ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Introducing 'Red Toryism'

(Image from Prospect Magazine - to accompany a forthcoming feature from Philip Blond).

I've just returned from the launch of the new Progressive Conservatism Project - hosted by the Demos think tank and directed by Philip Blond.

In a sign of the seriousness with which the Tory leadership is taking the project David Cameron has just addressed the gathering.  The Tory leader's speech contained little that is new but the PCP has attracted Greg Clark MP, David Willetts MP, Daniel Finkelstein and Zac Goldsmith (among others) to its advisory board.

I'm still struggling to quite understand Mr Blond's 'Red Toryism' (as he describes it) but pasted below are some extracts from pieces he has written for The Guardian's Comment is free over recent months...

Challenging centralisation, monopolisation and speculation: "The small governing elite of the party feels that this is the right way to go, but they lack a final intellectual synthesis and they also fear antagonising Thatcherites, who still constitute a sizeable slice of the party and a majority of the branch activists. But the unprecedented crisis of the world economy precipitated by the debt-leveraged collapse of free-market extremism has given the Tories a real opportunity to develop. They should worry less and carry the logic of their own civic philosophy through to its conclusion, for it could produce a genuinely critical account of the crisis and an alternative to the left/right neoliberal fundamentalism of the last 30 years. For instance, the crisis of contemporary capitalism results from the congruence and culmination of three dominant trends: centralisation, monopolisation and speculation. Despite rightwing ideological claims, unregulated capital does not diffuse equitably among all market participants. The centralisation of money and power is the foundation of monopoly, and the precondition for unrestrained speculation. Thus the Conservative critique of centralisation means an end of cartel domination and a limit to inappropriate speculation." (21 August 2008)

Brady calls for more balance in the party's politics

Graham Brady has recorded some frank advice to the party for Radio 4's The World This Weekend (to be broadcast at 1pm today). He started by describing the need to make in-roads outside of liberal metropolitan areas:

"The changes David Cameron has made in the Conservative Party have been very successful in some places, and have been better at reaching out to a more small 'L' liberal, metropolitan mindset, but have not been making the same impact further away from London - in the North, in the Midlands, in places which really are an absolutely key electoral battlefield if we're going to win a general election."

Going back to the issue of grammar schools - on which he resigned - Brady said it demonstrated the need to be on the side of the core conservative principle of aspiration:

"There is a kind of heartstrings tug. I think it goes to the very core of what the Conservative party is about, which people very often don't understand, which is about aspiration, it's about people having opportunities. Those are the really emotive things in our politics. The party seemed to get itself on the wrong side of that, which is a very dangerous place to be."

He said that Cameron hadn't got the balance right in the "politics of and":

"I think some of it is about the issues that David Cameron has chosen to focus more on, and some of it is about just tone. And there is a simple fact in political life that some messages and some styles play differently in different parts of the country. None of it is impossible to get over. I think David Cameron had the phrase a few weeks ago I heard him saying that what we needed to be dealing with was the politics of 'and' not the politics of 'or'. Of course you can talk about the environment, and you can give a grittier more relevant message to people in an inner city community who are worried about crime. And that I think is the balance that maybe so far we haven't quite got right - we need to get that right, and we need to do it quickly."

Deputy Editor

Michael Gove: The battle of ideas is being fought on Cameron's terms

In an article for The Observer the shadow housing minister Michael Gove argues that David Cameron is setting the political agenda.  Mr Gove, expected to join the shadow cabinet in the imminent reshuffle, points to (1) leadership on the environment and the family, (2) opposition to top-down control of the public services and (3) preference for better enforcement of existing laws rather than more legislation as some key areas where David Cameron is defining the terms of political debate.

There is, of course, other ways of interpreting the last eighteen months. Many believe that the Tories have become 'Europeanised' under David Cameron.  The party has, for example, largely accepted eurozone levels of taxation and public spending.  Britain recently overtook German levels of tax and public expenditure but the Conservatives are very cautious about halting Gordon Brown's tax and spending juggernaut.  The Tories are committed to reversing the Thatcher-Major governments' neglect of marriage and the family but Welfare & Pensions spokesman Philip Hammond communicates no appetite for serious welfare reform.  Under David Cameron the Conservatives have also shifted away from Anglosphere conservatives and towards a more European view of such issues as how to respond to climate change, how to fight the war on terror and how we should relate to Israel.

Gordon Brown's first few days in office have also highlighted the danger of downplaying traditional Conservative strengths.  The terror wave will give him an opportunity to reinforce the mistaken impression in voters' minds that he is a safe pair of hands.  David Cameron's lack of prioritisation of security issues has most been exemplified by his failure - in four months - to appoint a successor to Patrick Mercer.  In today's News of the World the new Prime Minister's plans to crack down on illegal immigration are given prominent coverage on the news pages and are welcomed in a leader.  In his NotW column Fraser Nelson writes the following:

"Nationalism and immigration are powerful political weapons.  The Tories have left them abandoned, for Gordon Brown to use.  A man with an election to win couldn't ask for a better present."

Michael Gove's talk of being on the centre ground and of leading the national debate won't help the Conservatives to reach the northern, striver and traditionalist voters that Conservatives need for victory.  Conservatives should be highlighting Gordon Brown's record of incompetence on tax credits, pensions and waste as reasons why he cannot be trusted with Britain's future.  Mr Gove is right to say that there should be no retreat from David Cameron's emphasis on environmental issues and social justice.  There actually needs to be a deeper and more authentic commitment to both.  But, as David Cameron promised on Wednesday night, there also needs to be tougher measures against crime, on border control and against further losses of British powers to Brussels.

Disraeli the phrasemaker, Peel the changemaker

Former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd has written an interesting historical article for this week's Spectator, entitled "Peel, not Disraeli, is the true model for Cameron". He contrasts Peel's record as Prime Minister (the subject of a book he is releasing a week tomorrow) very favourably with that of Disraeli:

Benjamin Disraeli

• The man for style
• An engaging speaker with substantial wit and imagination
• Evergreen fame, frequently quoted by Conservative leaders
• Introduced an undramatic series of social measures

Sir Robert Peel

• The man for substance
• Dull speaker driven by a relentless appetite for facts
• Awkward and aloof in his political relationships
• Record of achievements second to none

The wounding perception that David Cameron is more style than substance is presumably what Hurd is getting at, but if he is elected Prime Minister and achieves half as much as Peel did, he will remembered fondly.

Deputy Editor

Does the Conservative Party have a Clause IV?

David Cameron has given some comments to the Evening Standard on the opposition to his education reforms. None of them stand out, he says that those who seek to "perpetuate a pointless debate", and who are "splashing around in the shallow end of the education debate", need to "rise above that attitude".

But there is also a brief quote from a "senior supporter" saying that Cameron "see's it as his Clause 4 moment".

If you had to pick out one Clause IV-esque policy shift that has already happened or will feasibly happen in Cameron's Conservatives, what would it be?

Deputy Editor

A smaller state needs a stronger society

Earlier today I highlighted Oliver Letwin's socio-centric article in The Times and worried about his opaque choice of phrases.  In the speech he made at Policy Exchange he admitted that it was all part of a grand plan:

"There is a reason why I have been using this ridiculous, high-falutin language.  I want to make the point that ridiculous high-falutin language is not the sole prerogative of Gordon Brown with his post neo-classical endogenous growth theory… Nor of David Miliband with his “emphasis on the value of equality and solidarity… supplemented by renewed commitment to the extension of personal autonomy in an increasingly interdependent world”.  You shouldn't think that, just because someone uses complicated words, they have a coherent theory.  And you shouldn't think that, just because someone tries, most of the time to speak in plain English, they don't have a theory.  Cameron Conservatives have a strong attachment to plain English.  That is because we think that it is easier to think clearly in clear language.  But this has misled some people who think that theories come in complicated language to think we haven't got one.  And my point is that, despite our general preference for plain language, we do have a theory.  It can be expressed (as I have just expressed it) in complicated language.  It can also be expressed (as I am about to do) in much simpler terms."

The simpler bits then follow:

"At the recent Conservative Spring Forum, I chaired a discussion about the work of our six policy groups.  Afterwards, a senior party official – who had taken time off from his arduous administrative responsibilities to listen to the discussion – approached me to say that he had now understood what we were up to. “Instead of economics”, he said, “it's now about the whole way we live our lives”.  Bull's eye.  Instead of being about economics, politics in a post-Marxist age is about the whole way we live our lives; it is about society... As David Cameron put it in his speech to the same Spring Forum: “It's not economic breakdown that Britain now faces, but social breakdown.  Not businesses that aren't delivering, but public services. Not rampant inflation but rampant crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.  Not irresponsible unions – it's irresponsible parents."

There's a second paradigm shift and if you want to read more please see this pdf.

My main reason for writing this second post, however, is to emphasise how valuable this shift in Tory thinking is.  My frustration at the "high-falutin language" - which I still don't understand the need for - distracted me from the proper need to welcome the Letwin-Cameron emphasis on society.  When I worked at Conservative Central Office I initiated the process that led to the publication of There is such a thing as society.  It's real progress that we now have a party leadership that understands that economics is not the be all and end all.  At the start of the Thatcher years most people worried about whether their kids would get a job or whether they could afford the mortgage.  Those worries are still very real for many people but more people are now worried about the dangers of crime and drugs and relationship breakdown.  Social problems are now a bigger deal in every sense and the Conservatives are right to focus on them.

It is also true that social breakdown has huge implications for economic welfare.  Children that grow up in strong families make for more productive and self-sufficient citizens.  When the welfare society is weak and unable to deliver its superior forms of holistic care, the welfare state has to pick up the pieces.  The taxpayer then picks up the bill for that enlarged welfare state.  The best way of ensuring a long-term reduction in the size of the state is to rebuild the institutions of society.  As I have argued before, Conservatives have traditionally been too focused on cutting the supply of government and would be better focused on reducing the demand for government.

***
Earlier today ConservativeHome interviewed Oliver Letwin:

Post-Thatcher Conservatism is sociocentric and framework-based ($%#@!)

Oliver Letwin is undoubtedly a massive influence on David Cameron.  He was the first senior Tory to back Mr Cameron's leadership bid and his cautious approach to tax, his enthusiasm for Kyoto environmentalism and his emphasis on redistribution have all become hallmarks of the Project for which he is policy director.

In that role Oliver Letwin will make a speech to Policy Exchange later today in which he'll set out the core beliefs of what The Telegraph calls "post-Thatcher Conservatism."

Fortunately we don't have to wait until Mr Letwin gets up to speak.  He has already written for this morning's Times and sets out the two "paradigm-shifts" of "Cameron Conservatism":

"First, a shift from an econocentric paradigm to a sociocentric paradigm."

That, in plain English, probably means that debates about the nature of society are now more central to politics than debates about economic policy.

"Cameron Conservatism is also an attempt to shift the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm."

Attempted translation: Labour's state is top-down and controlling of the public services but the Cameron state will give schools, hospitals and police officers the freedoms and incentives to meet clear objectives.

I think there's a lot of truth in what Oliver says but his article is really hard work.  It reminds me of a Rowan Williams sermon.  I get the impression that big words and clunky phrases have been employed to give pretty simple and uncontroversial ideas the appearance of being more interesting than they are.

ConservativeHome applauds the principles of Project Cameron.  It is right to emphasise the quality of life alongside the standard of living but it would be dangerous to think that economic arguments are largely over.  Huge battles lie ahead in ensuring that the taxes and regulations of the Brown years do not kill Britain's international competitiveness.  Many people in Britain are still struggling to make ends meet and there'll be much more worklessness if UKplc fails to meet the challenge of the emerging economies.  The second of Letwin's paradigm shifts is also welcome although CCHQ's own attempts to micromanage candidate selection and the London Mayoral process are warnings that Team Cameron may be more meddlesome and less trusting than some of us would like.

1pm update: Download a PDF of Oliver Letwin's full remarks

Danny Kruger's Conservatism of individuals, families and communities

Social decay is Britain's most serious weakness says Danny Kruger in a pamphlet entitled 'On Fraternity' to be published tomorrow by the Civitas think tank:

"Hundreds of local institutions, non-commercial and quasi-commercial, were swept away in the flood of reform. Small high-street grocers and bakers disappeared. Family-run pubs were subsumed into giant chains. Whitehall desolated local government, and turned a blind eye to the steady erosion of the family and civil society by the cult of individual freedom.  This trend has grown greatly since the Conservatives left office. The emptiness in our culture is apparent in the rates of family breakdown and the prevalence of drug addiction and violent, alcohol-fuelled crime; in the neglect of the old and the precocious sexuality of children; in the cult of vicarious narcissism which is ‘reality TV’; in the popular addiction to shopping as a means of self-definition, and in the astronomical scale of private debt which is necessary to maintain the shopping habit. It is also apparent, conversely, in the receptive hearing which militant Islam gets from young Asians in Britain, and in the hostility to Asians among young whites."

Danny's views matter - not just because they are tightly-argued - but because he is David Cameron's special adviser.  Since he joined the leader's office last summer there has been a noticeable strengthening of the party leadership's commitment to reverse the decline of voluntary association and of the family unit.  Danny - along with David Willetts, Iain Duncan Smith and Steve Hilton - are emerging as the leading advocates of a 'Social Conservatism' of the kind Margaret Thatcher, according to her autobiography, most regretted never developing.

'On Fraternity' identifies three key trends that are driving society apart:

1. The emergence of a generation of left-behinds: "Some millions of people find themselves falling behind as the rest of society advances, and unable to change their lot; the consequence, in some hundreds of communities, is endemic debt, depression, drugs, alcoholism, crime, and, cause and effect of all of these, family breakdown."
2. A collapse of intergenerational relationships: "The vast army of the retired and soon-to-retire are in conflict with our increasingly strident and alienated youth, not only for material resources and political power, but also – just as important – for cultural airtime and national respect."
3. Cultural differences including "the presence of large communities with different national origins and, therefore, alternative cultural traditions."

David Brooks could be a new guru for David Cameron

I posted a report on David Cameron’s child wellbeing speech on Friday morning and still hope to write an analysis of it in the next few days.  It appears to be a very significant speech with many positive ingredients (excepting the too heavy implication of a contradiction between capitalism and community strength) and if he is serious about its content then it’s a hugely important statement of the future direction of his Conservatism.  As I was reading Mr Cameron’s speech (which, to me, seems to be saturated with the thinking of his speechwriter Danny Kruger) I also kept thinking of New York Times columnist David Brooks.  Listed below are some key extracts of Mr Brooks’ writing from the last year.  If we’re trying to identify a key guru for Mr Cameron I nominate Mr Brooks…

England expects every man will do his duty

David Cameron today used this famous Horatio Nelson quote (albeit substituting England for Britain and adding "and woman") in a speech to launch the Young Adult Trust today. He advocated lowering certain age restrictions for young people who have demonstrated that they are responsible citizens by participating in a voluntary civilian version of National Service. The ages at which you can bear criminal responsibility and vote were examples he sensibly gave of age limits that would be excluded.

The YAT - headed up by Paul Oginsky, co-founder of Weston Spirit - launched officially today and released this research document about the transition to adulthood. It will run two week courses for selected teenageers, where they will look at concepts like identity, community work and teamwork. Cameron hopes they could become some kind of rite of passage into adulthood, and its associated rights.

The speech isn't on the Party website yet but you click here to download the draft. Here is an extract:

"In too many ways we’ve become the walk-on-by society. Walk-on-by suffering. Walk-on-by an opportunity, and an obligation, to help. I want us, as a society, to be far firmer about what we expect of ourselves – and of our fellow citizens. It’s not enough just to pay your taxes and obey the law. More, much more than this is expected. Our whole society – our peace and our wealth – rests on values which we all have a responsibility to uphold. Trust. Treating others as you wish to be treated. Compassion. The sense that we’re all in this together. These are the underpinnings of a successful economy and a healthy society. We simply cannot continue to allow young people to grow up with so little knowledge of, and respect for, the values of citizenship."

Cameron has also written in this evening's Evening Standard on the subject (click on the image below to enlarge it).

Deputy Editor

Guardian reader to be David Cameron's private secretary

See here.  Hat-tip to ToryRadio.

Cameron's appeal to 'Waitrose voter'

Richard Reeves - in the Labour conference edition of the New Statesman (not yet online) - thinks Brown et al should be worried.  Reeves draws on George Lakoff's theory that voters are much less interested in a politician's specific policy recommedndations and are much more interested in whether politicians "get" the issues that they are concerned with.

Reeves worries that the Tory leader - with his focus on "labour market mobility, giant supermarket chains, anonymous neighbourhoods and congealed roads" - is more in tune with voters and "the spirit of the age":

"Cameron is tapping into a growing unease about the state of our communities and the still-tattered state of our social fabric.  He is making all the right noises about work/life balance, well-being, corporate power and the environment.  People do not generally feel that their problem is poverty, or lack of individual freedom.  Their problem is that, despite all our advances and advantages, neither market-driven growth nor state-funded public services seem to be delivering better communities and better lives."

Reeves is surely right that this Crunchy Conservatism is spot on for the 'Waitrose voter' and David Cameron should continue to pursue it.  This site believes that it is also important for the Tory leader to 'get' the concerns of the average 'Tesco voter'... value-for-money, safer streets, secure borders, action against terrorists/ militants and so on.  But it is good that the party is rebuilding its connection with the socially-concerned ABC1s and Labour are right to worry about that. 

Nick Herbert seeks to reconnect local communities with police

Writing in this morning's Telegraph, Philip Johnson trawls the Inspector Gadget blog for examples of the failure of the Met to provide enough beat officers for London's streets. 

After years of Westminster politicians promising to put more police officers on the streets of local communities, Nick Herbert MP, Tory spokesman on police reform, has had enough and thinks an entirely different approach is needed.  Mr Herbert has written an article for the magazine of the Reform think tank about rebuilding the links between local communities and the police service.  Mr Herbert's inspiration is one of the founding principles of British policing, as set out by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 - ''the police are the public and the public are the police."

According to The Daily Telegraph  Mr Herbert wants "communities unhappy with the priorities of chief officers," to be able to, "withhold part of the budget and spend it on beat patrols of their own, or reopen mothballed police stations".  Mr Herbert ultimately wants to see local communities elect police authorities or, ideally, their police commissioner.

The proposed reforms to policing are the most concrete example of the Tory leadership's commitment to localism.  Localisation competes with crunchy conservatism, 'modern compassionate conservatism' and 'fraternity' to be defining labels for Cameronism.  The Direct Democracy campaign launched its Agenda for a New Model Party immediately after the last General Election.  DD has ten founding themes:

1. Decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.
2. Decision-makers should be directly elected.
3. Citizens should be as free as possible from state coercion.
4. Local authorities should be self-financing.
5. Policing should be brought under local democratic control.
6. The state should fund, rather than administer, education.
7. The state should fund, rather than administer, healthcare.
8. Taxes should be simple, fair, transparent, efficient, competitive and low.
9. The supremacy of Parliament should be guaranteed over ministers, judges, officials and foreign treaty obligations.
10. Candidates for public office should be selected from the widest possible base.

On today's Platform Daniel Hannan MEP thinks that localisation might be the answer to the West Lothian Question.

David Cameron's big idea is... fraternity (says Danny Kruger)

ConservativeHome recently revealed that Danny Kruger was leaving The Telegraph to become special adviser to David Cameron.  He provides the cover feature for this month's Prospect magazine and he identifies his new boss' big idea as 'fraternity'.  Prospect declares that Danny is writing in a personal capacity - but given that CCHQ distributed the article via email yesterday afternoon we can conclude that they are quite happy to be associated with it.

The article is beautifully-written and focuses on one of the most important debates in politics.  For the left individuals are largely connected with one another through the state.  Through those connections they receive their education and their welfare, for example.  For the right, in contrast, individuals are largely joined together by society.  It's a subject dear to my heart and when I ran CCO's Renewing One Nation policy unit I oversaw the publication of 'There is such a thing as society'.

For Danny, "fraternity does not concern the freedom of the individual (the abstract one) or the equality of the people (the abstract all) but the quality of relationships among the communities we inhabit: the real some."  He continues:

"Fraternity is the sphere of belonging, of membership, the sphere of identity and particularity. It exists in civil society, in the arena of commercial and social enterprise, of family and nation. It concerns neighbourhood, voluntary association, faith, and all the other elements of identity that relate us to some and distinguish us from others. It concerns culture."

Up until now Cameron has spoken of 'shared responsibility' rather than 'fraternity' but the Tory leader is clearly interested in the great mix of people-sized institutions that lie between the individual and the state and which give our lives their richness and meaning.

It's early days to know what practical action is going to flow from this big idea (if it is Mr Cameron's big idea).  But Danny Kruger, as one would expect, is hopeful...

• David Cameron is committed to localism, he writes: "Localism is one of the defining themes of today's Conservative party... Localism comprehends both liberty, the belief that people should be trusted to make the decisions that affect their own neighbourhoods, and fraternity, the recognition that a community is all in it together." But are David Cameron's instincts really localist?  There wasn't much localism on show earlier this week when the ability of local Conservative parties to choose their own candidates was sacrificed in order to meet CCHQ's centralised target for more women MPs. Very Gordon Brown and a decision rightly criticised by the Direct Democracy group.
• Danny Kruger correctly identifies the corrosive effect of Gordon Brown's tax burden: "We are suffering what Keith Joseph long ago called "the pocket money society": a combination of high taxes, high house prices, expensive pensions and large welfare entitlements runs the risk of infantilising the population, leaving us each with just enough money to spend on pleasure but not enough to spend on the responsibilities of adulthood."  But what is Team Cameron proposing to do about Gordon Brown's record tax levels?  Almost nothing.  Danny Kruger defends Team Cameron by pointing to plans to prioritise cuts in business taxation.  Businesses, says Danny, are "the fraternal glue that holds many communities together."  True but tax relief for families and charities is probably more important for ending that 'pocket money society'.
• Danny Kruger's third reason for hope is David Cameron's commitment to marriage and the family: "The promotion of marriage will promote liberty. More importantly, it will also promote fraternity. The evidence shows that, more often than the alternatives, the institution of marriage binds a family together, helping children grow up happy and socialised."  The jury is still out on David Cameron's commitment to the family although I am optimistic that IDS' social justice policy group will be clear in the need to support marriage.  David Cameron hedged his bets in his recent speech on family policy and he certainly faces opposition from the likes of Tim Yeo to dilute his leadership pledge on a tax allowance for married couples.

Danny Kruger may have an uphill struggle making the rhetoric match the policy agenda but it is very good news that he is in the leader's office - making the case for 'fraternity' to be a central feature of Project Cameron.

Is DC a libertarian paternalist?

James Harkin, in today's Guardian, looks at David Cameron's speech to the National Family and Parenting Institute and decides that he is a "libertarian paternalist". The apparently oxymoronic term conjures up an image of a disapproving father who makes clear what he thinks but doesn't use coercion.

Cameron made a clear case for marriage in the speech but did fall short of advocating incentives - hopefully waiting for the social justice working group on the family to report its findings. Last night on Jonathan Ross, he made a clear stance against drug usage whilst signalling a higher emphasis on rehabilitation and education and an end to the "war on drugs".

What would a libertarian paternalist government be like? Would it engage in public information drives whilst allowing people to make the wrong choices? Most politicians outside of North Korea are libertarians to a degree, but at what point do you draw the line?

According to Harkin we don't have far to look - Labour's third term has already been based on this "astute piece of politicking". He points to its "second-guessing our behaviour through soft policy tools for moral persuasion", such as last week's "Dad Pack wheeze".

This approach is very useful to Cameron while he is still creating an image and waiting for the policy groups, but come election it is unlikely to satisfy neither libertarians nor paternalists.

Deputy Editor

Cameron distinguishes GWB from GDP

Talking about a subject Conservatives have rarely broached, David Cameron will today say that the Protestant work ethic should be replaced by a "modern vision of ethical work". He believes we should talk not just about Gross Domestic Product but about General Well-Being too, hoping to triangulate between the issues by fomenting strong relationships and progressive employment practice in order to boost productivity:

"The traditional response of the right – that government can't do much about all this and shouldn't try – is inadequate. But equally, the response of the new left – that government should regulate the specific details of working life – is too ineffective. It produces unintended consequences that end up damaging our competitiveness. It's vital to create a space... which stands firmly between regulation and indifference. I refuse to choose between the intolerant impulse to right every supposed wrong by passing new laws, and the coldly amoral refusal to even take a view on the actions of others."

The Guardian reports it as wrong-footing Gordon Brown, Sky News as going for the Feel-Good Factor, and The Times as drawing a line under Thatcher.

Deputy Editor

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...

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."