Where's the clear blue water between Blair and Cameron?

At his last press conference of 2005 Tony Blair said that David Cameron's only big idea was to become more like New Labour.

I thought we might try and make a list of differences that still exist between the more centrist Conservative Party led by David Cameron and Tony Blair's increasingly precarious New Labour project...

On tuition fees, a more cautious approach to school choice and climate change there is a coming together but where does the clear blue water still exist?

I've started by identifying David Cameron's support for marriage and his opposition to Tony Blair's "EU rebate deal".

What would you highlight?

Comments

[Frank Young]

The State vs. Society argument.

We might see (we already have done with Brown) an increasing difference on the role of the state vs. social action.

Blair/Brown want to increase state spending and action to ensure "fairness" Cameron's Conservatives want to promote local action to ensure effectiveness.

I'm predicting that Cameron's "there is such a thing as society...it's just not the same as the state" policies will start to reflect this difference. We'll wait and see...

[wasp]

This is a bit rich considering Tony Blair's sucess as leader of the opposition was becoming more like the Conservatives.

I'd like to highlight the emphasis on competitiveness in the economy and education needed to meet the challenges of globalisation.

[RobC]

To me the big difference is that Blair and Labour think they know what is best for individuals, whilst Cameron and Tories think that people know what is best for themselves and should be enabled to choose.

[Chris Palmer]

"Tony Blair said that David Cameron's only big idea was to become more like New Labour."

Funny, I always thought it was Blair that stole the Conservative policies to make himself electable.

[a-tracy]

Cameron won't have Brown stopping him going further with his change agenda,

and

Cameron is the future, Blair was the future once!

[Andrew]

So your first two are just differences of tactics, nuance and style, rather than concrete policy? And you call that 'clear blue water'? Oh dear...

[Guido Fawkes]

Wrong question.

List the differences between Blair and his party.

Then compare to the difference between Cameron and Blair. Blair should join the Cameron's Conservatives, not least because he's one of the only Neo-Cons at Labour Party conference.

[James Turner]

What a pathetic comment by Blair. We actually need to keep plugging away at the centre and hope that a Brown-led Labour party are panicked into looking for clear red water.

We also need to keep up the momentum that's pushing the leadership and the rank and file in the Labour Party apart - when it's Conservative votes enacting key structural reforms to our public services the electorate will see a credible alternative government contrasted with a divided and confused labour party.

[Derek]

Blair wants the Conservative MEPs to remain in the EPP-ED group, whereas David Cameron wants them to leave and form a new group.

Conservatives want controlled and limited immigration, whereas Labour only talks about it.

Conservatives will share the proceeds of growth between reducing the burden of tax and spending on public services. Labour will spend it all on unreformed public services.

[NEW NAME NEEDED]

Blair will agree to anything that keeps his face in the media. He's a narcissus. He's essentially a weak character, who needs a big image to hide behind, and who surrounds himself with strong characters/other organisations to handle his responsibilities for him. (Cherie/Campbell/Mandelson/Brown/Clarke/Reid/George Bush etc etc) If anything goes wrong, he'll find a scapegoat/victim to blame and it's never him or anyone he appointed at fault. His inner weakness makes him pi$$ easy for others to manipulate - most recently Chirac - previously Dubya had him over a barrel.

Cameron is not so image dependent as a character, but he has the same skill at playing the image game. This unnerves Blair as he cannot read him. Blair understands a game where there are no values. Cameron has plenty. He has the strength of personality not to need to assassinate those who cross him Blair-style. He has the English trtaditional public school quality of being able to give someone a kick in the Rs without using his boot.

[a-tracy]

Labour have reformed the public services Derek – we pay more for less, they bleat about the Tories not wanting the extra investment in schools, hospitals and the police, but if extra spending is without reform (as it has been) then we end up with more expense for a reduced local service e.g.

Locally they want to close a couple of small primary schools to cut costs.

Locally they removed our local out-of-hours GP service. Now I have read they are worried they can't afford the repercussions of their GP contract (pension obligation) now let alone in the future.

Locally our police and fire services are threatening with closure and amalgamation how does that improve them?

According to Blair, Cameron wants to return to 11+ selection (although I thought this was a DD policy with extra grammar schools).