Conservative contradictions

With the Labour Government in its death throes the commentariat is increasingly turning its attention towards a future Cameron administration, and a couple of opinion pieces in this morning's Times examine two themes which could cause problems for the Conservatives.

David Aaronovitch highlights the policy fault lines between the Tory modernisers and the more traditional wing of the party, and says the former is attempting to woo "Holby City Woman", who has a responsible public sector job and worries about the health service, schools, childcare and their ageing parents. Aaronovitch says that last year he was "almost astonished" by policy chief Oliver Letwin, who said that equality of outcome as well as opportunity was a "proper concern of a Conservative government" and emancipation from both absolute and relative poverty was a "central objective".

But the modernisers are outnumbered by the old guard:

Forget post-expenses reform, they will say, because it is enough that we have won; forget equalities and PC nonsense; disband this quango, cut that grant. Then there are the increasingly vocal “savage cuts” fetishists, for whom the sober duty of book-balancing is a positive pleasure...

Meanwhile, Rachel Sylvester examines David Cameron's "close knit circle of friends and advisers" - the Notting Hill Tories - and posits that this may develop into what could be regarded as "privileged clique".

She likens Cameron's set up to an "incestuous country village" and calls it less The West Wing and more an episode of Friends, while a Tory backbencher describes it as "dinner party politics". "Policymaking and strategy are driven by the gang", Sylvester says, while the Cameroons are friends and not just colleagues.

But the exclusivity and even wealth of the inner circle is causing increasing resentment, and Tory backbenchers are "remarkably grumpy" given the state of the opinion polls and last week's by-election victory. Shadow Cabinet ministers lament the lack of teamwork, policy discussion and consultation on key decisions. One frontbencher is quoted as saying:

The cliquiness is awful. Everyone should be very excited about the prospect of power but they’re not. People are very demoralised, there’s not much enthusiasm because the Cameron lot are so disdainful of everybody else.

Of course, UK governance in the coming few years is likely to be something of a poisoned chalice given the state of the economy and public finances, not to mention the tough tax and spending decisions required to rebalance the country's books, but the policy and personnel fault lines outlined by David Aaronovitch and Rachel Sylvester will merely add to the difficulties likely to be faced by a Cameron government.

However, these issues are unlikely to change the course of the next general election, since that looks almost certain to be lost by Labour rather than won by the Conservatives. Moreover, as new Labour demonstrated in the mid-90s and the SNP replicated a decade later, internal party contradictions are likely to be kept in check and under wraps with the levers of power within touching distance, and this is likely to continue well into a new administration's honeymoon period. But half a dozen or so years hence it's a fair bet that both David Cameron and Alex Salmond will be on a rapid descent towards Blair-Brown-Bush-dom.