Did the Tories fool around their trump label as well soon? Matthew Parris

Matthew Parris & ,}

So far, Labour are losing, but they could design their punish from over the grave. A disorderly and unfortunate Labour debate could incite the Tories in to undertakings that return, blade in hand, to sabotage a Conservative government.

Experience suggests that being in the thick of it is a dangerous place for soon-to-be budding ministers: as dangerous for them as it is cultivatable for the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations. Denials offering in haste, promises simply given, can resonate down the years with an relate that was never contemplated when they simply seemed similar to the most appropriate thing to contend at the time.

This risk is some-more ominous for the Conservative Party than for Labour. Labour design to lose. They can contend anything they like, and they will. The Tories design to win. They contingency support their manifesto, and sidestep their undertakings, accordingly.

The week at the back of us has seen David Cameron and George Osborne, his Shadow Chancellor, off to a clever start. They competence take a little compensation this week finish that Labour do appear severely rattled. For so routinely cool an user as Lord Mandelson to call the concerns of businesses similar to JCB, or the Edinburgh Woollen Mill, civil (as he did yesterday) suggests disarray. The Tory conflict on Alistair Darlings programmed enlarge in inhabitant word contributions has been a tangible hit.

BACKGROUNDUse polluters money to emanate a immature bank SamCam heads for father"s estate on debate tripCitizenship service: a ambience of things to comeCameron clings to lead in polls

But you do have to ask yourself because Labour have been so winded by a Tory oath to retreat it. The answer is that they did not expect their opponents rising themselves so blithely in to so brave an undertaking. Labour were and sojourn thrown off change by the effrontery.

One should admire the forwardness up to a point. To acknowledgement initial and resolutely that a deleterious new taxation contingency be withdrawn, and thereafter afterwards to contemplate the sum of how that competence be afforded, probably does merit Gordon Browns outline of the move as back-of-the-envelope but if you cant do back-of-the- envelope, you shouldnt be in politics. Nevertheless the outcome of those calculations is that the sleepy old harass potency assets has had to be flogged around the march nonetheless again. This creates it tough for the Tories to saddle her up once some-more the subsequent time someone asks how something is to be afforded.

It additionally reinforces an sense the Tories are giving (as Mr Cameron did again in his speak on BBC Radios Today programme yesterday) that their plan for Britain does not engage any big new cut in open services or big new climb in taxes. In shouldering the weight of necessity reduction, landfill taxation has probably taken about as most weight as it can bear. If Mr Cameron mentions landfill again I shall scream.

Theres a intensity trap here which, were Labour in the stream condition able of anything as vital as a plot, we competence think them of plotting. The oath to throw inhabitant word taxation increases is certainly the last big radically uncosted guarantee that the Conservatives brave make, and theyve deployed the arms really early. Any some-more lax speak about safeguarding all of Britains critical open services, and electorate competence get suspicious. Are the Tories maybe counting on a little new source of funding, as nonetheless undisclosed?

Here is a arms Labour have nonetheless to deploy, and Mr Brown, who is shameless in all connected with arithmetic, will certainly muster it.

He wouldnt usually contend that the Tories competence have to lift VAT. He wouldnt usually extent himself to claiming that theyre deliberation raising VAT. He wouldnt even contend that their total foreordain that they must. And ruin go serve nonetheless than a handful of Labour frontbenchers who have already likely that the Tories will lift VAT. Mr Brown will acknowledgement that they have already motionless to; and are lying about their plans.

That (were he to be returned to Downing Street) Mr Browns own Chancellor competence have to lift VAT, is secondary. Mr Brown knows feat is unlikely. Were he so incredibly propitious as to win, he wouldnt be shedding tears about anything as pardonable as carrying to mangle a debate guarantee or two. In actuality the old-fashionedly tasteful of Mr Darling (so far) to have stopped just, though usually just, short of earnest not to lift VAT. Mr Brown would simply brush such scruples in reserve and earlier or later, I predict, will do so.

At a little point during this campaign, theres going to be an god like row about VAT, in that Labour will direct that the Tories have organisation but tip plans to lift it to twenty per cent or more, and magnify the range to (say) food or childrens clothes; and plea Mr Osborne to give a oath that he will in no resources do any of this.

And what then?

In Tory contention at the back of close doors the some-more discreet voices will introduce something along the lines of Mr Camerons acknowledgement that he has no plans to lift VAT. But thats what John Major pronounced in 1992 (no need to lift VAT), as did Norman Lamont (no plans to lift VAT) prior to they did lift VAT; and were soon indicted of Jesuitry rather than praised for avoiding an undisguised crack of faith. This time, Labour will remind electorate of those now-notorious Tory written formulae.

The enticement will thus be clever to give that undeniable pledge, and (in the immediate) lift the carpet from underneath Labours feet. If at this point the polls were neck-and-neck, the Tory care competence usually have to, and live with the consequences.

But if the polls were as certain for the celebration as they appear today, and the numbers did indicate a operative altogether majority, it would be a really good empathize to yield. To do so would be to plant inside of an rising Conservative feat the seeds of the partys disprove in government. These damaged pledges expel a prolonged shade see at Labours, to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

There is a absolute box for the celebration care to repair this sold roof tiles whilst (as it seems at the finish of week one) the object is shining. Instead of being bounced in to a defensive reply at a time not of their choosing, because not go on to the front feet right away with a short, delicately drafted statement, to that they can subsequently simply impute back? The matter would repeat, with whatever force could be mustered, that umbrella promises in becoming different resources are not honest politics.

We give as most hostages to Fortune as, on solemn calculation, we positively have to: but we should not give a singular warrant some-more than she demand.