There isn’t a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘national treasure’ when talking about a person, nor an application process or selection procedure. People just become ‘national treasures’ by stealth – the precise moment often unknown – after being in the public eye for a sufficiently long time and having garnered enough respect from the public to be almost universally well regarded to the point of being all but untouchable by criticism. Joanna Lumley has probably crossed that line, her impressive and honourable campaign for Ghurkha veterans sealing the deal, and as proof of this new political near-invincibility is her recent interview in Saga Magazine.
Ms Lumley told Saga Magazine that Britain has lost the ‘zing’ factor which once made the country so great and cited the loss of the Empire as a contributing factor. Generally any mention of the E-word in anything but a wholly negative sense leads to instant savaging, however using her new ‘national treasure’ status Ms Lumley survived unharmed. I must however disagree with Ms Lumley, just a little, in pointing the finger of blame regarding Britain’s lost “zing” at the end of Empire. Britain in the ‘80s had “zing”, Britain in the swinging ‘60s partly had “zing”, and throughout history Britain has had “zing” – whatever “zing” actually is – but when asking where that energetic, innovative, imaginative and aspirational “zing” has gone we need only look at the government.
In every field the Labour Government since 1997 has had an unbelievable lack of energy and imagination – worse even than previous Labour governments – and this poverty of aspiration has stifled Britain in the most depressing of ways.
In foreign affairs it is perhaps most telling, Labour pursuing a dual policy of subservience to the US and the EU that betrays not only Britain but also those very partners. America does not want or need a poodle partner, as Blair was in many ways aptly portrayed. They loved Margaret Thatcher – like Churchill before her – because they want and need a strong partner with a strong will. America has so resolutely shrugged its national shoulders at sycophantic Brown, desperate for their attention and love, because his government isn’t the strong ally they need. Closer to home but similarly uninspired is our bizarre relationship with Europe. Labour’s poverty of aspiration for Britain – seeing an ever closer Europe as our “destiny” – combined with our national Euroscepticism has left us as a Victor Meldew like passenger complaining endlessly yet offering no alternative before reluctantly agreeing in the end. But Europe does not want or need an unwilling yet unimaginative passenger, and nor do the British public want to be it.
Back in Britain the abysmal Labour mindset has drained our energy and set our sights low in a similar fashion. Whilst Hong Kong and Osaka built grand new airports on artificial islands, with flight paths far away from population centres, Labour plans to add an insufficiently sized third runway to a badly designed airport located in the wrong place. Plans for high speed rail are equally lacking. Once upon a time great engineers such as Brunel designed with not only the ambition to build the best but the plans to do so. They built grand termini and impressive infrastructure, projecting their vision through company names declaring that greatness – Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Northern - but whilst Sir Edward Watkin set out to build a railway from Manchester to Paris in 1864, Labour in 2010 thinks a line between London and Birmingham is ambitious. The sheer contrast is evident in the names – Watkin built the Great Central, Labour proposes the unexciting “High Speed 2”.
Now if Labour’s poverty of national aspiration was confined to these areas then that may be manageable, but we know that it isn’t. In education, healthcare, the economy, and every other policy area, Labour has failed not just on delivery but ambition. There is however another way...
Today David Cameron launched the Conservative Party’s manifesto. In the pages of this unassuming book, bound in deepest blue, are what are I believe to be the most radical blueprints for reform ever published by a major political party. Californian it may be, but its mantra of empowering people and transforming the state into the servant of the people is also instinctively Tory. It’s a manifesto that says we as a society can do whatever it takes to build a better future – just as Churchill proved we could do whatever necessary to defeat fascism – and that says we as individuals are best placed to govern our lives – just as Thatcher proved we were best placed to govern ourselves in the 80s. It’s a manifesto not to get rid of government, but to make it work with us rather than over us. It’s a manifesto that announces that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams, a manifesto that believes in us as a country and in our capacity to achieve great things. It’s a manifesto that doesn’t just sound Californian, it sounds like one particular Californian.
Those on the Left will call it unrealistic, over-ambitious and idealistic - some on the Right will say the same - but the truth is together we can and will resolve the problems we face just as we have before. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that, we're Conservatives?