Cameron: Modern Conservatism

David Cameron gave a major speech today - entitled Modern Conservatism.  Extracts are posted below.  More analysis will come tomorrow [31/1: see Tuesday's newslinks]...

"Amongst the many things that the Thatcher revolution changed was the Labour Party. Gradually, the Labour leadership came to realise that the changes of the 1980s were irreversible, because people didn't want to reverse them. People didn't want to go back to Clause 4, class warfare and industrial strife. A more middle-class Britain wanted a middle-class lifestyle based on a prosperous market economy.

Tony Blair understood this - profoundly understood it. And people could see he understood it. So they could see that New Labour really was new. But there was something else that Tony Blair understood. He understood that some people had been left behind.

In point of fact, he wasn't the first person to understand that. Margaret Thatcher herself became increasingly worried that not everyone was participating in her property-owning democracy. She became increasingly worried that the new, open economy was not tackling problems of family breakdown, crime, poor schooling, drug dependency and the decline of respect in parts of our inner cities. She made a famous speech invoking religion as a means of enriching our sense of social obligation.

Her successor, John Major, was even more acutely aware of the problem of those left behind. It was he who sought to make Britain a nation at ease with itself. It was he who formulated the desire to make Britain a truly classless society - explicitly wanting to tackle the problems of an underclass of people left behind...

...But it was Tony Blair who made the aims of a stronger economy and more decent society most explicit, with his twin focus on 'social justice and economic efficiency'. His aims were not markedly different to Mrs Thatcher's aims, or John Major's aims. But they were new for Labour. The 'new bit' of New Labour was the equivalence granted to economic efficiency.

Tony Blair saw that the task of New Labour was to preserve the fruits of the Thatcher revolution - the open market economy and the end of the 'us vs. them' mentality - whilst making real progress to include the excluded minority. On that prospectus, he won the 1997 election.

Tony Blair's victory in that election created a problem for the Conservative Party. It was not the same sort of problem that Old Labour had faced. It was not a problem that arose from the failure of our ideas. It was, on the contrary, a problem that arose from the triumph of our ideas...

...There was in truth nothing fundamentally new about the New Labour analysis except that the Party offering it was Labour. The market economy New Labour set out to protect was a market economy that Conservatives had fostered. The social ills New Labour set out to cure were social ills that Conservatives - Margaret Thatcher and John Major alike - had tried to cure. So we, as a Party, were left opposing a Prime Minister who claimed that his aims were far closer to our own. From this fundamental fact sprang most of the difficulties we faced over the last decade.

We knew how to rescue Britain from Old Labour. We knew how to win the battle of ideas with Old Labour. We did not know how to deal with our own victory in that battle of ideas. That victory left us with an identity crisis.

Despite its 1997 prospectus, the Government has failed to maintain the competitiveness of our economy, and has failed to lift the excluded out of the trap of multiple deprivation in which they find themselves. We have seen neither economic efficiency, nor social justice.

The reasons for these failures are instructive. In both domains - economic and social - the Blair/Brown Government has put its faith in legislation, regulation and bureaucracy. Wherever they have seen a problem, they have seen action by the state as the solution. This is why we have seen an unprecedented growth in the size of the administration - both in the civil service and in the public sector more widely.

Why has the Government resorted to these failing bureaucratic measures?

Partly because that is the natural instinct of the Labour Party - and especially of Gordon Brown.

Partly because, unless checked, it is the natural instinct of the civil service.

But there is another reason. Tony Blair wants results fast. He wants results visible. He wants results that are visibly the results of his actions. So he is not really interested in long-term changes of culture if they do not produce short-term effects.

And now, with the quest for a legacy becoming an all-consuming mission, the short term just got shorter. For Tony Blair, the short term is now not just next year - it's next month, next week.

He is not really interested in sustainable change if it is brought about by businesses, social enterprises, neighbourhoods, families or individuals - without a visible link to the actions of his Government. This is Government governed by appearance, a Government in which - to use David Blunkett's immortal phrase - a day without an initiative is seen as a day wasted.

It is government of the short term, by the short term, for the short term.

The principal task for us is now clear. 'Social justice and economic efficiency' are the common ground of British politics. We have to find the means of succeeding where the government has failed.

As we set about this task, we have a clear picture in our minds of the Britain we are trying to build. And we have a clear idea of the way we are going to build it. We have at last come to terms with our own victory in the battle of ideas. There is no need to refight those battles - because they have been won.

We now know that we have the opportunity to combine the preservation of the Conservative economic inheritance with the resolution of the social problems which were left unresolved at the end of our time in government - and which remain unresolved after a thousand short-term bureaucratic initiatives.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which no child grows up trapped in the multiple deprivation of family breakdown, drug and alcohol dependency, decayed housing, dangerous neighbourhoods and poor education.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which the financial power of a free, competitive, open market economy is harnessed to provide first-rate, universally available public services.

But we want to go further than this.

We understand, unlike Labour, that social justice and economic efficiency are not enough to meet people's aspirations today.

We have a picture in our minds of a Britain in which the quality of life matters as much as the quantity of money. Where the passions of a new generation for a more beautiful and a more sustainable environment are fulfilled. And in which the relief of poverty across the globe is not an add-on, something additional to our aims, but a central part of our vision.

We also know that we cannot build such a Britain in a rush, with a hailstorm of government initiatives. We know that the only way to build such a Britain is for government to lay solid foundations upon which civil society and the individual can rely and then to release the boundless energies of civil society and of individuals.

Instead of issuing top-down instructions, we will enable bottom-up solutions. Instead of pulling the same statist levers and expecting different results, we will respond to state failure by empowering individuals and civil society. Instead of public service reform at the pace of the Warwick agreement with the trades unions, we will deliver the improvements we need through real modernisation. That is what we mean by trusting people and sharing responsibility.

The change we are making recognises that we have won the battle of ideas.

That, as are result, our aspirations are shared by others on the common ground of British politics; aspirations for a vibrant open economy; a decent society in which no-one is left behind; and where everyone who needs it gets a second chance.

But we should also be clear that the change we are making takes us beyond those aspirations to see happiness, quality of life, and environmental sustainability as central goals of progressive government.

Our process of change is also a recognition that, to realize these aspirations, we need to win the last battle - the battle to replace short-term bureaucratic fixes with long-term sustainable solutions brought about by individuals and civil society building on firm foundations laid by government.

And, as a Conservative Party changed by those recognitions begins to build a better Britain, we will be fulfilling, not betraying our inheritance.

We will be showing that we have understood our past, and that we can see the way to our future."

Comments

[Goldie]

Cameron said, inter alia:

On the plus side, we have to acknowledge ... that spending on public services has markedly increased.

What Cameron is saying here is that, on the "plus side" the State has taken "markedly" more money from its citizens and spent/wasted it as the State saw fit. If this is Modern Compassionate Conservatism, then I am not a Modern Compassionate Conservatism. (Although I personally believe that I am a Conservative and Cameron, at least when he is saying these types of things, an impostor, who is espousing social democracy, which is neither just nor efficient).

It ties in with Cameron's main problem: his trite formula "sharing the proceeds of growth between tax cuts and increased public spending" is a completely incoherent concept, as anyone realizes who thinks about it for a while.

It is based on the Socialist Presumption that there is a Cake To Be Divided. The problem being, of course, that the Economy is not some kind of machine "producing" a Cake (wealth) that, once it's been created, must be, somehow, be "divided" by the State. Alas, Cameron's whole philosophy is based on this profound fallacy and is therefore so muddled, so incoherent, so meaningless.

In fact, of course, the economy is a DYNAMIC thing, wealth is created and destroyed and consumed and redistributed each and every day. It follows, naturally, that the effect of government interventionism and public spending on wealth creation are crucially important. This, I would have thought, is the central insight of classical economics, from Adam Smith to Hayek, with which I would expect a man of Cameron's education, background and intelligence to be thoroughly familiar.

The very basis of his thought, then, consists of Socialist Dogma, and therefore leads him astray.

But the media and the public are so economically illiterate that it might take a very long time for people to fully realise this.

In the end though, when Brown will ask for the NUMBERS to back up the waffle, Cameron will come crashing down. Inevitably, he is either going to promise the SAME spending as Labour (hence no tax cuts hence no difference) or he is going to promise LOWER spending plus some tax cuts. Brown will then attack him mercilessly for "cutting" services and we will be back to square one.

Instead of his inane formula, Cameron should start attacking Labour's waste, its overregulation, bureaucracy etc. (there is some of this in the second half of the speech but it's incoherently tied to the Big Theme in the beginning).

This is the way forward. You need to say: yes, we are going to spend less that Labour but we will do more with the money, and with the tax cuts and deregulation we will create more wealth. That is the conservative way.

A Conservative leader who fails to espouse this View simply does not deserve to win the elections.

[Rob G]

Goldie: It is based on the Socialist Presumption that there is a Cake To Be Divided
Actually that is something that Mrs Thatcher believed. To quote Lord Saatchi's remiscences about the winning arguments of her era [Daily Telegraph 1/5/04] They said that a 'bigger cake means a bigger slice for everyone'. But, first, you had to create the wealth to make the cake bigger.

[Richard Allen]

The speech shows why Cameron is no real leader. He simply seeks to position us on the centre ground rather than trying to move the centre ground towards us. He seeks to win the debate as it is instead of trying to shape the debate. He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.

[Goldie]

Rob G writes:

Actually that is something that Mrs Thatcher believed. To quote Lord Saatchi's remiscences about the winning arguments of her era [Daily Telegraph 1/5/04] They said that a 'bigger cake means a bigger slice for everyone'. But, first, you had to create the wealth to make the cake bigger.

No, this shows that Mrs T unlike Mr. Cameron understood PRECISELY what I was talking about. That there isn't some "fixed" pie to be divided, but that government policies affect the, continuously changing, size of the pie. I have no problems with Mrs. T's essential economic programs (although she should have cut more instead of talking of cuts that didn't emerge).

[Goldie]

Richard Allen writes:
The speech shows why Cameron is no real leader. He simply seeks to position us on the centre ground rather than trying to move the centre ground towards us. He seeks to win the debate as it is instead of trying to shape the debate. He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.

I'm afraid I'm starting to come around to the view that this is correct (and I say this as a Cameron supporter --of the man not his course of the past two months).

The problem is not the public will never go for it.

[Andrew Woodman]

Of those criticising Camerons speech and approach, what would you do instead?

[Goldie]

Sorry: "that the public will NEVER go for it"

[Rob G]

Goldie: this shows that Mrs T unlike Mr. Cameron understood PRECISELY what I was talking about. That there isn't some "fixed" pie to be divided, but that government policies affect the, continuously changing, size of the pie. My reading of Cameron's various speeches is that he also fully understands the need to reduce the size of the state and grow the size of the pie.

[Goldie]

@Andrew Woodman:

Pretty simple. Keep the "And Theory of Conservatism". By all means speak of the environment (but not of course the irrelevant Kyoto), poverty, Darfur, etc.

Keep the focus on 'modernization' within the party. Recruit more attractive, modern, young, female, minority candidates if they have the required qualities. Organize vibrant grass roots. Etc.

On grand policy, keep the second half of the speech where he attacks Brown's economic record, but ditch the first part with its implicit defense of the virtue of high public spending. Take the time to develop and defend a social insurance scheme to replace the NHS under the slogan: "If Sweden, Holland and France can do it, so can we". Commit to reversing the burdens on tax and regulation.

Ditch the 'sharing the proceeds of growth nonsense'.

[James Hellyer]

I think the problem is that sometimes it sounds it like Cameron & co. know they aren't divvying up a fixed amount (i.e. that the pie can grow - or shrink), but sometimes it sounds like they're buying into the socialist or fiscally conservative theory that it's their job to divide up a fixed pie (Letwin and Osborne are the biggest offenders for chopping and changing between the two though).

[Rob G]

Richard Allen: He has no real beliefs, no vision for the country, he seeks power for its own sake.
That sort of bald and unsupported assertion is, of course, incapable of rational debate. His speeches include numerous references to his beliefs and vision. You may not like them, but it seems strange to deny that they exist.

[Rob Largan]

oh dear, oh dear oh dear. Can't help notice on the bbc website that the coverage of Cameron isnt quite as positive as before. Calling Cameron a Blair rip-off and offering no real alternative.

[Goldie]

Rob G:
My reading of Cameron's various speeches is that he also fully understands the need to reduce the size of the state and grow the size of the pie.

Good for you, for those of living in the real world, we can count and we see:

-Cameron praising Blair for the "marked" increase in public spending, i.e. government spending, i.e. collectivism.

-Osborne disclaiming the flat tax, setting back tax cuts in favor of "stability", I quote Boy George, "stability will always come before promises of tax cuts".

Cameron's Conservatives might as well be called Cameron's Cowards. Their essence is that, whatever they may privately believe, they think they cannot sell their programs to the British public.

I suspect they will pay the appropriate price for this cowardice.

[Goldie]

PS: Nick Robinson finally started raising some of these issues in this BBC Interview with Cameron.

Cameron handled them very badly, he looked very arrogant and condescending.

When he summed up the differences between Cameron's Cowards and New Labour he said something about "NHS Dentistry" and "setting". If you seriously think that setting is the solution to our educational woes and that people will vote for you because of dentristy, they were deluding themselves even more than I already think they are.

If Cameron doesn't deliver a victory in the May elections --and I don't think he will-- perhaps Hague, Fox and Davis will force him to come to his senses.

[Rob G]

Rob L: Calling Cameron a Blair rip-off and offering no real alternative.
Where are you looking on the BBC website? The News item on today's speech seems to consist largely of quotes from the speech itself. The only reference to "rip-off" that I could find at a quick glance was a quote from Peter Mandelson last Friday. Not sure that I am too worried about his views.

[Jono]

Hokum from Richard Allen.

Enough of such squeals from the right.

Politics IS about power - NOT the ideological fallacies that have been indulged in by the Party over the past nine years.

Ideology with no powerbase can never be Politics.

The Editor remarked recently about the general right-of-the-Party position of a majority of the Participants on this site. This is natural, as in all areas of life the silent majority tend to be exactly that. I am one of the usually silent readers of this very fine site.

However, such guff as posted at 21:21hrs must be responded too.

More of the same please Mr Cameron.

And if those on the right don’t like it then please leave this good Party, join UKIP or some other such marginal irrelevance (perhaps Mr Kilroy-Silk will re-open his shop for you), leave this re-emerging giant of a Party to it’s (sadly all too) silent majority, so that it can regain it’s rightful place in Government, in the resolutely right of CENTRE ground of British Politics.

[Goldie]

Jono: what exactly is the difference between Cameron and New Labour?

If it's all about power, what does it matter who is in power other than to those hungry for a government job (because they can't find anything better to do with their lives)?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"When he summed up the differences between Cameron's Cowards and New Labour he said something about "NHS Dentistry" and "setting". If you seriously think that setting is the solution to our educational woes and that people will vote for you because of dentristy, they were deluding themselves even more than I already think they are."

If David Cameron can resolve the chronic shortage of NHS dentists in Wales (although that may fall within the remit of the National Assembly - it's hard to tell thanks to the muddled mess that is devolution), I'll take back every critical word I ever said about him. Now, you can't say fairer than that, can you?

[Rob G]

Goldie: Clearly we aren't going to agree about much.
Cameron praising Blair for the "marked" increase in public spending, i.e. government spending, i.e. collectivism You are taking the quote out of context (though it would have been better if he hadn't said something that could be misquoted). The "plus side" is in the context of assessing the extent to which New Labour fulfilled its own 1997 prospectus. It is clear from the paragraphs that follow that Cameron regards the growth in the size of the administration as a bad thing and damaging to UK's competitiveness.

Osborne disclaiming the flat tax, setting back tax cuts in favor of "stability" Surely you accept that "stability" is important for economic growth?

Now I must try to find the Nick Robinson interview

[Selsdon Man]

A speech on modern conservatism should have been delivered to a Conservative think tank - not a bunch of Blairite wonks.

[Goldie]

Rob G:
You are taking the quote out of context (though it would have been better if he hadn't said something that could be misquoted). The "plus side" is in the context of assessing the extent to which New Labour fulfilled its own 1997 prospectus. It is clear from the paragraphs that follow that Cameron regards the growth in the size of the administration as a bad thing and damaging to UK's competitiveness.

No, I am not. Cameron regards the increases in public spending as a good thing. That's why he is in favor of it. That's why he is not going to offer tax cuts. That's why I think he is Social Democrat.

Face up to facts, my friend. Now that he's won the Leadership his real views are emerging.

We have elected a Wet.

[Goldie]

PS: Now if Cameron and Osborne are really crunchy but are merely presenting themselves as Wets to get elected, and their Wet-ness will lead to a 100-seat majority, upon which we will implement a crunchy program, that would be fine with him. But I don't believe the above propositions, most importantly I don't think that Wet Tories can beat Gordon Brown.

[Damon Lambert]

Its hard to dig out any key points from this speech - or policies. Is Cameron the new Major?

[John Hustings]

Jono offers no arguments in support of Cameron, except ad hominems against his opponents. All he does is tar those who disagree with him as extremist and he seems to think that sufficient to win an argument. He is heavy on emotion and short on reason. In other words: he argues like a socialist.

[Ted]

This speech exemplifies why I supported Cameron, a vision of a better Britain built through civil society on the basis of conservative principles. I have always supported this party because i believe that enterprise, backed by individual and civil society underpinned by efficient public services will benefit the poor better than socialism.

Margaret Thatcher's promise was that when we had taken the tough medicine, survived the recessions, high unemployment, social strife we would build a Britain that had more resouces that could provide better for the disadvantaged, could afford better public services. We betrayed those hopes in the early 90's through economic mismanagement; Gordon Brown is destroying them again through mismanagement and centralised control.

The doomsayers above speak I believe for a minority of this party's membership - most of us would like to see the Britain Cameron talks about.

[Jono]

Goldie, I find myself agreeing with a part of your sentiment. We all know that a too great a proportion of Politicians on both sides of the house have gone into it for exactly those wrong reasons.

Cameron Vs New Labour: A couple for you to muse over:

Consensus Politics - something Labour has never understood, but that the broader electorate is desperate for.

The desire to help the underprivileged comes from the opposite side of the debate to Labour - out of a duty to give opportunity, rather than to simply redistribute. There is nothing wrong with old fashioned compassion – and there IS plenty of space for it in a market lead economy.

[Rob G]

Goldie: One last comment from me, before everyone else gets bored.

That's why he is not going to offer tax cuts. The "sharing the proceeds of growth" formula guarantees tax cuts provided the economy is growing. We may not think that is the best way of promoting tax cuts, but there seems little point in denying that Cameron is committed to fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services. [Latest statement of Beliefs on the Party website]

[Andrew Price]

I think sometimes people here need reminding that Blair was WON THREE elections - YOU have lost THREE ELECTIONS.

Cameron is appealing to sections of society (me for one) that would have never have even considered voting Tory ever. As a 19 year old, the post 1997 Tory Party for me stood for Homophobic, Extreme Racist, Little Englander's waving your Union Jack in your small rural towns.

YOU LOST Three times - ask your self WHY? Its not that hard guys. You offered something that we did not want. We still DO NOT want it, and Cameron realises what we do want is more NuLaBur.

The fact that the Conservative party was unable to actually see what Blair was doing in 1994 is the only major reservation that I have against voting for you now. It took you 12 years to realise what this country wanted. An absolute crime in my opinion. What were you doing during this period?

Cameron is the best damn thing to happen to you for the past 20 years. He understands 100% like Blair what we want and unlike Blair he can deliver it.

Wise words from David 'nipples' Blucket yesterday. Whoever blinks first (Labour Backbenches rebelling or the fascist right Mail / Telegraph) will lose the centre ground.

The decision is yours. If you rebel against Cameron then you will never ever get into power.

[john Skinner]

Breathtaking stuff from Goldie:
"I'm afraid I'm starting to come around to the view that (Cameron is no real leader)and I say this as a Cameron supporter".
Shome mishtake surely.
Goldie, you're the true heir of Barbara Villiers. Where is she anyway?

[Goldie]

Rob G. you really don't want to believe what Cameron means but:

The "sharing the proceeds of growth" formula guarantees tax cuts provided the economy is growing. We may not think that is the best way of promoting tax cuts, but there seems little point in denying that Cameron is committed to fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services.

emphatically does NOT mean that there will ALWAYS be tax cuts as long as the economy grows. When the economy grows by 0.1% don't count on any tax cuts.

Read this:
Interview with Osborne

He spells it out pretty clearly. No tax cuts any time soon, first they need to "sort out the public finances".

They are committing themselves to Gordon Brown's spending plans.

[Goldie]

Andrew Price: I understand your point but you're not paying attention. I have emphatically embraced the "And Theory of Conservatism" which is very different that the conservatism on offer in 2005 and 2001.

Anyway, if the British population doesn't want our conservatism, let them vote for Labour again. Sooner or later they will see the results.

There is absolutely no point in coming to government by promising to deliver the platform of the Other Side.

[Ted]

p.s James, Goldie, John, Richard A et al.

In case you didn't notice last month David Davis lost, and he didn't lose because we were conned by Cameron, he lost because we preferred Cameron's promise of change. I respect your right to argue and to differ but lets hear something a bit more constructive please. It's 2006 not 1976.

[Goldie]

Ted: I voted for Cameron.

[Andrew Price]

"if the British population doesn't want our conservatism, let them vote for Labour again. Sooner or later they will see the results."

I rest my case.......Now THAT my friend is the reason you are in opposition and not government.

[Goldie]

Andrew: I don't want to be in office without being in power. I don't want a particular group of random PEOPLE to be in office, I want them to implement certain IDEAS. Principles not people--that's why I am interesting in politics, because I want the common good to be served.

If the British electorate wants to have social democracy, let them vote for Labour, which is the party of social democracy.

We should be in opposition to social democracy.

There is no point winning office to implement social democracy.

I would rather lose another election and then get a chance to put things right 4 or 5 years later than win the elections by promising social democracy.

That's because I perceives social democracy to be the enemy of Britain and liberal Conservatism to be its friend.

You apparently only care about the 'circulation of the elites'. Well "jobs for the boys" is not a slogan I can get worked up about.

[Selsdon Man]

" think sometimes people here need reminding that Blair was WON THREE elections - YOU have lost THREE ELECTIONS"

Thatcher won 3 elections and was ousted by moral and intellectual pygmies.

[Ted]

Goldie
Why did you vote for him? - he promised change, he promised an end to Punch & Judy politics, he went out directly against DD on supporting Education reforms and cosing up to Blair. He's done just what he promised and yet every post from you recently has been against him.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I rest my case.......Now THAT my friend is the reason you are in opposition and not government."

What you mean by sticking to our principles and not prostituting ourselves according to the latest political fashion?

[Goldie]

"Thatcher won 3 elections and was ousted by moral and intellectual pygmies"

Hear, hear.

Ronald Reagan also won two landslides.

John Howard has won one election after the other.

It's a demonstrably false proposition that real Conservative policies render one un-electable.

[Selsdon Man]

"In case you didn't notice last month David Davis lost, and he didn't lose because we were conned by Cameron, he lost because we preferred Cameron's promise of change."

Most people voted for Cameron because of his speaking ability, good literature, nice website and that Newsnight focus group run by his Oxford pal. They did not vote for Davis because of his dreadful conference speech and re-cycled 2001 campaign theme. We voted to change the style of the party, not its principles and policies.

[Goldie]

Ted:
Why did you vote for him? - he promised change, he promised an end to Punch & Judy politics, he went out directly against DD on supporting Education reforms and cosing up to Blair. He's done just what he promised and yet every post from you recently has been against him.

I thought he adhered to the "And Theory of Conservatism". I voted for the eurosceptic Cameron who wrote the Howard manifestor and whose best buddy was in favor of the flat tax. I didn't hear Cameron say that increased public spending was a great thing, that tax cuts were off the agenda, that the NHS would stay with us forevermore, and that he opposes grammar schools in favour of "setting".

He has NOT done what he has promised.

Moreover, I don't think that his current tactics will win us the elections because his Big Narrative is simply incoherent. He is trying to do to Brown what Blair did to Major, but it misses the central point. The Conservative Party has an image problem, a Brand problem, but people quite like its policies.

The Conservative Party should have stayed a center-right party. Instead it's becoming a center-left party. We already have one of those.

[Rob G]

In case others don't have time to chase up David Cameron's interview with Nick Robinson, here are some quotes from it.

The big challenges that the country faces are having a competitive dynamic economy AND to do more to deliver social justice.

Tax is too high. Regulation too high.

Blair's education reforms are "very timid".

Cameron would get rid of regional government and take powers back from the EU.

[malcolm]

Like Ted I would agree with the vast majority of what Cameron has to say.I think his analysis of New Labour probably is over generous, I am still of the belief that Blair between 1994-2003 had no principles other than to win and then retain power.
Obviously the ideas Cameron refers to have to be fleshed out in the coming weeks and months but I can see nothing in this speech to warrant the extreme adverse reactions that the usual moaners have adopted.

[Selsdon Man]

Barbara Villiers? I thought she married John Coulson.

[Goldie]

Here is the link to that interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[James Maskell]

"It's 2006 not 1976"

I think Camerons latest speech sucks to be honest. Wheres the substance to it? Its waffle. Im proud to have supported Davis in the leadership contest and I would do it again.

Also, I was born in 1984 (22 years tomorrow in fact!) so Im not exactly sure what that comment was leading to...

I know Camerons been in charge now for 7 weeks and we should all give him the benefit of the doubt, but the fact remains, we have to persuade millions of people that we arent talking out of our backsides and we know what we are talking about. In detailed media scrutiny I dont think the "sharing the proceeds of growth" stuff with really wash. The closest thing to an Economics Degree I have is a Politics AS Level (I was one of the very first students to do them and I would cheer Cameron to the rooftops if he was to reform them) but I still know enough to know that theres something not quite right about it.

He needs to start coming up wth something we can really munch over coz the cheddar hes bringing is bland and has no flavour to it...

[Jono]

Andrew:
Happily I believe that the direction that Cameron is taking us WILL offer you and several millions like you a real alternative at the next election.

Goldie:
We're clearly not totally reconciled on the 'In Power' issue!

Ted:
I thank you!

John Hustings:
Oh Dear!

Good night from Bucharest - A City calling out for a Thatcher!

[Andrew Price]

"What you mean by sticking to our principles and not prostituting ourselves according to the latest political fashion?"

No, offering us what WE want and not want you (a small minority) want. Political Parties should offer us what we want. This is what NuLaBur did in 1994 and what some of you still can't see. I respect that you don't want the party to be elected as Social Democrats, but its the only way you ever will.

Get over Thatcher, Reagan et al (I wasn't even born when they were first elected).

Move On.......

[Ted]

DVA - what principles do you think Cameron has jettisoned in his speech? Policies are means not ends - DC lays out clearly that his priorities are social justice, economic competence, the environment & quality of life. I'm waiting on the how but I prefer this speech to the incoherent ramblings we presented to the electorate which presented policies without objectives.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Barbara Villiers? I thought she married John Coulson."

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I remember John Coulson 'coming out' on this board, so to speak.

[Jono]

PS
It's very cold out here - but not too Wet....

[Ted]

Andrew - I agree on moving into the 21st centrury (and I was an elector when Ted Heath was PM) but sorry Cameron isn't a Social Democrat, he's a conservative looking at conservative solutions to big issues just not the same solutions required three decades ago.

[Selsdon Man]

How do you define social justice? How do you measure it? How do you when it has been achieved? Or is it just a load of cobblers?

[Matt J]

i think this whole tax cuts thing is getting completely out of hand. i consider myself right wing and support tax cuts and the arguments why. But for goodness sake, Cameron has only been leader for a few weeks. give him some time. he has to regain the public's trust on the economy first.
Plus i think he's being deliberatley vague at this time especially on tax cuts issue. we shouldn't be criticising him yet. lets wait and see what he comes up with in the next manifesto. then we'll be able to judge what he really believes. im pretty sure he wants tax cuts, but he has to show the public he can run the economy properly first. just give him some time. criticising him this early in the game is just plain disloyal and stupid. we should be helping him not tearing him down.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"DVA - what principles do you think Cameron has jettisoned in his speech?"

*Sigh* I didn't suggest Cameron had jettisoned principles in his speech. I was responding to Andrew Price's silly comments about us not winning elections because we haven't copied New Labour. Do keep up.

[Selsdon Man]

"criticising him this early in the game is just plain disloyal and stupid"

Tell that, Matt, to the 500 loyalists who were booted off the candidates list just before Christmas. I am sure those who do not make the Priority List will be equally pleased at their reward for loyalty and hard work.

[Goldie]

According to F.A. Hayek "social justice" is the same kind of nonsense as speaking of a "moral stone", justice being a personal quality and inanimate objects not having moral properties.

People act in a just or unjust way, and if they consistently act in just ways society is characterized by a condition you could call "justice". But if there is social justice, then please describe what asocial justice might mean.

It's just a bunch of bollocks, language pollution that leads, in practice, to the advancement of Socialism.

Of course, it's pretty clear from the comments on this site and elsewhere that our level of education has sunk to such depths that people believe the propaganda that there aren't any socialists anymore.

[tory activist]

This speech is dangerous nonsense. Thatcher and her supporters did not agree with Cameron about the solutions to be applied to help "those left behind."

The idea that the last five Tory leaders have been heading in Cameron's direction in trying (and failing) to find a way to deal with this problem is just arrogant spin. This is high tax, high spending conservatism. Its inspiration is Blairite positioning not Thatcherite analysis.

[John Hustings]

"Get over Thatcher, Reagan et al (I wasn't even born when they were first elected).

Move On....... "

I am sorry but telling people to "move on" is meaningless. I am in my mid-20s, so I'm not exactly "past it". Acting as if you have a monopoly on "forward-thinking" is pretty damn irrational.

You want to argue that your ideas are "better" than mine? By all means do so. But arguing that they are more "modern" serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Richard]

"As a 19 year old, the post 1997 Tory Party for me stood for Homophobic, Extreme Racist, Little Englander's waving your Union Jack in your small rural towns."

Are you basing the accusation "extreme racist" on Tory immigration policies? If so then please explain why the Tory immigration policy was the most popular one amongst the public. The problem with emphasising immigration in 2005 was that people were more interested in other issues.

What do you base your flag-waving little Englanders comment on? Opposition to European integration (that also has solid public support)?

[Goldie]

Here, for edification, a little snippet from Hayek:

Reason: A very interesting part of your social philosophy is that value and merit are and ought to be two distinct qualities. In other words, individuals should not be remunerated in ac- cordance with any concept of justice, whether it be the Puritan ethic or egalitarianism. Do you find many free-market advo- cates falling into this thinking, that value and merit should be equated in a "truly moral society"?

Hayek: I think there is a little shift recently as a result of my outright attack on the concept of social justice. It is now turning on the problem of whether social justice has any meaning at all and, of course, social justice is essentially based on some concept of merit. I'm afraid I have shocked my closest friends by denying that the concept of social justice has any meaning whatever. But I haven't been persuaded that I was wrong.

Reason: Well, then, why isn't there any such thing as social justice?

Hayek: Because justice refers to rules of individual conduct. And no rules of the conduct of individuals can have the effect that the good things of life are distributed in a particular manner. No state of affairs as such is just or unjust: it is only when we assume that somebody is responsible for having brought it about.

Now, we do complain that God has been unjust when one family has suffered many deaths and another family has all of its children grow up safely. But we know we can't take that seriously. We don't mean that anybody has been unjust.

In the same sense, a spontaneously working market, where prices act as guides to action, cannot take account of what people in any sense need or deserve, because it creates a distribution which nobody has designed, and something which has not been designed, a mere state of affairs as such, cannot be just or unjust. And the idea that things ought to be designed in a 'just' manner means, in effect, that we must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which somebody decides how much each ought to have, and that means, of course, that we can only have it at the price of the complete abolition of personal liberty.
http://www.reason.com/hayekint.html

PS: Hayek was one of two philosophers claimed by Cameron during the Leadership campaign to be among his favorites. The other was J.S. Mill. Neither was a Conservative.

[Mark Fulford]

"How do you define social justice? How do you measure it? How do you when it has been achieved? Or is it just a load of cobblers?"

It's not cobblers. We can measure social justice in terms of dependency on the state. The less dependency there is, the better people are doing for themselves, the greater the justice.

[compassionate tory]

"Get over Thatcher"

The Cameroons should stop lying about what she said to get elected in 1979 (promising to cut higher, basic and lower rate income tax).

[Goldie]

Personally, I am just struck by the fact that the Cameroons are suddenly so mistaken when they so clearly explained the Problem.

The Problem is, simply, that Conservative policies are often popular, given that the English are generally rather conservative and there is much need for a sensible center-right opposition to New Labour.

However, owing to the Major governments and the bad state of the Tories in the first five years post-1997, the Conservative Party brand had gotten badly damaged. As Maude reminded us: if people heard that a given policy was a Conservative policy, they liked it less.

In other words: most of the policies were fine, the image was the problem.

Contrary to what he is being accused of, i.e. focusing solely on image, Cameron instead has decided he needs to dump all of our policies. This on the entirely mistaken assumption that the Conservative party orthodoxy was as flawed as Old Labour's.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Selsdon Man]

Cameron shows no sign of having understood Hayek, Goldie. It must be easy to get a First in PPE at Oxford these days.

[Matt J]

"Tell that, Matt, to the 500 loyalists who were booted off the candidates list just before Christmas. I am sure those who do not make the Priority List will be equally pleased at their reward for loyalty and hard work."

that may be true, and im not saying i agree with everything he's doing. but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. the thing thats kept us out of power for the last few elections has been disloyalty, bickering and disunity. just look at what its doing to the liberal democrats now. we have a responsibility to Cameron not to let that infighting return to the party. otherwise whatever he does will be in vain.

[John Hustings]

"It's not cobblers. We can measure social justice in terms of dependency on the state. The less dependency there is, the better people are doing for themselves, the greater the justice."

The problem with "social justice" is that different people mean different things when they say it. As such, it is pretty meaningless unless it is explicitly made clear is being said. So, for example, whereas Labour might emphasise "minimum wage" or "anti-discrimination" legislation as promoting social justice, conservatives might talk about social mobility instead.

[Ted]

Selsdon
On the whole I subscribe to the Selsdon declaration and believe in choice, economic freedom and individual enterprise does deliver a better society. I go along with state provision supplementing private provision and look forward to a time we can deliver that vision BUT
not at the cost of ignoring human suffering - you can measure social injustice through a Britain in which children grow up trapped in the multiple deprivation of family breakdown, drug and alcohol dependency, decayed housing, dangerous neighbourhoods and poor education (to change a quote). Brown's solutions create a dependency culture - we need to change this to a culture of striving, independence and hope. Its not a quick fix - you don't get the disabled to walk just by kicking away the crutches and for some you need to continue to provide support.

I believe that we do need to give people back their respect - not Blair's Respect Agenda - but the respect every human being deserves, giving them the second chance DC refers to. Government has a part to playin putting the framework in place, in being the last resort.

I've always liked the motto on the Old Bailey - punish the evildoers, protect the children of the poor.

[Richard]

Goldie, there is a strong case to argue that Hayek was a liberal Conservative who's "Why I am not a Conservative" piece was aimed at statist European Conservatism and the Wet policies of the post-1945 Tories.

http://adamsmith.org/hayek/HayekConservative.pdf

As for JS Mill, I agree he was certainly not a Conservative.

[Mark Fulford]

The Cameroons should stop lying about what she said to get elected in 1979 (promising to cut higher, basic and lower rate income tax).

Compassionate Tory - I'm not quite sure what lies have been told, but this is taken from the 79 Conservative manifesto:

"Cutting Income Tax
We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success; tackle the poverty trap; encourage saving and the wider ownership of property; simplify taxes - like VAT; and reduce tax bureaucracy.

It is especially important to cut the absurdly high marginal rates of tax both at the bottom and top of the income scale. It must pay a man or woman significantly more to be in, rather than out of; work. Raising tax thresholds will let the low-paid out of the tax net altogether, and unemployment and short-term sickness benefit must be brought into the computation of annual income.

The top rate of income tax should be cut to the European average and the higher tax bands widened."

[Selsdon Man]

Hayek was made a Companion of Honour by Thatcher. His "Constitution of Liberty" was one of her favourite books. Churchill used the Central Office paper ration to reprint Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". Both books would make excellent bedtiime reading for the Shadow Cabinet.

[Goldie]

PS: The fact that DC thought it necessary to argue in his speech that he is not "betraying" Conservatism is rather revealing. Obviously if you're not, and no one thinks you are, this is not usually a topic people tend to dwell on...

[compassionate tory]

"Compassionate Tory - I'm not quite sure what lies have been told, but this is taken from the 79 Conservative manifesto:"

Read George Osborne making stuff up to the Telegraph today:

"Actually, says Osborne, that is what the plan is. "There is a parallel to the late 1970s," he says, sitting in his sunny office on the Embankment. "Faced with the position of poor public finances and with Britain's declining place in the world, the Conservatives did not promise tax cuts in the 1979 election and said they had to sort out the public finances first," he says."

Cameron's spin doctors have been trying to sell this line to Nick Robinson and others. It is not true.

[Matt J]

the fact that he had to say he was not "betraying" conservatism means it will now begin to recreate the image of conservatives being disunited again. its not a good thing at all.

[Rob G]

Goldie: Cameron instead has decided he needs to dump all of our policies.

Apart from tax (where you and I aren't going to agree on what Cameron's policy is) what policies has he dumped that were in the Conservative manifesto in 1997 or 1992 or earlier? So far as I can recall, all the things that he has dropped are fairly recent policies that can't reasonably be described as essential to a Conservative approach. In particular, I don't think he has dropped anything that was a policy in the Thatcher years.

[Selsdon Man]

The Thatcher years are, sadly, long gone. It would be impossible to drop policies from that era. Mind you, when was the last time privatisation was mentioned in an official Conservative publication? I can think of many candidates that would fund £billions of tax cuts.

[Sean Fear]

"I am sure those who do not make the Priority List will be equally pleased at their reward for loyalty and hard work."

The Revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children.

[Goldie]

Rob G: good point, but if Cameron means a return to the Major government, then that's not my cup of tea really (although they were quite radical re: "privatization" etc.).

Anyway, it's not a very useful exercise to compare the 1992 or 1997 manifesto with today's situation. Things change.

That the Major government was entirely committed, on paper, to the NHS doesn't mean it's good that Cameron is reverting back to this socialist idea when the Conservatives finally took some tentative steps toward getting rid of the NHS, that disastrous institution.

[Chris Palmer]

As someone sensibly commented on another thread, this blog is becoming increasingly polarised in its expressed opinions. It’s often difficult to work out whether posters are actually Conservatives or people with an agenda to create divisions.

The Leadership contest is over. David Cameron won, whether you voted for him or not. Please, can we not continually refer to one another as David Davis or David Cameron supporters. We are all Conservative supporters (I hope) and therefore to an extent, we should be getting behind the leader and our party. If you disagree with a certain aspect of policy, then fine, but don’t criticise at an individual level. It does the party no favours – whoever is leader.

[Selsdon Man]

Ted, I am concerned about depravation and the social problems that you mention. I just think that we ought to be more precise about what we want to achieve. Social justice means different things to Conservatives and socialists. It is clarity that I seek.

[Matt J]

thankyou chris, im glad someone agrees with me. and excuse me Goldie but Mrs T was committed to the NHS and its not a disastrous institution, its just being run by a disastrous government thats all. plus cameron said he wanted to make the provision of healthcare private, not the NHS. he's still committed to privatising the NHS, just in a more civilised and sensible way.

[Ted]

On the 1979 manifesto (which could probably be printed with little change in our next one as it doesn't lay down a timetable or targets) what did Mrs T do to meet this promise?
1979 - raised VAT from 12.5% (on 'luxury' items) and 8% (on most other goods) to a single rate of 15%. (Simplifying?)
The basic rate of income tax was cut to 30% (from 33%) and the top rate from 83% to 60% on 'earned income' (as promised)
1980 - Increases in prescription charges and indirect taxes (not as promised)
1981 - cuts in public expenditure and increases in personal and indirect taxation... windfall tax was levied on bank profits and North Sea Oil. The 25p lower rate of tax was abolished (not as promised)

Geoffrey Howe said that while he still aimed at lower taxation this couldn't be achieved in one term. He raised taxes in a recession to get economic stability - with inflation running in double figures and unemployment at around 3 million. So while going against the manifesto he laid the foundations that enabled to tax cuts from 1983 onwards to be achieved (I think it was in 1998 that we finally made good on the manifesto - in the third term)

[Goldie]

Incidentally, RobG, do you expect the following from the '92 Manifesto to be endorsed by DC?

# To continue to reduce taxes as fast as we prudently can. ...
# We will make further progress towards a basic Income Tax rate of 20p.
# We will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector.
# To make sure that market mechanisms and incentives are allowed to do their job.
# We will continue to reduce tax burdens on business, as we have done this year for the motor industry, whenever it is possible to do so. ...
# We will continue our privatisation programme.

Plus, of course, DC would have to reverse Devolution and scrap the minimum wage etc. etc.

[Ted]

sorry 1988!

[Matt J]

maybe cameron will be like Mrs T. give us tax cuts in the third term.

[Goldie]

MatJ:

The NHS is a dreadful system that offers atrocious health care at a level of care comparable to Rumania.

[John Hustings]

Willetts was just on Radio 5 a minute ago making my flesh crawl.

[Matt J]

No Goldie, its not. a level of health care comparable to Romania is better than none at all.

[Ted]

Goldie
- 1992 manifesto (preceded by cut in income tax) was followed by Lamont increasing indirect taxation (including his silly tax on mobiles I think), then Clarke massively increasing taxation - keeping a 20% rate of income tax but increasing most indirect taxes by more than inflation. Ken taught Gordon all about stealth taxes. Think I'd prefer the 1979 bland statement of intent which was eventually delivered to the unrealistic precision of Major.

[Richard Allen]

Hokum from Richard Allen.

Enough of such squeals from the right.

Politics IS about power - NOT the ideological fallacies that have been indulged in by the Party over the past nine years.

Ideology with no powerbase can never be Politics.

Power without principles is meaningless. Getting the Conseravtive party elected is a means to an end not the sum total of our ambition. I really don't see why having a social democrat with a blue rosette as PM is any better than having one with a red rosette.

And if those on the right don’t like it then please leave this good Party, join UKIP or some other such marginal irrelevance (perhaps Mr Kilroy-Silk will re-open his shop for you), leave this re-emerging giant of a Party to it’s (sadly all too) silent majority, so that it can regain it’s rightful place in Government, in the resolutely right of CENTRE ground of British Politics.

I always love it when someone tells me to leave the party just because I disagree with the leadership on a large number of issues. By your logic Margaret Thatcher, Keith Joseph, Norman Tebbit and too many others to name should have left the party in the late sixties and early seventies.

[Goldie]

MatJ:
a level of health care comparable to Romania is better than none at all.

This is a level of discussion I am supposed to take seriously?

[John Hustings]

"No Goldie, its not. a level of health care comparable to Romania is better than none at all. "

The alternative to the NHS is not "none at all", that is a socialist lie.

[Goldie]

Ted: I wasn't at all defending the 1992 Manifesto. I am with Maggie not Major, but even that is better than Cameron right now...

In general, I believe that Cameron will improve. He just needs some push-back.

[Ted]

Goldie - so who's to blame for the NHS ? we managed it for most of the last three decades.
Could it be that Cameron is right to identify public service improvements as unfinished business?

[Matt J]

this principles thing is getting REALLY boring. cameron has already stated his principles on the conservative website: -

We believe in the family. But we shouldn’t preach to people about how they live their lives.

We must respond to the challenge of social breakdown by actively supporting marriage through the tax and benefits system. But in a more liberal and less deferential age, we must support all families, for example through childcare, because what matters most is that children are brought up in a stable, loving home.

We believe in personal responsibility. But not in selfish individualism.

So let us tackle the challenge of an increasingly atomised society by showing that personal responsibility is part of a shared responsibility; that we’re all in this together; that there’s a ‘we’ in our politics as well as a ‘me.’

We believe in lower taxes. But not in fostering greed or favouring the rich.

A strong economy needs competitive tax rates and good public infrastructure. So creating economic opportunity for all means fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services.

We believe in high standards in health and education. But opt-outs and escape routes for the privileged few will never deliver high quality for all.

The challenge is to deliver equal access to first-class public services without burdening today’s generations with higher taxes, or tomorrow’s generations with higher debt. More choice, competition and local autonomy must be matched by strong leadership to raise standards.

We believe in limited government. But rolling back the state must never mean the weak are left behind.

We want civic society to flourish. We must help social enterprises and voluntary organisations do even more to tackle the entrenched problems that affect our communities, believing that there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state.

We believe in national sovereignty. But not in isolation and xenophobia.

Now is the time to fight for an open and flexible Europe, with a high growth, low unemployment future, recognising that Britain has always done best when she engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world.

[John Hustings]

"so who's to blame for the NHS ? we managed it for most of the last three decades"

Both parties are to blame.

[Matt J]

"The alternative to the NHS is not "none at all", that is a socialist lie."

quite right, its a healthcare system for the rich that leaves the poor out in the cold to starve and die.

im not denying that something needs to be done to improve the NHS, im just saying that i'd rather have a free NHS that means i get better than have to fork out thousands of pounds in fees on a very low income. social justice must come first and the patients passport at the last election would have not helped the poor at all.

[Goldie]

No, the Tories are to blame more than Labour because they should have been the ones to reform the NHS. You can't blame a socialist for being a socialist as much as you can blame a 'conservative' for being a Socialist.

Sometimes I wonder if Maggie did it all for naught...

[John Hustings]

"quite right, its a healthcare system for the rich that leaves the poor out in the cold to starve and die. "

You really are extremely ignorant, aren't you?

[Goldie]

Matt: according to your email you're a university student! What in heavens name makes you think the NHS is "free", do you think health care services come falling from the sky or something? It's paid for buddy, by your parents and by the other British tax payers!