SPECTATOR 1.4.09
Politics - FRASER NELSON
Our poll shows that the public is way ahead of Cameron in seeing the
need for cuts
the Conservative leadership: ‘cuts’. When it has been deployed by
Gordon Brown on the electoral battlefield, the Tories have had no
defence. Even after they surrendered and signed up to Labour’s
spending plans, Mr Brown still accused them of planning ‘deep and
painful cuts’. It is, as it happens, a charge entirely without
foundation. Even now, the only people openly saying that state
spending is too high are a bunch of supposed oddballs: Norman Tebbit,
John Redwood — and 72 per cent of the British public.
The last group has crept up almost entirely undetected upon
Westminster — which is so often the last place to realise which
direction the rest of the country has taken. An old orthodoxy still
reigns in SW1: that it is cruel and heartless to want cuts, and that
higher state spending is the non-negotiable priority of modern,
compassionate Britain. Yet outside the Westminster village, the
public is growing increasingly incensed about the way ministers are
spending as if the party will never end — from the expenses claimed
by Jacqui Smith to cover her husband’s cinematic tastes to the NHS
supercomputer.
As no party formally proposes spending cuts, the issue tends not to
be raised in opinion polls — so The Spectator decided to make its own
inquiries. Snapshot surveys often give a deceptive answer to such
questions, as people’s minds change in the course of an election
campaign as they are subjected to the case for and against. So we
commissioned PoliticsHome to use its new technique: so-called
deliberative polling. This involved asking a carefully balanced group
of 1,406 people various questions, then asking them to consider the
arguments — then asking the question again.
When asked if the government should conduct a new ‘stimulus’ in the
next budget, our respondents were sceptical: 56 per cent against and
32 per cent in favour. We then advanced the arguments. That stimulus
means ‘real help now to families and businesses through these
difficult times, which will help us recover more quickly’. Just 32
per cent found this convincing. When asked whether ‘borrowing yet
more for giveaways with limited impact is simply reckless’ a decisive
67 per cent agreed. [Whoa! THAT’s a leading question! -cs]
So far, so Tory: This is George Osborne’s argument. But not even the
shadow chancellor argues that government ‘spends much too much money
on programmes and services’. Yet our poll showed 54 per cent agreed
with this statement. A further 18 per cent believed it was a ‘little
too much’ money: in total, therefore, 72 per cent believe that
spending has risen too high. Just 15 per cent consider spending too
low. The cutters outweigh the spenders by four-to-one. All they need
is a party to vote for.
Officially, the Conservatives are still committed to increasing state
spending year after year. But David Cameron appears to be embarked on
something of an intellectual journey. Last weekend, for example, he
declared that it is ‘morally irresponsible to rack up more debts for
our children to pay off’ — yet without cuts, national debt would be
ratcheted up by a third. Cameron has produced a powerful poster of a
baby, saying it will be born with £17,000 of Gordon Brown’s debt. Yet
without spending cuts, this same baby would be liable for £27,000
after the first term of a Tory government.
Yet the very fact of the baby poster indicates a significant shift in
Tory thinking: at last, the message of small-state fiscal
conservatism is at the heart of the party’s presentation. Or, more
aptly, ‘save the country’ conservatism — because the national debt
will have risen by £5,700 in the time it takes you to finish this
sentence. The Crewe & Nantwich by-election showed that a campaign
against tax — in that contest, the abolition of the 10p tax rate —
can have deep popular appeal. The key to winning the next election
may lie in arguing the same about debt.
Time was when the Tories said all this regularly: Labour’s spending
plans, they once told the electorate, would mean a ‘tax bombshell’.
Brown’s brilliant innovation was to invert this and claim that Tory
tax cuts could mean fewer nurses and police on the beat. The Tories
were so stunned by this role reversal, their self-confidence
destroyed by Black Wednesday and — in subsequent years — by three
election defeats, that they dared not argue back. It was a complete
intellectual victory for Mr Brown, who celebrated with a state
spending bonanza unsupported by tax revenues and unmatched by any
other developed nation.
Now the Tories are shaking themselves free of Mr Brown’s spell,
dropping his language and searching for their own new political
rhetoric. There is talk of ‘spending’ again, rather than
‘investment’. Significantly, Mr Osborne, I understand, will no longer
talk in terms of spending ‘growth’ — a discreet U-turn, which perhaps
few will notice. It means, in effect, that substantial spending cuts
are no longer ruled out — but that this will not be advertised.
The next step is to go public. One message being considered by
Osborne is to ‘cut spending and raise taxes to lower debt for our
children’ — an unpleasant prospect, but at least an honest one. In
the Spectator / PoliticsHome poll, 72 per cent say they are seriously
worried by the national debt. There is a large, attentive audience
waiting for Mr Cameron to say he will bring government spending back
under control — that is to say, bring it down; that he will adopt a
‘save-the-nation’ cuts strategy; and in so doing, join the mainstream
of public opinion.
---------------------------------------------------
PoliticsHome interviewed 1406 UK adults by email between 25–26 March.
Results are weighted by party identification to reflect the UK at large.
Posts
