What is "Cameronism"?

That is the question exercising a number of newspapers today and there are at least five answers on offer.  They certainly don't amount to a comprehensive account of what people Cameronism might be but they are all worthy of mention...

"SIX PRIORITIES"
DEFINITION 1 - PROVIDED BY CCHQ

CCHQ has paid for a full page advertisement in today's Sunday Telegraph (a just readable scan of part of the ad is on the right).  It sets out six priorities for Cameron's Conservatives:

1. The "moral obligation" of fighting global poverty;
2. "The right test for our policies is how they help the least well-off in society";
3. Tackling global warming by, in part, "stand[ing] up to big business";
4. Improving the NHS for everyone - not by helping "a few to opt out";
5. Reforming the police - "the last great unreformed public service";
6. "Economic stability" - "the first duty of any government".

"TRUSTING PEOPLE AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY"
DEFINITION 2 - PROVIDED BY DAVID CAMERON HIMSELF

In an article for the Mail on Sunday (not online) Mr Cameron identifies two values at the heart of his Conservatism - "trusting people and sharing responsibility":

"I believe that the more you trust people, the more power and responsibility you give them, the stronger they and society become.  Headteachers, hospital managers, police chief inspectors - they know more about what children, patients and the public need than any government official.  So we should trust them more.

And I believe passionately that we're all in this together - individuals, families, government, business, voluntary organisations.  We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.  For example, we need a united front against crime: not just more effective policing, but better parenting; not just more efficient courts, but a more civilised culture.

It's a world away from Labour's approach.  Instead of trusting people, Labour tells them what to do.  Instead of sharing responsibility, Labour instinctively reaches for government solutions."

"ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT"
DEFINITION 3 - PROVIDED BY MATTHEW D'ANCONA IN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

"If there is such a thing as "Cameronism", its core concept may turn out to be "economic empowerment". It has long been orthodox in the Conservative Party to argue that the best weapon against poverty is economic growth. Mr Cameron does not dissent from this. But he argues - crucially - that growth is not enough. "We used to say that a rising economic tide lifts all boats," he said in a lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies last November. "Well, that obviously isn't true."  A central theme in his leadership will be the quest for fresh mechanisms by which the poor can be lifted out of poverty: "Social Action Zones", less complex bureaucracy, greater incentives to work, less means-testing, more creative use of the voluntary sector."

Read Mr d'Ancona's full article here.

"CRUNCHY CONSERVATISM" OR "THE FREE MARKET IS NOT ENOUGH"
DEFINITION 4 - PROVIDED BY ROD DREHER IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

An American writer uses an extended essay in The Sunday Times to welcome David Cameron's emphasis on quality of life issues.  Mr Dreher argues that the "libertarian philosophies" of Thatcher and Reagan were right for their times but have run their course:

"A society built on consumerism will break down eventually for the same reason socialism did: because even though it is infinitely better than socialism at meeting our physical needs, it also treats human beings as mere materialists.  It cannot, over time, serve the deepest needs of the human person for stability, spiritual idealism and authentic community. We should not be surprised that all our freedoms have led to a society in which too many people see, as the London stage play had it, “shopping and f******” as the highest ideal to which we should aspire."

Mr Dreher welcomes a number of themes in Mr Cameron's conservatism that understand this mood:

• A concern for the environment;
• A desire to protect children from consumerism;
• A suspicion of big business;
• A hunger for identity - in local and cultural forms.

"MAKE [TRUE] CONSERVATISM HISTORY"
DEFINITION 5 - PROVIDED BY FRASER NELSON IN SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY

And, finally, a much less positive definition.

Mr Nelson begins his provocative analysis by asking whether Mr Cameron has "come to revive Conservatism or to bury it?"  His article notes the embrace of the tomato environmentalism of Kyoto rather than the technology-led blue environmentalism - favoured by Bush and John Howard (the world's two most successful conservative politicians).  He notes the retreat from school choice and from a liberalised healthcare system.  If you're interested in a battle of political parties Mr Cameron has made your life more interesting but the battle for ideas has not been helped by the new Tory leader's early tactics, Mr Nelson suggests.  His article concludes:

"It remains very early days. But the deep blue of the Tory logo is being accompanied by streaks of red and green - all emblazoned on a new political wristband which may very well make Conservatism history."

Comments

[Richard Allen]

Sadly I am forced to agree with Fraser Nelson. David Cameron might lead us to victory at the next general election but it won't be a victory for conservatism.

[malcolm]

Personally I think it is far far too early to say what Cameronism will be like.People seem to be over interpreting his words depending on the perception of these individuals already hold.
My hope is that Cameron has some core beliefs and is not just another 'soundbite 'politician like Blair or Clinton who would say absolutely anything to get elected.

[Peter Franklin]

A heartfelt thank you to Rod Dreher. I am not alone. I am a cruchy conservative!

[Peter Franklin]

An excellent article from D'Ancona too. I would beg the Cameron-sceptics to engage with this accurate depiction of the new thinking, not the ludicrous socialist straw man that keeps cropping up in the comments section of this blog.

[Jaz]

Amazing..Cameronism exist just days into his leadership!

Lets be honest, Thatcherism changed over her time as PM, without a doubt, I'm betting Cameron will show his true conservative colouyr swell into his time as PM.

[John Hustings]

"Lets be honest, Thatcherism changed over her time as PM, without a doubt, I'm betting Cameron will show his true conservative colouyr swell into his time as PM."

Thatcherism became *clearer*. It didn't metamorphisise from one thing to another. There is a big difference there.

[RodS]

This is a painful phase we probably have to go through - let's hope we will feel better when it's over.

Cameron is a marketing man and as we know the key stages of any sales process are Attention, Interest, Desire and Action (AIDA)

Well he has certainly got 'Attention' and this has produced massive 'Interest'within the party and Media. Whether this will lead to a 'Desire' for Conservative Government and then 'Action' in voting for us will depend on the detail of 'Cameronism' and the specific policy positions taken.

So far it has all been about tactical withdrawal from long held positions (secured by blood sweat & tears by the foot soldiers) - hopefully these sacrifices will be followed by a new unstoppable advance with all guns blazing !!

Whatever 'Cameronism' turns out to be, it needs to be clear and coherent in time for the May Elections

[greg]

Thatcherism "became clearer".

Forgive me if i missed it, has there been any discussion on here of Bruce Anderson's article a couple of days ago?

[RobG]

Ed: another "thank you" for the Rod Dreher article. A very helpful contribution to the debate on what it means to be a "true conservative".

[RobG]

Fraser Nelson seems to be distorting the facts in order to support his argument. He accuses Oliver Letwin of proposing to "whack" the rich. Actually Rachel Sylvester's article reported Letwin as saying that the party would never "clobber the rich". The aim should be to empower those who have least to advance - not in the sense of trying to do down those with most.

But, hey, why spoil a good argument with anything as inconvenient as the facts!

[Graeme Archer]

Thanks to Rod Dreher's article - which I read over my honey-soaked, hand-prepared muesli, bought last Saturday at the farmer's market - I know I'm a crunchy Conservative now too. And I thought I was just cuddly? Oh dear ...

PS Hear, hear to Peter Franklin.

[James Hellyer]

"Fraser Nelson seems to be distorting the facts in order to support his argument. He accuses Oliver Letwin of proposing to "whack" the rich."

I think you're distorting the facts in order to support your argument. Fraser Nelson's article doesn't accuse Letwin of wanting to "whack" the rich, but points out that this is the end result of policies aimed at "equality".

[Editor]

See a clear copy of the Tory ad by accessing this...

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/advert06.pdf

[R UK]

Oliver Letwyn and Miss Whiplash. What a combo! Fraser Nelson has graphic imagination.

Surely this could be put to good use - designing dungeons as tourist attractions maybe? Politics needs bringing to life like this - marvellous for fantasists! whacking the rich. what else? seducing the poor. Cameron boy sex toys for metrosexuals. We could rival Alistair Campbell's efforts in Forum magazine.

[Alexander Drake]

"If you're interested in a battle of political parties Mr Cameron has made your life more interesting but the battle for ideas has not been helped by the new Tory leader's early tactics, Mr Nelson suggests".

Talk is cheap, Mr Nelson - especially when you're just another journo sitting on the sidelines and not a participant in hand-to-hand political combat.

[John Hustings]

"Talk is cheap, Mr Nelson - especially when you're just another journo sitting on the sidelines and not a participant in hand-to-hand political combat."

What do you want him to do? Run for Prime Minister?

[Alexander Drake]

No, but I do think journos develop a one-dimension of what political involvement means - there's a big jump between sitting in the crusty old bar for journos up near the roof in Westminster, and campaigning for your party in marginal seats.

[James Hellyer]

Indeed there is Alexander, and campaigning for your party in marginal seat becomes much less important if it ceases to represent the ideas you believe in.

[Simon C]

Rod Dreher's was an excellent article, & I would own to at least some crunchy characteristics as well.

But, as our Editor would say, it's cunchy AND conservative. And at the moment, how does the balance lie?

There's been a lot about the last month to applaud, and some things which make me distinctly uneasy. DC's commitment to social justice and poverty-fighting are really welcome. Tied in with his recognition of the value of marriage in sustaining families and communities, there is a genuine possibility that we could come up with some serious conservative solutions to the brokenness caused by generations of failed social policy. I would like to see Geldof feed into our domestic agenda on the family, as well as Africa.

Our party's tone on imigration has sometimes left me feeling a little queasy (in 2001 I did not use imigration in my personal election literature), and I am glad that is to be reviewed.

On the other side of the scales, the A list is a dispiritingly reactionary and centralising measure. Whilst I am delighted by the emphasis on the environment and conservation, we need an authentically conservative set of policies - the worry at the moment is that we are buying into Kyoto just as its shortcomings, long-predicted by many conservatives, are becoming clear even to the left. We also need to tie environment policy to energy.

The key to it is that conservatives need have no fear about accepting that sometimes (very far from always) the left asks the right questions, and identifies them before we do. Poverty and the environment are two examples of that. But just because the left may occasionally get the questions right, it doesn't follow that their answers are right as well. We can agree on the issues, but disagree on the solutions.

But to answer the Editor's question about where the "conservative" part of "And theory conservatism" is at the moment, we need to keep a sense of context and perspective. This is still very early days - DC has been in post less than a month, and he has done a huge amount in that time. If he wants to create a concrete perception that the party has changed, he needs to do that early. It's no use identifying which old policies he intends to keep first, and then producing new ones.

It must be this way round - new ideas and new thinking first, whilst he is still attracting media and public attention. There will be time for AND conservatism in due course.

I may of course be proved wrong - there may be no conservatism to follow. But as well as being a considerable disappointment, that would be a massive surprise. Assuming that we are seeing the early days of a long-term strategy, the only thing that makes any strategic sense at all is to emphasise first the ways in which you are going to break with the past, not the ways in which you are going to maintain continuity. Continuity can, and must, come later.

[Alexander Drake]

I don't think it becomes less important, James - I think it just makes the task of selling your policy ideas within the party more worthwhile.

[Selsdon Man]

Mr Cameron said recently that he does not like "isms" as he is a pragmatist. Is Conservatism out too?

[James Maskell]

Hes a follower of Conservat. Havent you heard about it. Its like Conservatism but its just short of the full thing.

[Simon C]

Is pragmatism an ism?

[Editor]

Just heard Geoffrey Whjeatcroft on The world tonight just discussing Cameron's rejection of '-isms' (including capitalism). GW came up with the neat line that all the '-isms' are now '-wasms'.

Andrew Lansley came after GW. Asked what was the defining feature of DC's conservatism the Shadow Health Secretary said something like it was about acting against Britain's growing inqualities of life expectancy and ensuring the wealthy and privileged helped society's poorest.

[Selsdon Man]

If you hear "consensus politics" used, the wets are definitely back.

[P.J.Titchener]

Oh dear! Did Mr Cameron really study PPE at Oxford? The first duty of any government is not "economic stability" but defence. In 1940, Winston Churchill was not worried about economic stability !!
A country that cannot defend itself has no moral right to exist.
That is the law of history from the beginning.