It's time for the Tories to go beyond deficit reduction

Cameron must use his speech this week to promote growth and job creation.

Over the next week, David Cameron will want to portray an image of strong leadership and firm resolution to the party and to the country. They will want to be reassured that the Government has a grip on the multi-faceted social and economic issues that the UK faces. And he will need to make clear that the Government understands the day to day concerns of ordinary people and is prepared to take decisive action to meet these concerns.

He also faces the challenge of broadening the Conservative appeal and moving the party's message from a negative one of deficit reduction to a more positive one of economic growth and job creation.

More than anything else, this week's Conservative conference, and David Cameron's speech in particular, needs to spell out what the Government's plans are to boost jobs and deliver growth.

Twelve months ago, when the Conservatives met in Birmingham, there was a feeling that implementing a deficit reduction plan had got the hard economic spadework out of the way. Now, with stuttering growth and rising unemployment, it is becoming clear that a deficit reduction plan is only a small, albeit necessary, part of an economic strategy.

The Tories will need to reassure the party faithful and the country at large that they have a coherent plan for growth and job creation and that the UK is well placed to ride out the continuing global crisis. Cameron will need to set out a passionate belief in reforming the economy to create jobs and tackle economic insecurity.

Such a plan for growth needs to include bold measures to encourage enterprise and job creation, further develop infrastructure, and pursue bold reforms to the planning system and the labour market. The Government also needs to take more radical steps to reform welfare and increase incentives to work, through promoting more conditionality and reciprocity in the system.

A conference focused on jobs would help the Conservatives address one of their fundamental political difficulties. Recent research for Lord Ashcroft showed that only 27 per cent of voters polled believe that the Conservatives are "on the side of ordinary people." The party needs to set out that it is on the side of ordinary people and will be taking measures to address their everyday concerns.

By setting out a strategy for jobs, Conservatives will begin to reach out to the ordinary voter worried about job security and the rising cost of living. Emphasising job creation and measures to help low and middle income earners squeezed by the economic situation would help Cameron to show that his Government is in touch with the real concerns of ordinary voters.

Whilst showing that he understands the needs of ordinary voters and is taking measures to boost growth, the Prime Minister must also carve out a more hopeful and positive message, against a difficult backdrop. He needs to make clear what the Government is doing to change the country for the better and that his party remains a positive and progressive one.

This might include setting out how reforms, in education for example, will improve outcomes for those from more deprived backgrounds. He also has to make clear that progressive reforms, from the pupil premium to gay marriage, aren't just Liberal Democrat inspired.

This party conference isn't set against an easy political or economic backdrop for the Conservatives. It is, however, their chance to set out a positive vision, with a broad appeal, of growth, reform and greater opportunity.

David Skelton is deputy director of Policy Exchange

 

David Skelton is the director of Renewal, a new campaign group aiming to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party to working class and ethnic minority voters. @djskelton

Getty.
Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.