Michael Howard has put tax at the heart of his general election strategy, said James Chapman in the Daily Mail. At Harrogate last week, he identified the spending versus tax-cuts debate as the central issue of modern British politics and vowed that people would pay less under the Tories. With people empowered to separate from the nannying of the state to make their own spending decisions, the nation would, he said, “grow in confidence”.
This “low-tax, high-choice” agenda needs much fleshing out, said The Independent. But it’s cannily targeted at the same “aspirational voters who were first seduced by, and then disillusioned with, New Labour”. Given public discontent with the non-improving public services and steadily rising “stealth” taxes, this is a growing and highly swingable constituency. Howard’s problem, though, is cost. The “choice” side of his strategy involves subsidised vouchers that enable individuals to “buy” the school, doctor or hospital of their choice. But this distribution of tax revenue takes money away from state schools, the NHS and social services. That’s not Howard’s only funding problem, said The Times. Before this speech, shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin committed the party to match Labour’s rise in health and education spending; that means an incredibly tough spending policy in the other departments. Yet the shadow cabinet does not seem to under-stand this or have any plans to achieve it.
Agreed, said Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail. The Tories have reclaimed the momentum they lost somewhere around 1992, but turning rhetoric into results will be harder and more painful than they think. Given Gordon Brown’s profligacy and the prospect of a £15bn spending black hole opening up this year, any incoming Tory government would have even less money to play with than they currently expect. They would then face the choice of going back on their low-tax campaign message, or being far tougher on spending than they are presently willing to be. That probably means thousands of civil service jobs going, something they are loath to admit. In fact, Howard has given Tony Blair a “get-out-of-jail card”, said David Walker in The Guardian. Although “turkeys have been known to vote for Christmas”, all those employed in public services will now turn against the Tories. Ignoring the ongoing problem of inequality, the Tories have pledged tax cuts and are pretending that “less can buy more” – not an effective way of increasing their ratings in the polls.
Rubbish, said The Daily Telegraph. Howard’s speech revealed his “sound tactical sense”. It was measured – “even slightly boring”: just the sort of solid performance required to give him the reassuring authority of a family solicitor, in contrast to the slick approach of Tony Blair’s “encyclopedia salesman”. And rather than engaging in the kind of “tribal Labour-bashing that leaves floating voters cold”, Howard acknowledges that Labour wants better public services, and then explains why they are failing to deliver – the same reasonable tone that was adopted when the Tories last succeeded in ousting a Labour government in 1979. Certainly, support for Howard is increasing; the Conservatives now have more members than Labour and the LibDems put together and big business is beginning to give them money again.
But let’s not kid ourselves, said Simon Heffer. To win an election, the Tories need another 165 seats. It’s far from clear that that’s possible.