I’ve never really written about domestic politics because, frankly, it doesn’t really interest me. Cabinet re-shuffles, party conferences, scandals, who said what to whom, I just couldn’t care less. Politics for me should be about ideas and principles but too often it descends into mud-slinging and defending the indefensible for the sake of the party. Partly this is because the three major British parties coalesced around the same small piece of ground after the self-destruction of old Labour in 1992. Tony Blair became a master at winning elections but he did not attempt change the status quo, for the quite sensible reason that it would have made him unelectable. I’m not sure what historians will make of Blair, he presided over a time of great prosperity and investment in public services but it is unclear what he personally did to change British society. Under Blair’s tenure Labour did not offer anything radical or alternative, rather they portrayed themselves as the most efficient managers of public services and the economy. Outmanoeuvred and outgunned by a centrist Government the Tories lurched towards the abyss of xenophobia and Eurosceptism. Interestingly the one area where Blair had the courage to stick to his principles was in foreign policy and it is there that his legacy may be made or broken depending on the judgement of history.

The lack of a credible opposition was all fine and dandy when we enjoyed a booming economy and global stability but we now live in a time of great challenges and threats. We need a political party that can provide new ideas to tackle Global Warming, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, failed states, global disease and poverty, the economy, energy security and a multitude of other issues. And it is as we debate these important issues that, for the first time since 1992, the Tories have turned away from ugly populism and appear to be an electable proposition. The recent resurgence of the Tories has more to do with the popular image Brown as an incompetent manager rather than any great philosophical pronouncements by Dvid Cameron; yet the enormity of the global challenges faced by our Government have allowed each party to land blows on the other and we are now starting to see some clear policy emerging between right and left.

First of all one has to feel a little sympathetic for the Tories following Brown's sudden emergence into the global limelight with his banking recapitalisation plan. Never mind the fact that fiscal decisions made by Brown were party responsible for the problem or that Alistair Darling was reported to have worked out many of the details of the plan; I clearly remember the Tories talking about recapitalising the banks at least a week or two before Brown unveiled his grand scheme. At least both sides agreed to put aside their differences until the banking crisis was over but now it has subsided we have seen the first jabs and punches from two parties gearing up for a 2009 election.

The big question is will either party unveil a grand new idea or will they again rely on simple tricks and cheap spin? The first swipe in the debate came from Brown, and it was not so much a giant haymaker with a clunking fist but rather a predatory jab leaving him open to an easy counter-attack. Fresh from his success on the global stage Brown wasted no time in stating that Labour intended to spend its way out of a recession through major investment projects. It soon emerged, however, that all these projects had already been planned long ago and most of the money was earmarked for the building of two new aircraft carriers and the new Trident nuclear weapons programme, which are of dubious use to the country. I do believe that pre-planned Government projects in infrastructure, health, education, housing and energy security should be maintained and even brought forward, that is the role of the Government after all, but Brown’s announcement appears to be less a grand new vision, more a recycled trick. For a start much of the growth in the Blair-Brown years was fuelled by current account debt and cheap credit, now that bubble has burst Brown appears to want to try the same trick using the Government’s credit card and the taxpayers’ overdraft, with a blind eye turned to the consequences. Keynes recommended saving during the boom years so the Government could spend safely during the downturn, if it so chose. Brown wasn’t able to do that and all that public spending may have to come through higher taxes or a reduction in public spending in the future to pay off the now massive public debt. And although capital investment can help to lessen a downturn and revitalise the construction industry, it’s a very blunt instrument for helping the complex modern economy. For instance imagine a girl in Nottingham looses her call centre job, is she expected to move to Barrow and work as a welder on a nuclear submarine? Furthermore European and American Governments have been borrowing at record levels without being able to stave off a recession. The Iraq War may not seem like a Keynesian scheme, but when you think about it the American Government has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the manufacturing and armaments industries over seven years with little effect on macro-economic growth.

So for the first time in a fortnight the Tories were able to stop biting their tongues and start outlining their own ideas. So far, so insipid. Cameron rightly raised the spectre of higher taxes, inflation and sluggish growth as a result of increased Government debt but he also seemed unsure about what he would do with public spending now tax revenues from the financial sector have gone into hibernation. His major axis of attack seemed to be a VAT holiday for small businesses, and while this may be desirable given the current lack of liquidity, it is hardly likely to kick-start the economy before a natural recovery takes place.

What neither party has done yet is to convincinlgy address the future challenges facing the British economy. It remains to be seen whether New Labour or the Tories can suggest a solution to Britain’s current account deficit or implement a plan to diversify the economy and reduce its reliance on financial services and consumer spending in a competitive, free market world. So far we haven’t seen a new Thatcher or a new Atlee emerging into the spotlight, perhaps this should not be surprising, the situation does not yet demand such a figure and for the last 16 years free markets and public spending have taken care of everything allowing the political parties to use focus groups and cheap tricks to win elections. Focus group politics may have sustained New Labour but with economic challenges, failed states, energy security, public spending, terrorism, immigration, public services, nuclear proliferation and global warming and other issues now on the horizon, cheap tricks and tired clichés may sill get a party into power but they will quickly outlive their usefulness once the Prime Minister opens his in-tray.