Packaging Cuts?

No I'm not talking about the stuff that our beg comes in, but how politicians talk of a cut in spending when they are unable to say they are cutting spending. Labour have put themselves into a rather difficult position it seems: they have to reduce the amount the government spends but cannot announce public spending reductions. So there is a lot of talk about 'cuts' from the Conservatives and various journalists, while Labour politicians talk of maximising finite resources. I actually thought Ed Balls did rather well, though Andrew Marr did not exactly savage him, but he used language very carefully. He talked of demanding savings and 'smarter' and 'defter' spending, so targeted where need is most, though of course if previously spending has not been smart and targeted it does beg a few questions. This of course will be the key wedge issue between the parties, Conservatives accusing Labour of over-spending and reckless economics, while also obfuscating and concealing the true extent of the problems and their cuts. Meanwhile, as Balls frequently stated, Labour's position is the Conservatives will reduce public spending in favour of 'the rich' so appealing to those reliant on public services and fearing a heavy tax burden. If this remains the key issue through to May next year who the public trust most could determine the outcome of the election and there may be many hovering pencils when voters try to work out who is the most believable or least untrustworthy.

Limiting choice doesn't win elections!

The Conservative party seem to have a problem, well several actually, but I note three of importance. Firstly, they are behind in the polls; secondly, the news agenda is most interested in possible splits between left and right, modernisers and traditionalists; thirdly, the only policy that hits the main news is their pledge to stick to Labour spending plans.

The problem therefore is that public perceptions of the party, leading to lower scores in the polls, are likely to be driven by an impression of division and lack of direction and that they have no original policies. While there is currently an online initiative to consult which is gathering pace (see here), this is ignored as it is not entertaining news.

Perhaps the pledge to stick to Labour public spending plans, which to an extent undermines their open consultation, is an attempt to capture the agenda but this is flawed. It worked for Labour in in the run-up to 1997, but because the Major government was in disarray and there was a need to reassure the floating voters that a Labour government would not incur and economic collapse; in this instance fine. But Labour's record on the economy is Brown's strength, providing this lack of choice will give people the choice between a tried and tested brand and an unknown alternative, but for the same price (or risk if you like). The choice will be Labour.

While it is not for me to comment on which policies the Conservative Party should or should not lead on, they need to talk about those things the public are concerned about but offer a more attractive alternative to Labour not more of the same. This is the only way any party can steal the ground from a party of government that have not yet lost the support of the public completely. Maybe they need to do more research, maybe they need to consult more widely, but it seems that if this is all they can offer then a snap election would present an open goal for Brown.