates claimed: he has been for direct talks, without preconditions, but preferably at Secretary of State level.

The most important question of the night was whether uncommitted voters who have not followed the race closely would think Obama as qualified to be President. McCain's strategy was to consistently say "what Senator Obama doesn't understand". This came across as snarky. When he finally decided to say outright in his closing remarks that Barack Obama was not qualified to be President, he muffed the line, with Obama barely even needing to retort.

By contrast, Obama was consistently gracious. The McCain camp have issued an instant campaign video drawing on the times he acknowledged points of common ground. But this was a foreign policy debate and that is a major part of Obama's claim to bipartisanship, which is supposed to be part of McCain's "reform" credential too.

So Obama passed the 'ready to lead' test comfortably, being Presidential, knowledgeable, fairly robust in his views and carrying off his somewhat Kennedyesque persona in a substantive way. Voters worried about the experience gap will probably have felt that Obama held his own on his opponent's specialist subject. And Obama was considerably better at connecting foreign policy issues back to their domestic impact, which is an important part of the framing of the final month.

The economy is back at centre stage, McCain has had an erratic week, and the Palin pick looks somewhat less smart as time goes on.

So a drawn debate would have been to Obama's advantage. And he may just have done a little better than that. The "snark" factor may well explain why each of the instant polls of debate viewers had Barack Obama ahead on the night, though not dramatically so.

If John McCain was seeking to get a major boost from the debates, this may have been his best opportunity. And if his response as the underdog is to become more aggressive in the next two encounters, it may well do him more harm than good.

Overall, last night's debate didn't change the Presidential race very much.

So this remains the Democrats race to lose on November 4th. Read more...

McCain snark hands Obama slight edge

There was no great dramatic moment, certainly no knockout blow, in a close fought and reasonably substantive opening Presidential candidate's debate.

John McCain began shakily on the economic crisis, where Obama was better. However, the Democrat made a tactical error in allowing the discussion to remain so focused on a traditional 'cut government spending' debate about earmarks for so long. McCain's detailed view of what should happen on the financial bailout remains rather opaque, yet was largely untested.

On foreign policy, I felt that Obama had the better of the exchanges on Afghanistan, and probably Iraq too. McCain's strongest debating passage was on Georgia and Russia, where he projected his experience most effectively. However, his claim that he saw only the letters 'KGB' behind Vladimir Putin's eyes sat slightly oddly with, in more or less the next sentence, his assertion that he had no interest whatsoever in any new cold war. On negotiations with Iran, what Henry Kissinger has said is somewhere in between what both candidates claimed: he has been for direct talks, without preconditions, but preferably at Secretary of State level.

The most important question of the night was whether uncommitted voters who have not followed the race closely would think Obama as qualified to be President. McCain's strategy was to consistently say "what Senator Obama doesn't understand". This came across as snarky. When he finally decided to say outright in his closing remarks that Barack Obama was not qualified to be President, he muffed the line, with Obama barely even needing to retort.

By contrast, Obama was consistently gracious. The McCain camp have issued an instant campaign video drawing on the times he acknowledged points of common ground. But this was a foreign policy debate and that is a major part of Obama's claim to bipartisanship, which is supposed to be part of McCain's "reform" credential too.

So Obama passed the 'ready to lead' test comfortably, being Presidential, knowledgeable, fairly robust in his views and carrying off his somewhat Kennedyesque persona in a substantive way. Voters worried about the experience gap will probably have felt that Obama held his own on his opponent's specialist subject. And Obama was considerably better at connecting foreign policy issues back to their domestic impact, which is an important part of the framing of the final month.

The economy is back at centre stage, McCain has had an erratic week, and the Palin pick looks somewhat less smart as time goes on.

So a drawn debate would have been to Obama's advantage. And he may just have done a little better than that. The "snark" factor may well explain why each of the instant polls of debate viewers had Barack Obama ahead on the night, though not dramatically so.

If John McCain was seeking to get a major boost from the debates, this may have been his best opportunity. And if his response as the underdog is to become more aggressive in the next two encounters, it may well do him more harm than good.

Overall, last night's debate didn't change the Presidential race very much.

So this remains the Democrats race to lose on November 4th. Read more...

Twittering the debates

election.twitter.com has been launched at midnight yesterday.

I've managed to resist twittering to date (unlike No 10 Downing Street) - but this looks like it could be the way to watch the '08 debates. So I've signed up but I don't know whether I'll be chipping in.

Hat tip: The Caucus blog at the New York Times. Read more...

Twittering the debates

election.twitter.com has been launched at midnight yesterday.

I've managed to resist twittering to date (unlike No 10 Downing Street) - but this looks like it could be the way to watch the '08 debates. So I've signed up but I don't know whether I'll be chipping in.

Hat tip: The Caucus blog at the New York Times. Read more...

Great debate moments

It's game on. John McCain is going to turn up for the first Presidential debate.

Time has put together a good package of 10 of the most memorable debate moments.

The Obama campaign has put out an expectations memo which doesn't just talk up McCain's experience, but circulates reviews of their own useless candidate - "“Lifeless, Aloof, And Windy.

This is almost beyond satire - but Amy Sullivan of Time recommends a classic 2004 Daily Show clip which tries to keep up with reality. Read more...

Great debate moments

It's game on. John McCain is going to turn up for the first Presidential debate.

Time has put together a good package of 10 of the most memorable debate moments.

The Obama campaign has put out an expectations memo which doesn't just talk up McCain's experience, but circulates reviews of their own useless candidate - "“Lifeless, Aloof, And Windy.

This is almost beyond satire - but Amy Sullivan of Time recommends a classic 2004 Daily Show clip which tries to keep up with reality. Read more...

It's not 1931 yet

Least likely prediction of the week comes from Martin Bright in the New Statesman ...

If the financial crisis is as serious as many in the government suggest, then extraordinary times require bold solutions. There is an argument for saying that the Prime Minister should invite David Cameron and Nick Clegg to Downing Street and tell them the time has come for all good men to come to the aid of the country. A national government would allow Brown to bring in expertise from across the political spectrum.

Read more...

It's not 1931 yet

Least likely prediction of the week comes from Martin Bright in the New Statesman ...

If the financial crisis is as serious as many in the government suggest, then extraordinary times require bold solutions. There is an argument for saying that the Prime Minister should invite David Cameron and Nick Clegg to Downing Street and tell them the time has come for all good men to come to the aid of the country. A national government would allow Brown to bring in expertise from across the political spectrum.

Read more...

'Matchsticks' McCain

The suspension of a campaign is the continuation of politics by other means.

John McCain is back on his 'Country First' campaign slogan, after the highly political, partisan and polls-focused selection of his running mate. And so tonight's candidates' debate remains in doubt, though Obama's analysis that public scrutiny of the would-be Presidents is more important than ever makes sense.

Joe Klein has an incisive analysis on Time's Swampland blog of the Washington talks, particularly on Republican doubts and divisions over a Wall Street bail out, which are a combination of small government ideology and possible political opportunism.

The suspension move fits with McCain's character - both his integrity and his impulsiveness - but it also strongly suggests that he believes he is very much the underdog now that the focus is back on the economy, and so is taking risks that might change the game.

Tonight's debate theme would be on McCain's core territory of security and foreign policy. McCain wants to be Commander-in-Chief. Yet that is only part of the Presidency. And he has been pretty clear about the weakness of his grasp of economic policy.

In this, McCain rather resembles the long-forgotten former British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who succeeded Harold Macmillan in 1963. Home was a man of integrity and experience in foreign affairs. But he knew little about domestic policy, and especially not economics, and could never escape his admission that he worked out difficult economic problems with matchsticks

Peter Hennessy reports, in his book The Prime Minister, that Home later told him of how this arose from an Observer interview before he emerged as a surprise candidate for the Premiership.

It was a purely chance remark at lunch because Kenneth Harris said to me "Do you think you could be Prime Minister? And I said, "I really don't think so because I have to do my economics with matchsticks." But it stuck, of course ... Harold Wilson wasn't going to miss something like that [another chuckle]"

The 1964 British election campaign - dominated by young opposition leader Harold Wilson - who had a Kennedyesque appeal at that stage of his career, representing a new generation of socially mobile Brits - dominated the political agenda.

Yet the election was still a knife-edge affair, with Labour squeezing home with a majority of 4. Read more...

'Matchsticks' McCain

The suspension of a campaign is the continuation of politics by other means.

John McCain is back on his 'Country First' campaign slogan, after the highly political, partisan and polls-focused selection of his running mate. And so tonight's candidates' debate remains in doubt, though Obama's analysis that public scrutiny of the would-be Presidents is more important than ever makes sense.

Joe Klein has an incisive analysis on Time's Swampland blog of the Washington talks, particularly on Republican doubts and divisions over a Wall Street bail out, which are a combination of small government ideology and possible political opportunism.

The suspension move fits with McCain's character - both his integrity and his impulsiveness - but it also strongly suggests that he believes he is very much the underdog now that the focus is back on the economy, and so is taking risks that might change the game.

Tonight's debate theme would be on McCain's core territory of security and foreign policy. McCain wants to be Commander-in-Chief. Yet that is only part of the Presidency. And he has been pretty clear about the weakness of his grasp of economic policy.

In this, McCain rather resembles the long-forgotten former British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who succeeded Harold Macmillan in 1963. Home was a man of integrity and experience in foreign affairs. But he knew little about domestic policy, and especially not economics, and could never escape his admission that he worked out difficult economic problems with matchsticks

Peter Hennessy reports, in his book The Prime Minister, that Home later told him of how this arose from an Observer interview before he emerged as a surprise candidate for the Premiership.

It was a purely chance remark at lunch because Kenneth Harris said to me "Do you think you could be Prime Minister? And I said, "I really don't think so because I have to do my economics with matchsticks." But it stuck, of course ... Harold Wilson wasn't going to miss something like that [another chuckle]"

The 1964 British election campaign - dominated by young opposition leader Harold Wilson - who had a Kennedyesque appeal at that stage of his career, representing a new generation of socially mobile Brits - dominated the political agenda.

Yet the election was still a knife-edge affair, with Labour squeezing home with a majority of 4. Read more...

Ruth Kelly and the 3am news cycle

24 hours on, I have given up on trying to make hear or tail of the competing theories, claims and counter-claims of why the confirmation of Ruth Kelly's announcement of her resignation took place in the small hours of Wednesday morning.

The Fabian staff missed the 3am excitement in the Midland Hotel bar, arriving there a little later on for a very welcome cup of tea having been somewhat reluctantly dragged from the excellent ippr party dancefloor (where Schools Minister Jim Knight perhaps shone most brightly of all).

My first reaction on being told the news by a reporter was that this wasn't surprising - it had been reported as probable in the Sunday newspapers earlier in the month - but that the timing seemed very bad for Gordon Brown, and risked overshadowing the positive reaction to his conference speech. A few hours later, watching the news over breakfast, Kelly's clear insistence that this was a purely family matter seemed a setback for those seeking an end-of-conference 'spectacular' to destablise the Prime Minister. (The BBC's Iain Watson almost having a John Sergeant moment as Kelly came out to make her statement during his live report),

Nobody gains, as far as I can see. But the episode also tells us something about how our political and media culture is changing - and probably not to the credit of either side.

The rise of internet reporting, following on from 24 hours news channels, makes more in-depth reporting and analysis possible, in principle at least. For example, blogs from several political insiders makes the Westminster village more transparent.

But the lines between news, briefings, rumour and gossip have never been more blurred.

So I can see that the reporting of David Miliband's alleged comments about a Heseltine moment, criticised as 'hearsay' by the Foreign Secretary, could be (if solidly verified) defended as legitimate. But something that might once have been a diary item or an aside in a column was the primary news angle around his speech. And the intensity of short-term coverage sees process overshadow substance, and is often combined with a loss of perspective: as, for example, with the sense that the Palin phenomenon had broken everything we know about how much Vice-Presidents affect elections in November.

Over the last fifteen years, the response on the political side has been to fight for every headline and every news cycle. Increased professionalism in handling the media was an understandable, and necessary, response to Labour's traumatic defenestration under Neil Kinnock in the '80s and in the 1992 election. But it was obvious within a couple of years that New Labour's news management techniques, so effective in opposition, were much more problematic in government.

When fighting for every news cycle means 3am briefings, while Cabinet Ministers are asleep, knocking the PM out of the headlines, then it must be time to think again. Read more...

Ruth Kelly and the 3am news cycle

24 hours on, I have given up on trying to make hear or tail of the competing theories, claims and counter-claims of why the confirmation of Ruth Kelly's announcement of her resignation took place in the small hours of Wednesday morning.

The Fabian staff missed the 3am excitement in the Midland Hotel bar, arriving there a little later on for a very welcome cup of tea having been somewhat reluctantly dragged from the excellent ippr party dancefloor (where Schools Minister Jim Knight perhaps shone most brightly of all).

My first reaction on being told the news by a reporter was that this wasn't surprising - it had been reported as probable in the Sunday newspapers earlier in the month - but that the timing seemed very bad for Gordon Brown, and risked overshadowing the positive reaction to his conference speech. A few hours later, watching the news over breakfast, Kelly's clear insistence that this was a purely family matter seemed a setback for those seeking an end-of-conference 'spectacular' to destablise the Prime Minister. (The BBC's Iain Watson almost having a John Sergeant moment as Kelly came out to make her statement during his live report),

Nobody gains, as far as I can see. But the episode also tells us something about how our political and media culture is changing - and probably not to the credit of either side.

The rise of internet reporting, following on from 24 hours news channels, makes more in-depth reporting and analysis possible, in principle at least. For example, blogs from several political insiders makes the Westminster village more transparent.

But the lines between news, briefings, rumour and gossip have never been more blurred.

So I can see that the reporting of David Miliband's alleged comments about a Heseltine moment, criticised as 'hearsay' by the Foreign Secretary, could be (if solidly verified) defended as legitimate. But something that might once have been a diary item or an aside in a column was the primary news angle around his speech. And the intensity of short-term coverage sees process overshadow substance, and is often combined with a loss of perspective: as, for example, with the sense that the Palin phenomenon had broken everything we know about how much Vice-Presidents affect elections in November.

Over the last fifteen years, the response on the political side has been to fight for every headline and every news cycle. Increased professionalism in handling the media was an understandable, and necessary, response to Labour's traumatic defenestration under Neil Kinnock in the '80s and in the 1992 election. But it was obvious within a couple of years that New Labour's news management techniques, so effective in opposition, were much more problematic in government.

When fighting for every news cycle means 3am briefings, while Cabinet Ministers are asleep, knocking the PM out of the headlines, then it must be time to think again. Read more...

Will hope or fear govern the result of US election? Podcast from Fabian fringe

Listen to Democrats' Abroad Bill Barnard on whether the US election will be about hope or fear. Barnard argues that Americans are by nature optimists.

Read more...

Will hope or fear govern the result of US election? Podcast from Fabian fringe

Listen to Democrats' Abroad Bill Barnard on whether the US election will be about hope or fear. Barnard argues that Americans are by nature optimists.

Read more...

After Manchester

Gordon Brown gave the speech his party wanted and needed to hear. He is a good man leading a good government, which is proud of much of its record, but not satisfied that it has done enough or should merely defend past achievements. Labour is clear that it has not exhausted its ambitions for change, and so must now try to persuade the country of that too.

The speech was often moving. Its themes unite the party. That was the Gordon Brown that Labour wants Britain to see, fusing his personal mission with his party’s fairness DNA.The leadership question has been postponed and Brown considerably strengthened in his own party, compared to his position just this last weekend.

But none of us in Manchester can know whether or how far the argument will also be heard by the voters. The one regret is that he did not make that speech a year ago, when all of the attention and momentum was his, yet the argument for fairness was muted.

Now, in tougher times his personal and political fightback has begun. The global economic and domestic political crises have together altered the political climate. At a low ebb, the government has become less risk averse and more explicitly social democratic.

One announcement which is perhaps more important than many people realise: Gordon Brown’s commitment to legislate for the goal of ending child poverty offers an important example of entrenching Labour’s legacy, defining its future agenda and testing the Conservative claim to be ‘progressive’ go together.

I write more about this in a piece at Comment is Free. Read more...

After Manchester

Gordon Brown gave the speech his party wanted and needed to hear. He is a good man leading a good government, which is proud of much of its record, but not satisfied that it has done enough or should merely defend past achievements. Labour is clear that it has not exhausted its ambitions for change, and so must now try to persuade the country of that too.

The speech was often moving. Its themes unite the party. That was the Gordon Brown that Labour wants Britain to see, fusing his personal mission with his party’s fairness DNA.The leadership question has been postponed and Brown considerably strengthened in his own party, compared to his position just this last weekend.

But none of us in Manchester can know whether or how far the argument will also be heard by the voters. The one regret is that he did not make that speech a year ago, when all of the attention and momentum was his, yet the argument for fairness was muted.

Now, in tougher times his personal and political fightback has begun. The global economic and domestic political crises have together altered the political climate. At a low ebb, the government has become less risk averse and more explicitly social democratic.

One announcement which is perhaps more important than many people realise: Gordon Brown’s commitment to legislate for the goal of ending child poverty offers an important example of entrenching Labour’s legacy, defining its future agenda and testing the Conservative claim to be ‘progressive’ go together.

I write more about this in a piece at Comment is Free. Read more...

Arriving soon hot schools meals

Schools Secretary Ed Balls' announcement of a trial programme to bring free school meals to all primary school children in deprived areas will no doubt be welcomed by Sharon Hodgson MP, who argued for the measure in the summer issue of the Fabian Review.
The benefits in terms of attention and performance for children who are eating healthily are well documented.
Teachers in a deprived areas say they see a real improvement in children's behaviour in classes where the kids are eating a decent meal. Read more...

Arriving soon hot schools meals

Schools Secretary Ed Balls' announcement of a trial programme to bring free school meals to all primary school children in deprived areas will no doubt be welcomed by Sharon Hodgson MP, who argued for the measure in the summer issue of the Fabian Review.
The benefits in terms of attention and performance for children who are eating healthily are well documented.
Teachers in a deprived areas say they see a real improvement in children's behaviour in classes where the kids are eating a decent meal. Read more...

'Fairness' is not enough

Gordon Brown was absolutely right to make 'fairness' the central theme of his conference speech. Labour urgently needs to recapture its idealism about social justice. This is the way, first, for those of us in the party to refire our enthusiasm, rebuild our self-confidence and reconnect with core supporters. And, second, it challenges the wider public perception that Labour is exhausted, cynical and so it is 'time for a change'.

But there is a problem with the idea of 'fairness'. Everyone believes in it. Yet they don't all mean the same thing. Channel 4 News did some interviews with floating voters who had watched the speech. One man said that of course he believed in fairness. But fairness meant doing something about the tax burden on 'Middle England'. In particular, it meant abolishing inheritance tax.

So its not enough to talk about fairness. Labour needs to talk about its distinctive understanding of fairness. Of course, Brown did some of this in his speech. He linked fairness to ending child poverty, freer health-care (the move on prescription charges), and so on. But Labour needs to do a lot more of this - and do it in a different way - than it has in the past. Above all, Labour needs to link fairness more explicitly with the 'E word': equality.

Labour should first put the idea of 'equal life chances' centre-stage. It is an affront to human dignity that - to use an image that Tony Blair once used - two children born at the same time in the same hospital ward can end up with such profoundly unequal prospects because of the social class of the parents who take them home. Labour has done a lot of admirable work on this problem since 1997 - Sure Start, progress on reducing child poverty, the Child Trust Fund. The party should boast about what it has done and at the same time launch a public campaign for further, urgently needed measures. It should take a principled stand against suggested tax changes, such the Conservative proposals for more cuts to inheritance tax, which will widen inequality in life-chances - and it should say that this is why it opposes such cuts.

Second, Labour needs to start questioning inequalities in market rewards. Hardly anyone thinks that we should all have the same income. But a lot of inequalities in reward are undeserved. Labour needs to have the confidence to say this. The emerging criticism and review of City bonuses could be a tentative start in this direction. But the argument needs to be pressed far more widely.

Labour's decline from a position of parity with the Conservatives to being 20% or more behind in the polls started almost a year ago when the government caved in to the Conservative assault on inheritance tax. Only if it regains the courage of its convictions, can Labour haul itself back up. Read more...