You used to know you were getting old when the policemen looked younger, now the yardstick (or is it metre stick these days) seems to be politicians. New Labour, now looking distinctly crumbly, are being upstaged by the young conservatives (or "newer labour" - as I like to call them).
New Labour introduced the professional politician for the 21st century, attention seeking, media manipulative with ideas as flexible as the location he/she was canvassing.
The poor Tories under John Major, then William Hague, IDS and Michael Howard floundered in the new media age, where you got more votes for appearing on GMTV with Fiona Phillips than Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman (not to mention a lot less hassle). The solution was simple, bring in the youth and play New Labour at their own game.
The Government's majority over the last 9 years, coupled with relative stability in economic activity (globally), has allowed it to show its true colours. High spending, high taxing.....but with New Labour it's selective. If you've saved any money....they want it, if you've not got any...they throw it at you! Is this an attempt to support the most needy and vulnerable members of society, or just a means of ensuring Labour voters for the future?
In an attempt to hide their spending commitments the government introduced the concept of regionalizing and decentralized decisionmaking. Fantastic idea, quicker response to change, targetted investment and local authorities who would know their residents needs much better than the central government machine. However, anyone who has been involved in local government/ councils/ the NHS/ Education etc etc. knows that most of the decisions are taken back at Labour Party headquarters.
Devolved responsibility without devolved authority, certainly a win-win for the politician. As we have seen recently, if any responsibility can be traced back to the minister, then the policy is changed for the future (please note the recent fiasco with paedophiles teaching in schools). In this particular situation, the new policy means that the minister can continue to influence but will not be held accountable for any future problems......very slick.
To put the whole " it's not our fault but the local (councils/LEA/NHS Trust)[ delete as applicable]" situation into a business context;
It's like the Chairman of the Board allowing the shop floor supervisors to decide on the company direction. They would have a meeting, with everyone entitled to express their own ideas and thoughts. The Chairman would not be present but his thoughts would be expressed at the meeting and discussions would continue until such time as everyone agreed with the Chairman. The meeting would be called to a close and the Chairman would be happy to endorse the decision arrived at by a completely separate "think tank". Guess who gets the flack if it all goes pear shaped?
But back to Newer Labour ....err I mean the Conservatives. All hail David Cameron even more slick than Tony Blair in his heyday. How are we going to put the country back on its feet......restructure the taxation system to incentivise those that work? limit government handouts to those in real need? remove bureaucratic red tape to allow businesses to florish? ........No, they would be politically sensitive moves. What we need, because we haven't got enough, is a series of discussion groups and "task forces", charged with discovering what people want. That way they can get the statisticians to work out which policies will get them elected.
But is it just me......I thought we used to have politicians that held certain core beliefs and principals (Tony Benn. Michael Foot, Maggie Thatcher). Wasn't it the job of politicians to tell us what they believed in and we could then vote for them or somebody else dependent upon how our core beliefs and their's coincided.
So do we want to get back to a political environment where politicians have convictions you know are heartfelt, rather than ballot box felt?