Resilient, but still not radical

Gordon Brown's resilience is astonishing. Just weeks ago a politically insane leadership challenge seemed to promise electoral annihilation. But like one of those clown punching bags, each devastating blow only energises the rebound of the prime minister's weirdly grinning face. Not that this resilience is purely down to him. The Tories have amateurishly led with their chins, losing points in an election fight with confused and ill-defined messages. Single-digit poll leads at this stage of the cycle are a stinging rebuke to the Conservative campaign. A diminishing Tory lead also puts paid to the fashionable argument that elections are about personalities rather than policies. It is surely no coincidence that the narrowing in the polls follows news the recession has ended: a recovering economy lends credence to Brown's claims that his economic policies have worked. David Cameron's gentle remoulding of his party's image may have been necessary, but it is insufficient. Voters and commentators alike are increasingly turning their attention to what a new government would do. These calculations must have informed the prime minister's electioneering speech yesterday at the King's Fund , a health thinktank. Among other undertakings, he announced one-to-one nursing for cancer patients and pledged to deliver more care in the home for those with long-term conditions. He also reaffirmed his autumn conference promise that patients with the greatest needs will be entitled to free personal care. These proposals are part of a more ambitious plan to reform the system of elderly care and establish a rather grandly entitled National Care Service . The government's proposals contrast well with Andrew Lansley's flaccid health manifesto launched in January. The Tories' effort was remarkable mostly for its effort to scale back previous commitments in response to the country's ruined public finances. So, following yesterday's speech, the Conservatives were quick to point out that now is hardly a time to be making expensive new commitments. They're right. It's rubbish to suggest, as the prime minister did, that new spending can be funded with savings of some £2.7bn a year by providing more care in the community and in people's homes. First, we still don't know how to translate new patterns of service into cashable savings. Second, the development of new patterns of service is likely to require upfront investment. And third, getting substantial amounts of money out of the system requires acts of political courage that neither party seems willing to take – acts like closing hospitals that are no longer safe or needed. Yet from an electoral point of view, the government is gaining traction. Although the depth of the public's enmity still means a Labour victory is improbable, a small Conservative majority or a hung parliament looks more likely by the day. This is in no small part because in health, as in other areas, Labour is entrenching the perception that the Tories lack serious policies. This is unfair: they have plenty, but most are technocratic and badly communicated. For its part, the government remains vulnerable to the charge that its ideas cannot be funded. But the power of this argument dissipates with each indication that the economy and tax receipts are recovering. A frank and detailed budget next month would also help. The Tories have been dismissive of the government's attempt to paint them as policy-lite. This is a mistake. To press home the advantage, as James Purnell recently argued , Labour needs to advance a radical and reforming manifesto. Good, distinctive ideas are still needed to win elections.