"Deficit Denier" the new Tory insult of choice

One of the more intangible and lasting legacies of Thatcher is the effect she had on political life and debate in this country.

Thatcher's approach to dissenting views was simple, to have no truck with them.

If some one disagreed with her she either insulted, sacked or fought them. Consensus, negotiation and compromise were signs of weakness.

The Coalition have been very busy. With an energy verging on fanaticism, they are turning back the clock so that within two years any trace of a Labour government between 1997 and 2010 will have been erased. Public services are being slashed, Britain will surely opt out of the Social Chapter as soon as Cameron feels strong enough and then the abolition of the minimum wage and reduction in the top tax rate will follow. Job done.

If it's economic policy at such energy levels that would leave Mrs T breathless, then she'd be equally impressed with government's approach to dissent. Easy just insult them.

David Cameron discovered a new insult in July speaking of a "new problem in British politics. They are called "deficit deniers" and I am looking at a whole row of them".

"Denier" is of course a very emotive word. In Austria, as the far right historian David Irving found out to his cost, holocaust denial is a criminal offence. "Global warming denier" is used freely against those who question global warming. Cameron now wishes to give a similar label to those who disagree with his spending cuts. In crassness and mentality, it is an insult on the same level as anything that came out of the repetoire of Margeret Thatcher.

Whilst other Labour candidates were quick to deny their er ... denial only Diane Abbott, who actually sat in the House of Commons opposite Thatcher, recognised the insult and the tactic for what it was:

"Rather than engaging in proper political debate at PMQs, this Prime Minister used wicked bullying tactics in an attempt to humiliate his opponents into subscribing to his viewpoints, and this isn't the first time David Cameron has tried such a thing".

The Coalition are turning back the economic and social clock to the 80s at a furious speed, the political and intellectual mentality of that era is following swiftly behind.

Labour have a strong front row

My good mate Piloti asked me what I thought of the "Labour leadership debacle". Piloti is a Tory however this isn't a view that is restricted to the right. Polly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian "Will the contest seize the imagination of the voters? Not a chance with a format that sucks all oxygen out of debate."

However I beg to differ. I am not a member of the Labour party so have little interest in its internal workings however I was at the last election a Labour voter, although it was a late decision made when it became pretty clear to me, though not apparently many leftish journalists, that Nick Clegg was moving towards the Tories.

The leadership election has given the prospective candidates plenty of airtime in the media: on Question Time, the various news broadcasts and This Week. This has been at a time when the Coalition have been reluctant to commit anyone of any influence to a grilling especially when it involves a head to head with a member of the Labour Party.

The Coalition sent former LibDem MP Susan Kramer into bat with Ed Milliband on Newsnight. It was thankfully over quickly and Ed was decent enough not to drive it home. There then followed Ed Balls against Vince Cable on Question Time. Balls performance was so impressive that Andrew Rawnsley described him as a "killer" in his Observer column. Cable was pretty unconvincing and Balls remorselessly drove his points home.

After an awkward appearance on This Week, Andy Burnham followed with a few rounds with Francis Maude on Question Time. It was like putting England in a World Cup match against er ... Germany. Burnham not only saw off Maude, he was angry and passionate so much so that David Dimbleby remarked "you are clearly very passionate about this - why didn't we see this in the election"?

So as Mark Twain might have said, news of Labour's demise are greatly exaggerated. Only the underated ITV political editor Tom Bradby noted on election night that Labour "were still strong" and the Leadership contest shows they will have a front bench of heavyweights no matter who is leader.

In Balls, Burnham and Ed Milliband Labour have a formidable front row. Put Alan Johnson and Yvette Cooper in the second row (ok the rugby analogy starts to fall down) and Labour look even stronger.

David Cameron and most of his front bench are lightweights. Their only conviction is Thatcherism which is why on any pretence to be anything different they are unconvincing. This is also why they avoid media scrutiny wherever they can. Ironically there are principled bighitters in the Tory party but one, Iain Duncan Smith, will be an irritant to Cameron and I suspect will not last long and the other, David Davies, has been consigned to the backbenches.

The Lib Dems meanwhile are a mixture of unprincipled ambition, naivety and shell shock.

So to those outside the machinations of the politcal party this Labour leadership is not damaging, it is casting some light on to a very strong front bench. It's only to be hoped, a possiblity acknowledged by Simon Heffer in the Telegraph, that the new Labour leader will not have to wait too long before being elected into number 10.

Cameron the Macc Lad

A reviewer in Kerrang once said of the 80s band The Macc Lads that the list of people they offended was short - everyone.

The self-appointed "rudest, crudest, lewdest, drunkest band in Christendom", hated amongst others southerners, foreigners, gays and women. So what then could the band that gave our rich language the phrase "get your kit off" have in common with our Eton Oxbridge educated smart and articulate Prime Minister?

Dave did a passable impression of a Macc Lad on his recent world tour managing to insult - in the space of one week - his own country, Israel and Pakistan. He denigrated Britain's "finest hour", berated Israel for prison camps and accused Pakistan of "looking the other way" on terrorism.

The first displayed a breathtaking ignorance of his own country's history, which should not be surprising given Blair's and previous PM's open lack of interest in the subject. The last though was just plain insensitive and stupid.

So on a serious note what does this say about Cameron?

This Sunday Andrew Rawnsley, a columnist I respect, admired Cameron's political astuteness in forming and holding the coalition together. In the same paper Nick Cohen suggested that Cameron's PR approach to international relations showed a man out of his depth. I agree with Nick Cohen.

David Cameron is a hard man to dislike. He is clearly ill at ease with confrontation which is why in PMQs he comes across as awkward and insulting. A collegiate approach is clearly in his nature and at other times he appears affable and engaging. He has that self-effacing self-confidence which likeable public school boys have, blimey you might even have a beer with him. He even rides a bike!

However I suspect what we are seeing is what first came apparent to me during the election campaign, that although for his political astuteness in party politics and handling the media, David Cameron is in fact a lightweight who is out of his depth in the highest office.

This contrasts Nick Clegg who is in fact is a very easy person to dislike but whom I suspect, is more at ease in higher political office.

David Cameron may be lucky and may not be faced with the issues that faced Blair and Brown - decisions on taking the country to war, home terrorism and the banking crisis - however if he's not so lucky, and how many PMs have a quiet life, I suggest that we will see more cracks appear in Dave's prime ministerial mask.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but I'll say it again, David Cameron is a lightweight.