I attended a conference hosted by the Center for Policy Studies today on ‘the post-bureaucratic age’. Its greatest exponents admit this is not the snappiest of titles. But workmanlike or not, the morning’s speeches grouped around the topic were electrifying. There was a large number of Shadow Cabinet and Shadow Ministers present; Michael Gove, David Willets, Eric Pickles, Sayeeda Warsi, Oliver Letwin, Greg Clark, Caroline Spelman, Grant Shapps and others. Detailed reference was made to the work of other colleagues not present, like Chris Grayling and his paper on welfare reform. David Cameron attended for most of it and gave his concluding remarks at the end.
The speeches were short, especially in the second session, and were described, tongue in cheek, as “Shadow Cabinet speed dating”. What was so exciting, though, was the coherent Conservative vision coming through in every area of policy discussed.
Sometimes I’m asked ‘Why are you a Conservative?’ to which my stock response is ‘Because Conservative means deliver liberal ends’. Never has that been clearer than this morning. If tabloid reporters, or, dare I say it, even ConHome had been present, there might have been a bit of choking on cornflakes. Certain “red rag” images and topics were raised. Relative inequality, for example. Greg Clark – and several others – repeated his use of Polly Toynbee’s ‘caravan’ metaphor. To Cameron’s government, elimination of absolute poverty will only be a first step.
But purists should examine the nature of the solutions being offered. Everything is evaluated through a prism of social justice – how can we end educational inequality, child poverty, severe poverty of adults, racial disparity, the wealth gap between the sexes? These were the questions, and there were those in the audience who objected even to those questions being put. But the answers to those questions offered by Greg Clark, by Sayeeda, by Michael Gove and David Willetts – those answers were impeccably conservative with both small and big Cs.
Essentially, the government in waiting has looked at sick Britain and concluded that Labour isn’t working. Not from ill intentions, but because their only answer is to throw state aid and money at any given problem. The Conservatives, we were told over and over, are more ambitious. They are not prepared merely to mask a problem by patching a benefit over it. Instead, they want to tackle the problem itself. Labour’s handouts treat the symptoms; Tory radicalism will treat the actual disease.
The problems in each department were diverse. The remedies were not. Today, the audience heard an overarching philosophy. One, to devolve power and choice down to communities and often to individuals. Two, to eliminate bureaucracy, both in terms of physical form-filling but more importantly in terms of useless central control. Three, to re-imagine the power of the state from the dead hand of authoritarian dictator to a permissive ladder which communities and people can use themselves to better their situations.
Michael Gove’s acclaimed policy on schools – to liberate the entire sector, freeing them from local authority control and letting the money follow the pupil – is perhaps the most obvious example. But there are plenty of others. Grant Shapps talked about community land purchases, tied up in government red tape, enacted by Westminster so local people could build and sell affordable local housing as they wished themselves, not as government dictated. David Willetts talked about a vocational equivalent of UCAS, so that those talented pupils wanting to enter the vocational sector have their own solid resource, with UK-wide info, for training, apprenticeships, rates of pay, and job opportunities. Sayeeda Warsi spoke eloquently against the dangers of patronising ethnic minority citizens by treating them merely as members of a group and not as equal individual citizens (amongst other dangers). Greg Clark showed very convincingly that Labour’s tax credits are keeping people trapped just above the poverty line, whilst they distort the labour market and mask a growing class of people whose underlying poverty is only patched over with government money – never cured. We were later given an example of a woman with a disabled daughter, who had to answer 1275 questions to receive benefits. The form looked like a telephone book. Labour’s dominant, scary benefits system penalises couples staying together, disincentivises work, keeps children trapped just above poverty, and makes the disabled frightened even to take a district councillor’s allowance lest they lose their benefits.
The Tory approach will be to simplify and liberate. Ours is a whole-policy answer, and aims to fix the problem itself, not just to alleviate its effects. Poverty, we were told today, has multiple causes and requires multiple solutions. To make sure the parents can stay together without penalty. To give that child the choice of multiple exceptional schools, one sure route out of deprivation. To make sure that all those who can work are able to do so, with all the financial and health benefits that attach to work. To give the best possible chance of cost-effective, and decent, social housing.
The overall approach is not timid. It is radical. A radical dismantling of the idea that “the man in Whitehall really does know best”. In every policy area, we saw the consistent thought; how do we push power away from the centre and out to the people. If that means dismantling the “long term disability” benefits culture, local education sink schools, and the tax credit trap, then that is what will be done. The goals are over-archingly ambitious. David Cameron was asked about lower taxes. ‘I am a low-tax Tory,’ he replied. (I paraphrase) ‘I believe the economy does better when people can decide how to spend more of their own money. But lower taxes have to be sustainable. And in order for that to happen, we must reduce the demands on the state.’ Tackling the deprivation of the most vulnerable was not just morally right, but one key to lowering taxation. Conservatism, he said, was all about equality of opportunity. Under Labour, the poorest are denied that key measure of equality. All speakers today were determined that should not remain the case when we take power. They called this devolution revolution “the post-bureaucratic age”. I can see why. But I think ‘Cameronism’ is better.
