Could Cameronism be better than Thatcherism?
David Brooks has written in the New York Times that the Republican focus has become too narrow, too focused on freedom:
All very Cameroon (but I've long believed Brooks should be/ is a guru for Cameron). Real his full column here.
Where Brooks and Cameron are right - in this week that we celebrate
Margaret Thatcher's 30th anniversary of coming to power - is that
Reagan and Thatcher cannot represent the last word in terms of
conservatism. Their projects were incomplete as Lady Thatcher has
herself acknowledged. Iain Duncan Smith (speaking in Washington DC) put it best of all a couple of months ago:
"At the end of the Thatcher years Britain was transformed. Europe’s sickest economy had become its strongest. The recipe had been low taxes. Simple taxes. Effective regulation. Privatisation. Free trade. Reform of the trade union movement. Intolerance of inflation.
They were necessary things to have done and I don’t say that lightly. They saved Britain from terminal economic decline. But somehow they didn’t create a nation that was quite at ease with itself. Margaret Thatcher knew that herself and used her memoirs to regret that she hadn’t been able to initiate ‘Social Thatcherism’.
As we rebuild our economies from today’s tough times we are going to need simpler taxes and open markets but the lesson of the 1980s is that those things won’t be enough.
When the next period of conservative government ends I want the British people to remember us for other things too. For helping parents to stay together and to spend more time with their children. For a nation where every one has a second chance. For building schools that reinforce the values of the home. For respecting and nurturing the skill of craftsmen. For protecting woodland and other habitats of rich natural beauty. For helping a new generation to understand their country’s history. That’s the conservatism that will help make my country strong and contented again."
Tim Montgomerie
Comments