Little boy lost!

Appearing blinking before the cameras, having changed his normal short trousers and blazer for a smart business suit, and after handing his school cap to his butler, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne presented what he called his 'new economic model for growth' in a speech to the gathered members of the press. He promised to set out 'in detail' the Conservatives new economic policy document.

At first glance, ideas to ensure macroeconomic stability, of which deficit cutting is the main plank, seem really good. Preserving Britain's AAA credit rating is important, and is something the government is also concerned about. The apprehensions in this respect are due to a report by Standard and Poors which said that Britain had a weak economic environment, and that the banks reputation had taken a considerable hit, and has had to rely on a lot of state support.

However, it then went on to say, "(T)he U.K. system has a reputation of being both open and attractive to new lenders. Representing a major financial pool, we consider that the U.K. market will remain appealing." Therefore, Standard and Poors seem to be saying that although things are bleak at the moment, as indeed they are everywhere, Britain's underlying financial principles remain attractive to outsiders, and will continue to attract investment.

So, not the damning economic indictment of Britain's economic future that the Conservative's like to portray. Indeed, the Conservative's equivocation on what they will do in this area, is potentially more damaging to the economy, as markets are uncertain how what they would really do. This is, of course, all compounded by the complete lack of detail on where the cuts will come, and 'in a large part' what they will be cut by.

The other points of a more balanced economy, reducing youth unemployment, reform of public services, sound like things we can all agree with but all suffer from two main weaknesses. Firstly that there is no indication of where the money will come from. They have long pledged to cut £4.5 billion from the schools building fund, and there doesn't seem to be a plan to redirect any of it into other areas. The second issue is that the Conservatives aren't explaining how this would all work. The policies lack the important detail required to inspire confidence.

The Conservatives also seem to be setting themselves up for a series of rows with the banks. They, like the government, are looking to reform the banking system, but the banks will not lie down and just take it. The way they have very quickly attempted to revert back to the culture of bonuses, and disdain for the public, shows an institution that does not learn from its mistakes, and wiil not go quietly into the night.

The government are also going to have these problem, you would say, and are almost certainly right. The Tories, though, are likely to compound the situation because, according to Robert Peston, of, "(A) negotiated entente with the Bank of England (which) would taint the central bank's hard-won independence." This independence has recently been an annoyance to the government, as its governor Mervyn King has been warning of the hardship ahead, and mildly critical of policy. But, it had also been one of the mainstays of the decade of continuous growth that preceded the recession, because it made the decisions on interest rates and monetary policy, and was free of government interference.

The Tories have always stated that regulation is strangling enterprise in the United Kingdom, but their ideas of improving tax competitiveness rankings and regulation are not expanded upon. It is all very well stating it as an intent, but as governments have found for time immemorial, these things are easier said than done.

In contrast to this Osborne highlighted an ambition to ensure that the whole country shares in prosperity, especially outside London and the South-East. This, however, would require a Conservative government to regulate to encourage businesses to establish themselves in these areas. This is not only contrary to David Cameron's pledge to end top down government, but is against their free market principles.

Finally their ideas for a greener economy are, by reducing emissions and increasing green technologies, almost a carbon copy (groan) of the Labour governments.

The Spectator is a well respected Conservative supporting magazine. But on their website Tuesday afternoon editor Fraser Nelson wrote, "I'm afraid I did not detect a 'new economic model' in George Osborne's speech. He has said he will eliminate a large part of the deficit over the next parliament." Osborne kept repeating this mantra under press interrogation, but I can't see Tories posters emblazoned with 'We'll cut the deficit in large part' catching the public imagination. However, Nelson's most damaging accusation came when he said, the deficit plan, "(W)as even woolier than Labour's plans to halve it."

Even Andrew Neill, former editor of the Sunday Times, was less than respectful. describing the speech as 'major' (using that too often seen signal of making quotation marks with his fingers), on Tuesday's Daily Politics. They highlighted how the Tories have moved away from talking of cuts, to growth. Now I'm not going to condemn this, but it wasn't that long ago at the Manchester Conference, in which he stated, "Tackling Britain's debt crisis" as his biggest priority. In recent days David Cameron has said there will be no 'swingeing cuts' in the first year, and whilst it is good to see the Tories moving away from the idea of drastic cuts in public spending, they are not providing the plans to 'balance the economy.'

This description of wooliness could well be applied to the entire Conservative economic plan. No idea is explained or costed. Every time he was asked for specifics Osborne just wriggled and refused to give details. He was like a little boy lost, his homework was too hard and even though he had tried to copy the boy at the top of the class, he didn't understand what it was he had read out.