Sunday, February 15, 2009

Dodgy Dave Cameron: Different Doorstep, Different Story

When I read THIS from Iain Dale with his interpretation:

David Cameron has given an interview to BBC South East, to be shown at lunchtime tomorrow (Sunday) in which he pledges to abolish Regional Development Agencies. Good. There had been some speculation that the Tories were wavering on that commitment.

I first thought: "A-haaa!" and "Inconsistent!" because towards the top of this programme he appeared to tell a very pro-Cameron audience for "Community TV" station Channel M in Manchester that he was planning a U-Turn and on keeping the RDAs.

But, think on Iain, and think on LOL. Cameron is doing that Lib Dem thing. A different story on every doorstep. In the NW where his spies tell him the RDA is reasonably popular it's weaselly words suggesting business as usual. In the SE it's an evisceration of the unpopular RDA.

Here's Cameron, making his "probable" different arrangement, specific to that region:

"In areas like the south east where actually local authorities would like to come together and take over the role of regional development agencies, I think they could probably do it better. I think actually if Kent and Sussex wanted to work together, if the Thames Valley authorities wanted to work together. I don't believe that this regionalisation of Britain is the right way to go. We could save some money
and give it back to people in tax reductions if we got rid of the regional assemblies and so much of the regional bureaucracy there is. That's what I'd like to do."

So, is having a hotchpotch with some RDAs, some county-wide partnerships, some city states or whatever what Cameron is offering? And is that a good or a bad idea? Some of Cameron's other NW promises are covered in MEN pieces, all based on this one-hour PPB with Channel M, linked from the foot of this piece.

TORY SPENDING CUTS? Apparently these will have to be £100 Billion, not the mere £30 Billion we anticipated. Thanks again Iain Dale. Substantially less tax for the richest 5,000 families, substantially less public services for the rest of us. Why would anyone - apart from those rich folk - in a "swing state" actually vote to get a Tory government?

No comments: