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."
It's like that marvellous MacMillan putdown of the Thatcher cabinet:
"In my day they were all Etonians. Now they're all Estonians."
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 31, 2006 at 12:23
John Hustings:
the Tory leadership have not learnt the most important lesson from the last election campaign: lack of ambition.
I agree. You have put your finger precisely on a point that many have missed. This is what is so disappointing about most of DC's recorded pronouncements. Alexander Pope's derisive remark about some fellow writer springs to mind: something on the lines of "In labour for two years, and then produced a gnat".
This feeling of disappointment was very much the case, too, with Michael Howard: when he took over I thought "Now we've got someone really clever in charge" and waited for the clever and interesting policy ideas to be announced, and for them to be explained and described in compelling, convincing, and perhaps even humorous ways. What happened? A handful of trifling, piffling announcements, disjointed and unconnected to each other, as if there was no real guiding brain - let alone a guiding philosophy - behind any of it; and all badly and unconvincingly explained, giving the impression that those making the announcements didn't think very much of them, either.
And now we have David Cameron - someone with a first from Oxford, and from whom, therefore, great things might justifiably be expected - who, when forced to become more specific as to what he believes in, and what he wants for his country, burbles boringly about synthetic phonics or setting in schools. I find this sort of thing embarrassing - he sounds like a schoolboy who has been on a "work experience" placement in an education department for a couple of weeks. I think I preferred him when he was being vague and evasive. At least then there was hope that when he did commit himself, it would be to something good, and inspiring. At the moment, I feel only disappointment, and it is, as John Hustings says, largely because of the timidity and lack of ambition.
Posted by: Deckchair of despair | January 31, 2006 at 12:24
"In my day they were all Etonians. Now they're all Estonians."
Just goes to show what can happen when a chap doesn't go to a good school.
Posted by: party guy | January 31, 2006 at 12:29
Here we are again, confusing aims and means, getting in a big twist about things that really don't matter.
Let's take the NHS. Up until a few weeks ago I would have been on the side of social insurance against the NHS. But lets stop and think about it a moment. Social insurance isn't really insurance at all, is it? It is a tax, just like National Insurance. Don't believe me... ask a Belgian how much tax they pay and see if they include their insurance payments.
If social insurance were going to be real insurance, then one's premium would go up according to risk. Now unless we want to see old people priced out of healthcare that is never going to happen. So, if we accept that social insurance is actually nothing of the sort, in exactly the same way that National Insurance is nothing of the sort, then what do we actually gain from making a change, it is a fight we do not need to have.
Funding is not the problem. Monolithic, monopolistic provision is the problem. By committing to allowing private companies to bid for contracts, and making the NHS a provisioner of service rather than a provider, we can deliver the standard of healthcare that is expected in one of the world's richest nations.
"The core activity of the NHS is not, I would argue, the management of hospitals, the training of doctors, or the recruitment of nurses.
These are secondary activities.
The primary purpose of the NHS is different.
It is to secure for every single person in this country free access to high quality healthcare."
"They now agree that a National Health Service does not have to mean a nationalised health service…
…but they haven't gone far enough in giving a wide range of health providers the right to supply services to the NHS."
- David Cameron 4/01/06
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 31, 2006 at 12:35
i agree with Deckchair of despair on the education stuff, Cameron could have been more imaginative. but on other things, cameron wont be able to give us imaginative proposals yet because the policy reviews havent come up with them yet. like i said before, GIVE HIM TIME!
Posted by: Matt J | January 31, 2006 at 12:45
Social insurance isn't really insurance at all, is it? It is a tax, just like National Insurance.
Nope. Taxes are collected by the Treasury. Social insurance contributions on the continent are not collected by their equivalents of the Treasury. They go straight to designationed independent insurance bodies.
They're more obviously analgous with compulsory private pension contributions than they are National Insurance (which is a tax).
If social insurance were going to be real insurance, then one's premium would go up according to risk.
That's confusing it with private insurance...
Monolithic, monopolistic provision is the problem.
And part of that is state control. Social Insurance (as opposed to a pseudonymously named income tax like NI) addresses that by taking funding control away from politicians and putting it in the hand of bodies that represent the patient.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 31, 2006 at 12:46
"cameron wont be able to give us imaginative proposals yet because the policy reviews havent come up with them"
cameron and co have already decided what they want to do. and it ain't imaginative.
Posted by: tax cutter | January 31, 2006 at 12:47
On the subject of the NHS, has anyone heard about the idea of a "healthgrant" where the government divides the NHS budget up amongst everyone and gives them all a grant for health which they then use to buy compulsory insurance and pay for doctors visits. it should cover it all.
the government would agree with insurance comanies a necessary package which they would have to provide.
anyone could provide healthcare/ set up a hospital, so the NHS would have to compete.
i reckon this proposal would give us the best of all world's. a free NHS and private provision.
Posted by: Matt J | January 31, 2006 at 12:51
I have just read Cameron's speech and agree with every word he says. The problem is that his recent policy pronouncements on tax, health and education seem to be totally contrary to his proclaimed political ideas.
"Wherever they have seen a problem, they have seen action by the state as the solution."
Correct. So why doesn't he talk about ways of limiting the actions of the state, reducing bureaucracy and controlling public expenditure, giving scope for tax cuts ?
"we will respond to state failure by empowering individuals and civil society."
Correct. So why has he disempowered patients by rejecting the patients' passport and disempowered schools by denying them the opportunity to select by academic ability ?
There seems to be a basic gap in logic between his general analysis and his specific policy proposals. How can we follow a man who says one thing and does another ?
Posted by: johnC | January 31, 2006 at 13:05
This has been a fascinating and informative debate and marks a great triumph for the And Theory. To sum up:
David Cameron is a brilliant and shrewd strategist who has the insight to lead us back to power AND a dangerous Marxist fanatic who's plotting to nationalise the banks.
The NHS is perfect and untouchable AND murders millions of poor people, more expensively than they kill their poor people on average in the rest of Europe.
Mrs Thatcher promised tax cuts AND didn't promise tax cuts AND raised taxes AND cut taxes eventually AND raised expenditure.
We never did get an answer on whether post-graduate studies at Exeter are any good.
I'm not too sure what modern conservatism is, either.
Posted by: William Norton | January 31, 2006 at 13:31
Cameron has given a superb speech that outlines how the Conservatives can generate a dynamic economy that benefits everyome. A real breath of fresh air.
Posted by: TC | January 31, 2006 at 13:32
"Cameron has given a superb speech that outlines how the Conservatives can generate a dynamic economy that benefits everyome"
Except it doesnt. A dynamic economy is one that requires lower taxes and a smaller state. Didnt here anything about that in this speech. He talks about increased public spending as a plus. It doesnt benefit everyone, because social mobility is something ignored by Cameron utterly. The lack of ambition Cameron shows, for one so confident in his own abilities, is puzzling.
Posted by: Rob Largan | January 31, 2006 at 13:39
"I hope tax reduction will also be possible but I would have reservations about tax cuts if they could be funded only by increased borrowing. But, as I have posted before, that shouldn't be necessary (unless the economy really nosedives) because it ought to be possible to identify quite a lot of public sector waste that nobody would really miss."
Quite right.
The trouble with those who frequently cite the example of the Bush administration borrowing to kickstart the US economy is that it hasn't really done their economy any favours at all and has largely been a superficial papering over ever-widening cracks.
The US is up to its eyeballs in debt, an obviously unsustainable position which means economic disaster is waiting around the corner.
Anybody who considers the US economy to be in rude health should have a quick glance at how two defining icons of American industry, Ford and General Motors, are doing these days - both are on the verge of bankruptcy and facing relentless pressure from foreign competitors.
The collapse of one of these American industrial giants at a time when the US government has clearly been living beyond its means would soon cure a few people of their myopia about how the Bush administration had kickstarted the American economy through borrowing.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 31, 2006 at 13:45
Daniel,
The problem with Bush's handling of the economy is more his level of spending rather than the fact that he cut taxes.
That's why he is rather unpopular among the economically-minded Right in the US.
Posted by: John Hustings | January 31, 2006 at 13:50
"Taxes are collected by the Treasury. Social insurance contributions on the continent are not collected by their equivalents of the Treasury.
If payment is mandatory, and the amount dictated by the state, the status of the body doing the collection is fairly irrelevant.
"Social Insurance (as opposed to a pseudonymously named income tax like NI) addresses that by taking funding control away from politicians and putting it in the hand of bodies that represent the patient."
Does it? Who decides the cost of social insurance? Who underwrites it?
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 31, 2006 at 13:56
"The problem with Bush's handling of the economy is more his level of spending rather than the fact that he cut taxes."
Well given the oft-cited problems with our own levels of spending (a view to which I don't necessarily subscribe), it would therefore be a mistake to fall into the same trap of borrowing to fund tax cuts without bringing spending under control first.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 31, 2006 at 13:59
Big spending = "compassionate conservatism"
Ask Oliver Letwin
Posted by: tax cutter | January 31, 2006 at 14:01
"Well given the oft-cited problems with our own levels of spending"
Hence cut spending.
Posted by: Rob Largan | January 31, 2006 at 14:04
Goldie is obviously apart of a small but determined contingent to batter Cameron. Rob is right, in every speech Cameron makes he does express the need for a low-tax econamy... why on earth wouldnt he?
And sets out a vision of a Britain where the econamy is more fluid, families more stable, equal rights in the work-place, encouraging individual and community success in our inner cities. He supports the education bill, and we all know he would go further than Blair by releasing more 'liberated' cash to trust schools. i.e. they can only have 15% of commercial cash. And control 15% of admissions (or did that get totally taken out in the end? I dont even know anymore!!) (free schools?), its a right sham!
I think alot of people get scared when he talks about poverty and the quality of life, I dont know why? They are very serious important issues that affect us all. Parts of Africa are beig wiped out by AIDS, its a disgrace that this is even happening! Its totally out of hand. Cameron realises this that these things have a habit of coming round, like a karma K-9 and biteing us in the arse!
Posted by: G-MaN | March 24, 2006 at 13:13