Photograph: David Jones/PA
Apologies for light posting this week, it's been unusually busy.
The other problem is that I'm utterly ignorant of the details of benefit policy, and it's the kind of debate you can't even peep your head into unless you know your stuff. Something David Cameron might be reflecting on this week.
According to Andrew Neil, when the popular backlash against the proposed changes happened, Cameron wobbled, whilst Osborne didn't give a shit - sorry, I mean, "stayed firm". Why didn't Cameron's wobble happen before the policy was announced? Presumably because he was relaxed about his chancellor's judgement.
It's easy to make comparisons with this government and the 1997 Labour government - so let's do it. In both, there was a Prime Minister good at big picture strategy and presentation and a Chancellor with more of a taste for detail and tactics. That's the right division of labour for those jobs. The advantage enjoyed by the Tories, in this comparison, is that the PM and the Chancellor aren't at war with each other. However, the mutual confidence that Cameron and Osborne, whilst clearly a benefit overall, may also come with a downside.
Imagine a caricatured version of a meeting between PM and Chancellor in either government. In the first, the PM lays out where he want to take policy. The Chancellor shrugs and mutters and says yes, maybe, but. The two of them leave in half-agreement, and tell their aides to keep a close eye on what the other is up to. In the second, the PM and Chancellor have barely to open their mouths before the other is nodding furiously in agreement. They cut the meeting short because it's clear there's not much to discuss here, and tell their aides to get on with it. The first type of relationship is dysfunctional, but the second has its dangers too.
Blair and Brown were worriers by nature. They worried about winning, and about each other. They worried too much; when they talk about their first term, they regret not moving faster and further. Cameron and Osborne worry much less. In five or ten years, they will have their regrets too. But it's already clear that a lack of boldness won't be one of them.
If the weakness of Labour's first term was under-confidence, the weakness of this government may turn out to have been over-confidence.
Interesting as ever. Makes you wonder about the Tory backbench. The Brown/Blair relationship lent focus to dissent.
Slightly funny to recall that the Tories campaigned against a hung parliament on the grounds that it would make bold action impossible.
Posted by: Scott | October 09, 2010 at 04:45 PM