In the discussion, Tim Montgomerie made the absolutely correct point that the public understand the need for cutbacks rather better than many politicians are prepared to admit, and that there may well be an electoral dividend for the party which first faces up to the political difficulties and puts forward a serious set of suggestions about what can go.
However, two points were not made that perhaps deserve mention. The first concerns the Cameron programme for repositioning the Conservative Party and rescuing it from the electoral oblivion that threatened during New Labour’s period of electoral hegemony. Dare the Tories talk about cuts when Labour will accuse them of wanting to slash public services, asked Evan? He had a point – that charge is already hurting in some quarters, and will also act as a rallying cry for Labour’s disillusioned voters.
Much depends here on how talk of cuts is presented. Cuts are absolutely essential in the 5-year electoral timescale. But all Cameron’s presentational work – which I have argued for some time has been an absolutely essential driver of Tory recovery – will be undone if this is presented as the wonderful opportunity for tax cuts, spending cuts and the withering of the state that the Tories have been waiting for. Cameron should not be shy of arguing that on the contrary he would be happy to run a government that spent money effectively and efficiently if only that money were there. He will have to make cuts because Labour has bankrupted the nation again, not because he relishes the thought of doing it.
The public are ready for cuts, and braced for austerity, but there is no appetite for a reappearance of the ideology of the shrinking of the state (as the regular Social Attitudes Survey has once more revealed). This is a pragmatic judgment on most people’s part, and the Conservatives should emphasise their pragmatism, not neo-liberal thinking.
The second point concerns Evan Davis’ suggestion that honesty is a problem in politics, and that the Tories might be damaged by too much candour about what is needed. If that is true (it is a caricature that many would recognise), then it begs the obvious question of why it is the case. If politicians are punished for honesty, then although they get the blame for being liars, it seems that few fingers get pointed at the media and at the voters themselves for giving them strong incentives to lie. After all, if we vote according to the headlines rather than the facts, we can’t blame politicians for trying to change the headlines.
