Does Cameron's Hollande snub matter?

A meeting between the PM and the French Socialist was in neither man's interests.

François Hollande, who remains the likely winner of the French presidential election, is in London today, where he will meet Ed Miliband (who will not be endorsing his policy of a 75 per cent top tax rate) but will not meet David Cameron.

The line from Downing Street is that it would be "unsual for the Prime Minister to meet the opposition candidate once an election campaign is underway". But Cameron has made no secret of his preference for Nicolas Sarkozy. He recently told Le Figaro:

He has done extraordinarily important things for France. It will be for the French people to decide, I do not have to interfere in this choice. Nicolas Sarkozy has my support. I say it clearly.

The standard view on the left and the right is that the Prime Minister, who will have to work with whoever wins, should not interfere in a foreign election. Tory MP Douglas Carswell, for instance, has criticised Cameron for "running our foreign policy like a scene from Love Actually with subtitles". But the Hollande camp is more relaxed, believing that Sarkozy's reliance on foreign leaders widens the gulf between him and his people. As Rafael wrote recently, there is no huge electoral advantage for a Socialist candidate to be seen "hobnobbing with the Tory leader". Cameron, meanwhile, who is anxious to reassure the Tories and the City of his pro-business credentials, has seized an opportunity to snub an "anti-capitalist".

And with Merkel openly cheering Sarkozy on, we may be seeing a pragmatic acceptance on both sides that socialists will support socialists and conservatives will support conservatives.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The 5 things the Tories aren't telling you about their manifesto

Turns out the NHS is something you really have to pay for after all. 

When Theresa May launched the Conservative 2017 manifesto, she borrowed the most popular policies from across the political spectrum. Some anti-immigrant rhetoric? Some strong action on rip-off energy firms? The message is clear - you can have it all if you vote Tory.

But can you? The respected thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now been through the manifesto with a fine tooth comb, and it turns out there are some things the Tory manifesto just doesn't mention...

1. How budgeting works

They say: "a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade"

What they don't say: The Conservatives don't talk very much about new taxes or spending commitments in the manifesto. But the IFS argues that balancing the budget "would likely require more spending cuts or tax rises even beyond the end of the next parliament."

2. How this isn't the end of austerity

They say: "We will always be guided by what matters to the ordinary, working families of this nation."

What they don't say: The manifesto does not backtrack on existing planned cuts to working-age welfare benefits. According to the IFS, these cuts will "reduce the incomes of the lowest income working age households significantly – and by more than the cuts seen since 2010".

3. Why some policies don't make a difference

They say: "The Triple Lock has worked: it is now time to set pensions on an even course."

What they don't say: The argument behind scrapping the "triple lock" on pensions is that it provides an unneccessarily generous subsidy to pensioners (including superbly wealthy ones) at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, the IFS found that the Conservatives' proposed solution - a "double lock" which rises with earnings or inflation - will cost the taxpayer just as much over the coming Parliament. After all, Brexit has caused a drop in the value of sterling, which is now causing price inflation...

4. That healthcare can't be done cheap

They say: "The next Conservative government will give the NHS the resources it needs."

What they don't say: The £8bn more promised for the NHS over the next five years is a continuation of underinvestment in the NHS. The IFS says: "Conservative plans for NHS spending look very tight indeed and may well be undeliverable."

5. Cutting immigration costs us

They say: "We will therefore establish an immigration policy that allows us to reduce and control the number of people who come to Britain from the European Union, while still allowing us to attract the skilled workers our economy needs." 

What they don't say: The Office for Budget Responsibility has already calculated that lower immigration as a result of the Brexit vote could reduce tax revenues by £6bn a year in four years' time. The IFS calculates that getting net immigration down to the tens of thousands, as the Tories pledge, could double that loss.

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496