Was the Tory reputation for competency a myth?

I've been trying to get my mind around the way the Conservatives have lost their reputation for being sound economically and generally competent, at least to the standards of piss ups in breweries. As someone who is instinctively suspicious of political dogma of the left or right that has been the major reason I have tended to vote conservative in elections for a long time now. This susceptibility to chaos started gradually under Boris Johnson before going to warp speed with Truss and Kwarteng. 

Sure, all governments make mistakes which become apparent sooner or later. But, for example, George Osborne's "omnishambles" budget in 2012 was trivial - a picnic in comparison (literally, as the main bit that unravelled was dubbed the "pasty tax"). 

The fundamental objective of the Truss/Kwarteng strategy (if it deserves that name) was laudable - growth. Without growth the ever increasing demands on the public purse, driven partly by the inevitability of demography, will not be fundable. But that doesn't mean you can just do what you've always wanted to, irrespective of the prevailing circumstances. Truss's comment that they went "too far and too fast" was quite an understatement. The immediate loss of market trust was the sort of thing one might have expected to follow John McDonnell's first budget, had we ever been unfortunate enough to experience it, rather than that of a Conservative chancellor.

One thing I found very odd were the references to Margaret Thatcher as a tax cutter. When she got the opportunity, yes, but Thatcher increased taxes at the start of her reign, as was required to get the public finances on a sound footing. Kwarteng and Truss seemed to forget one of the Iron Lady's best known quotes: "you can't buck the market". Thatcher's tax cutting came much later, mainly when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor. And you can argue he also went too far too fast. Lawson admirably simplified the tax regime, but his cuts to the basic and upper rate of income tax in 1988, together with artificially low interest rates as he followed the flawed strategy of shadowing the German Deutschmark at his preferred rate of 3DM to £1 in the EU's Exchange Rate Mechanism, created a housing boom and then a bust which led to higher inflation, lower growth and the recession of the early 1990s*.

So, then, does my long held belief that the Tories are more economically competent actually hold water? After all, the last time a Tory government went unconditionally for growth a bust followed. That chancellor was Anthony Barber in Ted Heath's government. I recall seeing a cartoon in a newspaper at the time that showed Barber holding up his budget red box and saying "boom!" followed by the same again, representing his next budget. In the third frame the red box went boom and in the final frame Barber was left, charred and clothes in disarray, holding the remnants of his exploded red box. 

Older readers will know that this presaged the start of a very difficult era in British politics: two general elections in 1974 narrowly won by Labour, soaring inflation and the need for a bail out by the International Monetary Fund in 1976, with cash limits imposed on the spending of government departments. The supposed austerity of the Cameron coalition government was minor in comparison.

It was Labour who lost what reputation they had left for economic competence as a result of the IMF bail out, after it was badly dented having presided over an ignominious devaluation of sterling in 1967. Yet in the meantime they had surprisingly lost the 1970 general election, handing on to the Tories a healthy economic picture after Chancellor Roy Jenkins repaired the situation, presiding over the only UK annual budget surplus between 1936 and 1988. Jenkins was blamed by Labour supporters for an overly cautious neutral rather than giveaway budget only 2 months before the 1970 election.

Labour didn't regain the electorate's trust until 1997, with Blair and Brown. They inherited a strong position from John Major and Ken Clarke, though they had the good fortune that Lawson's dalliance with the ERM, continued under Major and Norman Lamont, had ended with a even more sudden switch of policy than the transition between Kwarteng and Hunt. On "Black Wednesday" in 1992 the markets forced sterling out of the ERM but not before the government had attempted to buck the market by hiking interest rates from 10% to 12% and then farcically to 15% in one tumultuous day.

The fact that Black Wednesday became known as White Wednesday to many, as it was the catalyst for a change in policy which paved the way for 15 years of steady growth until the 2008 financial crisis, was overlooked by the electorate, who decided that the Tories had lost their economic marbles (as well as over £3billion trying to maintain sterling in the ERM) and Labour duly won the next three elections. The role Black/White Wednesday played in the growth of Tory euroscepticism is, I believe, very significant.

There are some lessons from these various crises in our recent history, most of which feel more serious than the current situation, branded a 'profound economic crisis' by our new PM in what I take to be an attempt to manage expectations. Devaluing the pound when you said you wouldn't; having to call in the IMF; trying to sustain an untenable currency rate in a sham (or at least virtual) pre-euro and being made to look idiotic by the markets all made the party of government look foolish and led to a change of government at the next election. The financial crisis of 2008 is perhaps a bit different: Labour's spendthrift policies in its third term coupled with weak regulation left the UK more vulnerable than most to the global recession that followed but that government was arguably less culpable than the other examples. They still got kicked out. On those grounds the Truss/Kwarteng fiasco looks very bad for the Tories and good for Labour.

But what about my feeling that the Tories are generally more competent? Jenkins pulled the situation round but Labour still lost. Barber blew up the economy and the Tories lost narrowly but the seeds of the inflationary seventies were laid. Labour still got the blame, though arguably they didn't do the right things to avert disaster between 1974 and 1976. Lawson also blew up the economy, but the Tories faced a weak opponent, got back in, made asses of themselves, pulled the situation round and still lost. Labour left us vulnerable to the 2008 crisis but were arguably unlucky. Truss alarmed the markets so much she didn't get the chance to do much harm**. However they still looked like idiots who didn't know what they were doing.

External factors should not be forgotten in the above history lessons: the current energy price shock is the biggest since the oil crises of the 1970s, which were material to high inflation rates around the world but this time the energy shock is combined with a war affecting one of the world's most important areas for food and fertiliser production. The sub-prime and banking crisis of 2008 wasn't of Labour's direct making. Events dear boy matter and governments tend to get punished, culpable or not. 

But not always. The Tories were re-elected with an increased majority in 1959 only two years after the ignominy of the Suez debacle***. So I expect Sunak will feel 2024 is all still to play for and Labour can't assume that they can rely entirely on government unpopularity and 'time for a change' to win. My current hunch would be that, despite Labour's large poll lead, it might well be close, with neither party held in much affection by the electorate. 

After all, the Tories curently look idiots but Starmer has still to decide what a woman is. This isn't the first question Starmer has struggled to come up with an answer for. So, even if he ever reaches an answer, he won't seem the sharpest tool in the box come the election, will he?

There have been pleas for the Tories to get back to being boring and competent. Personally I don't find competency boring and, after the 'excitement' of the last few months I suspect I'm not the only one. They desperately need a period of quiet, steady competence. What chance?

* https://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html

** some might argue this point but sterling and bond rates are back where they were before Kwarteng's "special fiscal operation" and, while mortgage rates are higher they were goibg up anyway driven by international interest rates, especially in the USA. David Smith agrees with me on this (Economic Outlook column, Sunday Times 30 October 2022)

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Jenkins#Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer_(1967%E2%80%931970)

*** Wikipedia's summary of the 1959 election notes that the econony had turned round (good luck with that Rishi) and that Labour weren't trusted because of industrial relations and nuclear disarmament issues. The latter is a bit puzzling as it wasn't a decade since a  Labour government created the British bomb. Still, not much changes, does it? History could yet repeat itself; the train drivers might be Sunak's not so secret weapon

It's the singer not the song

Having considered who was the best guitarist, bass player, keyboard player, drummer and saxophonist I have seen play live, now for singers.

I like ballet but I don't like opera. (Bear with me, this is relevant). Classically perfect operatic singing seems to me to be almost devoid of emotion. There's a further barrier if it's being sung in Italian, but even in English it's not easy to decipher words and the delivery usually doesn't give much of a clue to what the character is meant to be feeling. At least it doesn't to me.

In contrast, good performers in stage musicals put a premium on story telling. Although many are very good singers they often aren't pitch perfect, but for me they produce a more engaging watching experience. For example, there is no missing the sadness, mixed with other conflicting emotions, when you hear a good Eponine sing On My Own in my favourite musical, Les Miserables. 

Speaking of which the best live performance of anything I have ever seen was watching Philip Quast, as Javert, sing Stars at Manchester in the early 1990s. Even though this was a touring production of the west end musical there seemed to be a buzz of anticipation in the audience as we took our seats in the stalls for the first of at least half a dozen times we've now seen the famous show. When Quast held the final note for what seemed an eternity, apparently determined to outlast the orchestra, the audience leapt to its feet for the first and only standing ovation I've seen in the middle of a such a show. Holding character to the last, Javert - sorry Quast - glowered at the audience until the applause started to wane, tucked his cane under his arm and turned briskly on his heel, making his pony tail and tail coat swing out dramatically as he marched  off the stage directly away from us. The most memorable moment of any live show with singing that I've ever seen.

Quast, an actor by profession, was obviously good in the role as, when the first full performance of the entire 3hour show was made as a 3 CD set, the singers were selected from people who had performed the roles in London, New York, Tokyo and Sydney and he got the nod for one of the key roles.

All this says that, for me, the performance is an important element in singing. As singers are generally the "front man" (I nearly put "front person" and will pick up the gender point later) you spend a lot of the time looking at them, so appearance and charisma inevitably matter.

I've pondered this point about charisma since we saw the Lightning Seeds some 15 years ago. I was looking forward to it as they have a great catalogue of songs, including Lucky You, The Life of Riley (used as the musical backdrop for Match of the Day's Goal of the Month for ages in the 1990s) and, of course, the "three lions on the shirt" England song with Baddiel and Skinner. They performed them all perfectly ok, but unfortunately front man Ian Broudie, a scouse pop genius, has zero if not negative charisma which made everything feel a bit flat and perfunctory.

From seeing them live, Ian Dury had charisma in spades; Steve Marriott had plenty but was almost rabidly hyper, practically on the ceiling (perhaps substances had something to do with it!); Carlos Santana had it, as did Marc Bolan in a curious way; Robert Smith of the Cure has personality rather than charisma and Keith Emerson of course was a showman. Naturally Jagger and the Stones have it though I wondered if all really famous musicians have at least some aura just because of their fame. Phil Collins projected charisma even sitting in a chair on stage on the last Genesis tour. However, Paul Weller - who I love - doesn't really have charisma. The Clash had charisma and attitude but then many of the punk/new wave era bands had attitude. Kirk Brandon, who I'd never heard of, came swaggering on stage supporting the Clash and announced "we're Theatre of Hate" dropping the H so severely that I turned to Mrs H and said "did he say Theatre of Eight?" But he'd got my attention.

And then there's another of my favourite bands, REM. I admire Michael Stipe and I'm very attached to my playlist of 57 of the best REM songs. But he does come across as a bit weird, to the extent that I felt faintly uneasy watching him. Stipe is a superb creative musician but doesn't fit my bill for best singer.

Neither does Anthony Keidis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, though I love many of his songs and he sang well on the two times I've seen him live, ranging from melodically sweet to powerful when needed. But not much charisma or performance, the visual interest mainly came from bass player Flea living up to the reason for his nickname and barely standing still.

In rock music a sweet, melodic singer can seem a bit safe and tame, though Jon Anderson of Yes didn't. I didn't see the Beatles or Paul McCartney live but Macca can come across a bit this way on recordings, though he gives it a bit more welly live. For me John Lennon was the voice of the second half of the 20th Century but he wasn't often a great live singer, very prone to being flat. But bands with only one main singer can sound samey: the McCartney - Lennon combination worked so well, with Lennon providing an acerbic cutting edge to lyrical McCartney songs like Eleanor Rigby and We Can Work It Out. 

Bands with two or more singers give variety, especially if there is either a male - female mix, e.g. Fleetwood Mac (no, I didn't see them either) or just a low and high voice combination. Joe Strummer and Mick Jones were hardly great singers but the different voices give the opportunity for interesting harmonies and golly those two work for me. But one main singer can cut the mustard if they have enough character and variation in their voice - Jagger being a good example, together with putting on a great show, though I saw them in a stadium, which is always a bit like watching it on the telly.

It may sound sexist to younger readers but I haven't seen many female singers. Indeed I haven't seen many female rock musicians. That's just the way it was. One can debate whether the female vocal range is best suited to rock music, but maybe it's best not to these days. For those like me with impaired upper range hearing (too many gigs, probably) the male vocal range is better for hearing, whether it's singing over music or a radio or TV announcer. That really isn't sexist, it's the response of my lugholes to sound waves. That said I love Debbie Harry as a singer and she did ok when I saw her live, sometime after she was at her best. And Sonja Kristina was very impressive with Curved Air in the early 70s. Supporting Black Sabbath they completely overshadowed them. Sorry Ozzy, but she blew you off the stage man!

Another band I'd have liked to see was U2 and Bono would be my favourite singer on recordings after Lennon. He's got a cracking voice - literally on songs like One  and his love song to his dad, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own. Which conveys drama and emotion for me rather than lack of ability but you pays your money...

Two outstanding rock singers I did get to see were Robert Plant and Ian Gillan. I got to see Led Zep just before LZ III was released and, before bands had got too worried about bootlegs, they were previewing songs from the unreleased new album, including Stairway To Heaven. I saw Gillan perhaps half a dozen times with Deep Purple between 1970 and their 25th anniversary tour in 1992. That was the first gig we took our sons to, both still primary school age. If you start with Deep Purple at that age it's not surprising if the metal turns very heavy as they get older; all my fault I suppose. Plant and Gillan would be my ideal for what a rock singer should look like (at least while they were still young!) and Gillan could really hold a tune. His renditions of Child In Time, requiring the full singing to screaming range, were great (from memory anyway).

Indeed, for most of the next 40 years after I first saw him I would have gone for Gillan as the best I'd seen live, until I saw a performance by rock singer that took my breath away. Not as much as Quast but still by far the most impressive and powerful vocal performance I've seen at a rock gig. That was Midge Ure singing with Ultravox. When he sang Vienna, in particular that word in the chorus, there was so much power in his voice that he eased the mike gradually away to avoid overloading it. Power to spare and control with it.

Even if he did get booted out in the first round of Popstar to Operastar, Midge Ure is the best vocalist I've seen, though I suspect Gillan or Plant would fit better into my "supergroup" along with Keith Emerson, Jimmy Page, Jon Hiseman, Flea and Dick Heckstall-Smith. And he's got a great nickname*.

Though, in Ure's famous Band Aid collaboration with Bob Geldof, it was Bono who was chosen to sing the key line "and tonight thank God it's them instead of you"** which kind of proves my point about Bono's ability to convey emotion. So I suspect if I had got to see Bono, I'd have gone for him.

* Midge's proper name is James. Midge is, of course, Jim backwards

** Apparently none of the many famous singers assembled for the recording faniced having to deliver that line, but Geldof was very clear who was going to do it