I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises...

David Cameron has finally lost the plot. Apparently Oliver Letwin has committed the Conservatives to matching Labour's pledge to end child poverty by 2020. (See here - it's actually true)

I think this would be like Neil Kinnock turning round in 1987 and announcing his intention to 'Nuke them Russkies back to the stone age'. ("I warn you...")

I mean, there's "modernisation" and there's "modernisation". In 1997 Labour did move to the centre ground - but Labour didn't actually pretend to be the Conservatives - I know people liked to joke about it but, really. Labour were pledged to bring in a minimum wage. To devolve power. To abolish the NHS internal market and bring down class sizes.

If Cameron actually wants to get actual Tories to vote for him at some point he's going to have to have at least some Tory policies. But if you're promising to end child poverty how on earth are you supposed to "share the proceeds of growth" [read: slash taxes] as he's pledged to do?

What are you going to do, flipper, have a few jumble sales? no matter how many rice crispie cakes Auntie Mavis sells, the voluntary sector is hardly going to make up for the fundamental inequalities of the modern, globalised economy.

But as discussed here before, that's Cameron's vision. This is him in February;

"You cannot have a smaller state unless you have bigger, more responsible people. Growing levels of social breakdown are creating growing demands for welfare and other forms of government intervention. Limited government is impossible without renewing the forms of behaviour and social structure that prevent poverty and create community. Communities are not created from the top down, but built from the bottom up."

"Here, I don't think the voluntary sector has an important role to play. I believe that the voluntary sector has the crucial role to play."

Aside from this garbled wishful thinking, and Letwin's vague waffle about "Social Entrepreneurship" (which I think is Tory for "motherhood and apple pie") there's no actual commitment to do anything about achieving this target. Which incidently has been downgraded to an "aspiration".

So herein lies an opportunity. With the Tories committed to matching this pledge, as well as NHS spending, as well as spending on international development, there is a real chance the public will end up taking a position that a fairer tax burden is simply the only way to go to make that work. And if we can achieve that much then the next election is half way won - since Cameron will have to commit to tax cuts, having made "sharing the proceeds of growth" a leadership pledge. (nothing, of course, is certain with "Flip Flop").

At the very least this frees up a Labour Prime minister (whichever or whoever) to take more radical action to achieve the pledge (It's still a pledge on the Labour side of the house). Which, frankly, is no bad thing.

For once I agree with Tebbit - Cameron is selling the Tories down the river. And it's a pleasure to watch it. What's even more striking is how ill-thought out this rather rushed statement is. As Kate Green from End Child Poverty pointed out to the Guardian;

"If the Conservatives really want to end child poverty, they must also commit themselves to further increases in child benefit and child tax credits, alongside greater investment in things like affordable childcare and decent housing,"

So whilst I think it's a huge strategic blunder right onto Labour ground, until they commit to spending real money on real things for real kids then I'm just going to have to tell Cameron, Letwin, IDS and the rest of that rather creepy gang of patronising snake-oil salesmen that I'm just not buying it.

This is old fashioned heartless Tory populism at it's best - not compassionate Conservatism. Willing the ends without willing the means is morally bankrupt opportunism.

So come on flopsie, Show me the money. Show me the money.