Cuts and Fairness

Oh God, I'm sick of it. Absolutely sick of it. I'm sick to fucking death of hearing that the spending cuts implemented by the coalition are not fair. Particularly since this sort of trite bullshit tends to spew forth from those who believe that the rich paying much greater percentages in tax is the very definition of fairness.

When someone says that the spending cuts aren't fair what they mean is that they don't think that the people being affected by the cuts are the right people, and that the axe is falling in the wrong areas. However, it is next to impossible to cut spending in this country without it affecting someone - such is the intense, pernicious reach of the state after 13 years of Nu Labour misrule. So no matter what is cut, it is going to affect someone somewhere who then will claim that the cut in question is unfair. How, pray, do we then have a fair tax cut?

And you want to know why the poor are more affected by the cuts? Because the Labour government did its level fucking best to make them as dependent on the state as possible. The fact that they are now being adversely affected is arguably as much the fault of the last Labour government than it is of the ConDems, if not more so.

The cuts hurt people - but that doesn't stop them from being inevitable and, in the longer term, helpful. I don't doubt for one second that we will be a far more healthy nation once we have weaned ourselves off the teat of the state and started to realise again that we can, and should, take responsibility for ourselves.

The Next Tory Leader

It may seem odd to be speculating on who the next Tory leader will be when the incumbent is probably the most successful Tory leader for the past decade and a half. Of all the party leaders, I’d say he’s the most secure. But, as Francis Urquhart once observed, “nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, most glittering reign must come to an end someday.” Indeed, the sole certainty that a Prime Minister has on entering Number 10 Downing Street is that they will one day leave office. The same with party leaders.

So, when Cameron does stand down, or is forced out after an election loss, who will take over from him? Looking at the most high-profile Tories, it is difficult to see any of those vying for the top job. George Osborne is no Gordon Brown – he doesn’t seem to have the burning desire to follow his friend into Number 10. Hague is popular with the people, but the recent scandal about his special assistant may have tainted his view of frontline politics and therefore his desire to be leader (again). Who else? Gove? Hardly. Theresa May? Competent, but hardly inspirational. On the backbenches you have David Davis, but he is a restless, impetuous soul who may not be the right sort of personality to lead his party successfully. Perhaps Boris might return to the Commons – he’d be a popular choice with the people, but again he’s a bit of a renegade and his inability to keep his wedding tackle in his pants. As a President, I think Johnson would work. As a leader of a party in a parliamentary democracy and a potential Prime Minister, well, I don’t think BoJo would work so well.

So none of the most high-profile Tories – but then again that is hardly surprising. Cameron will be in power for at least five years, possibly even ten – and given the propensity of all of the main parties to choose leaders with limited parliamentary experience, the next Tory leader may only just have been elected to the Commons – or may be elected next time.

Besides, before the next leader is chosen, something is going to have to happen about ideology in the Conservative party. Cameron’s project of making the Tory party electable again was largely achieved through jettisoning ideology in favour of neutral, non-threatening platitudes. And it worked on some levels – the Tories are back in government. But the problem with being in government – particularly a government facing as many problems as the Con-Dems – is that you do need some sort of ideology to guide you as you govern. Cameron’s beliefs will be exposed by the way in which he governs.

And we’ve already seen the faint glimmerings of that in the concept of the Big Society. Quite what it means remains something of a mystery, but I can’t help but feel that we are witnessing a revival in Tory paternalism. What Cameron is isn’t quite clear, but what he isn’t is a Thatcherite. Which is fine – but there are others in the party who are.

Right now we are in a position where order in the Tory party is maintained by the relative novelty of being back in power. People get behind Cameron not necessarily believe in what he says and what he stands for, but because not seeing eye-to-eye with a Tory PM is better than powerlessly disagreeing with a Labour PM. But that won’t last. The longer they stay in power – and an outright win at the next election – the less the novelty of power will create unity. So in five years time, or in ten years – when Cameron goes – it may be less about personalities and relative visibility, and more about what factions exist at the time, how powerful they are, and who is leading them.

It is too early, far too early to be able to guess who will be the next Tory leader. However I reckon we can make a prediction about the nature of the next Tory leadership contest. When Cameron was elected, it was about finding someone who can win. Next time, it will be about defining what the party actually stands for – or rather about which ideological faction is going to take it into the future.

Five Days that Didn't Change Britain

Nope, didn't watch it. Mainly because I watched it pretty much live on various news channels when it was actually happening. It was dull then: therefore, definitely not worth reliving now.

But what also bothers me is the title - these weren't five days that changed Britain. They were five days that changed the figures at the head of Britain's government. And the change is not as radical as so many seem to want to suggest. We've had Tory led governments before. We've had coalitions before. And Labour has been booted out of office before.

Furthermore, why would the inauguration of the ConDems really change Britain? Sure, their leaders are far less awkward, maladjusted and downright weird than Prime Minister Brown was, but being less dysfunctional than your predecessor doesn't mean you represent a radical change from what has gone before. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats adhere to the same fundamental assumptions about the limits of political action as the then outgoing Labour government. It's a bit like finding out that your brain cancer has gone but you've been diagnosed with heart disease - basically, you're still fucked, just in a slightly different way.

It ties in beautifully with the ConDem assertion that we have a new politics in this country to claim that the negotiations to form the coalition were "five days that changed Britain". Unfortunately, it doesn't really connect with the reality of the situation. Then again, the title of "Five Days That Maintained The Political Status Quo in Britain" is far less punchy, and also far less likely to attract the sort of viewer who is desperate for the next installment of Eastenders...