The UK Conservative Party has had a proud history of defending the principles of freedom. And with regard to our current position in Government, liberty-loving members of the Party can feel cheerful about the fact that the Coalition deal contains much of the generally sound libertarian substance of the Tory Manifesto.
The Coalition should be praised for the job done thus far in attempting to tackle the deficit (the only concern being the VAT and CGT rises). But we also ought to remember that political parties exist a) to win elections and b) to stay in power as the government (once they are in) for as long as possible.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance to those principles we hold dear - and should be manifested in the intelligent and gracious defence of the freedom philosophy. Much as we love our political parties, and their traditions, our longer-term support should be qualified by the degree to which they adhere to our cherished principles.
At the same time, we must be careful not to stand on the side-walk throwing stones. Lambasting our party for showing political pragmatism, or for not implementing the politics of freedom as quickly as we might want, is unlikely to be very effective in the long-run. In this context, I was somewhat surprised to hear the famous libertarian economist, Murray Rothbard (speaking in the 1980s) criticising Ronald Reagan and the Libertarian Party of that time for only advocating across-the-board tax cuts of 30 per cent!
But the spirit of constructive and principled criticism is deeply necessary for the defence of freedom and for holding our political representatives to account. Conservative Home, the grassroots website edited by Tim Montgomerie, serves this useful function - a committed, yet critical friend, it represents the 'conscience of the conservative movement' viz-a-viz the Parliamentary Conservative Party in Westminster and in Town Halls. In a similar manner, the principles of freedom can also be advanced through participation in any of those dedicated centre-right campaign onganisations that operate outside party politics. I recently joined The Freedom Association, an excellent bi-partisan political organisation that espouses the economic, social and moral case for the principles of liberty, and which probably comes closest to approximating the views of this blog.
Arguing from a position of principle, but with an understanding of political realities, we must defend freedom regardless of contemporary developments, whilst engaging with the political representatives of the day as far as possible to help promote and nuture our cause.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Ideas and Issues
Why liberal?
As a clasical liberal, or modern libertarian, I believe in individual self-government as the only true basis of a strong, happy and free society.
In practice, the individual must be free to pursue their own self-interest, as they perceive it, subject to respecting the rights of all other individuals. By extension, the individual must be free to choose how they spend what they honestly earn, and not have the fruits of their labour appropriated beyond what is strictly necessary for the state to perform its primary functions - maintaining the rule of law, a national defence, and taking care of the most needy in our society.
Why conservative?
Whilst there are almost as many definitions of 'conservatism' as there are varieties of French cheese, my particular brand encompasses the outlook of the modern Anglo-American tradition, represented in the Premiership of Prime Minster Thatcher and President Reagan in the US. I consider myself a conservative in the following ways:-
1. Opposition to 'Progressivism';
Opposition to the idea that increased governmental power and control represents the solution to the problems of human existence and history. In reality, seemingly benevolent forms of governmental action actually amount to a 'soft despotism' inimical to an independent and free-minded citizenry.
2. Politics as the 'art of the Possible';
These immortal words of the conservative philospher, Russell Kirk, sum up how we should approach the implementation of our classical liberal ideals.
The science of liberty must emerge gradually, piece by piece, in order to be successful in the long run. Margaret Thatcher understood she could not attempt what was beyond the legitimate consent of the people at the time in which she was governing. Some of her major achievements in office only came towards the end of her reign, such as her privitisation programme. She never attempted the politically unthinkable - such as the free market overhaul of the National Health Service. She understood Britain had to be weened off socialism. That still remains the case today.
Which present political figures best represent the ideals of which you write?
I am an admirer of David Cameron, our current Prime Minster. He has had his critics, but has always struck me as being mindful of the principles of individual liberty, as well as understanding the limitations of state power. He has also shown his pragmatism by his forging of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats.
In the wider Conservative Parliamentary Party, John Redwood has been a tireless advocate of lower taxation and less government. And the newly elected MP for Bournemouth West, Conor Burns, is also good news for those championing liberal conservative principles.
Across the pond, I am a fan of such Republicans as Jeb Bush, Former Governor of Florida, Rep. Nikki Haley, the Gubernatorial candidate for South Carolina, and Rand Paul, Senate candidate for Kentucky. All three cherish the principles of liberal conservatism. The first two, in particular, have shown in their governmental records that they understand politics as the art of the possible.
What do you consider to be the defining challenges of our day?
The most urgent need in the UK has undoubtedly been to tackle the national financial crisis. This week's emergency budget did much to address this, with the Coalition announcing radical plans incorporating a mixture of public spending cuts and tax rises.
Once our economic house is in order again, I would expect to see the UK return to a healthy and growing economy, which would in turn allow the Coalition to concentrate on those other parts of its platform that have rightly been priortised; the restoration of civil liberties, free schools, welfare reform, and a committment to devolving powers to Local Authorities wherever practically possible.
Those are the issues that should keep liberal conservative reformers busy for the time being.
Will you be doing more of these question and answer posts?
Quite possibly - as the need arises.
As a clasical liberal, or modern libertarian, I believe in individual self-government as the only true basis of a strong, happy and free society.
In practice, the individual must be free to pursue their own self-interest, as they perceive it, subject to respecting the rights of all other individuals. By extension, the individual must be free to choose how they spend what they honestly earn, and not have the fruits of their labour appropriated beyond what is strictly necessary for the state to perform its primary functions - maintaining the rule of law, a national defence, and taking care of the most needy in our society.
Why conservative?
Whilst there are almost as many definitions of 'conservatism' as there are varieties of French cheese, my particular brand encompasses the outlook of the modern Anglo-American tradition, represented in the Premiership of Prime Minster Thatcher and President Reagan in the US. I consider myself a conservative in the following ways:-
1. Opposition to 'Progressivism';
Opposition to the idea that increased governmental power and control represents the solution to the problems of human existence and history. In reality, seemingly benevolent forms of governmental action actually amount to a 'soft despotism' inimical to an independent and free-minded citizenry.
2. Politics as the 'art of the Possible';
These immortal words of the conservative philospher, Russell Kirk, sum up how we should approach the implementation of our classical liberal ideals.
The science of liberty must emerge gradually, piece by piece, in order to be successful in the long run. Margaret Thatcher understood she could not attempt what was beyond the legitimate consent of the people at the time in which she was governing. Some of her major achievements in office only came towards the end of her reign, such as her privitisation programme. She never attempted the politically unthinkable - such as the free market overhaul of the National Health Service. She understood Britain had to be weened off socialism. That still remains the case today.
Which present political figures best represent the ideals of which you write?
I am an admirer of David Cameron, our current Prime Minster. He has had his critics, but has always struck me as being mindful of the principles of individual liberty, as well as understanding the limitations of state power. He has also shown his pragmatism by his forging of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats.
In the wider Conservative Parliamentary Party, John Redwood has been a tireless advocate of lower taxation and less government. And the newly elected MP for Bournemouth West, Conor Burns, is also good news for those championing liberal conservative principles.
Across the pond, I am a fan of such Republicans as Jeb Bush, Former Governor of Florida, Rep. Nikki Haley, the Gubernatorial candidate for South Carolina, and Rand Paul, Senate candidate for Kentucky. All three cherish the principles of liberal conservatism. The first two, in particular, have shown in their governmental records that they understand politics as the art of the possible.
What do you consider to be the defining challenges of our day?
The most urgent need in the UK has undoubtedly been to tackle the national financial crisis. This week's emergency budget did much to address this, with the Coalition announcing radical plans incorporating a mixture of public spending cuts and tax rises.
Once our economic house is in order again, I would expect to see the UK return to a healthy and growing economy, which would in turn allow the Coalition to concentrate on those other parts of its platform that have rightly been priortised; the restoration of civil liberties, free schools, welfare reform, and a committment to devolving powers to Local Authorities wherever practically possible.
Those are the issues that should keep liberal conservative reformers busy for the time being.
Will you be doing more of these question and answer posts?
Quite possibly - as the need arises.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
On the elections in November 2010
Looking towards a victory for the conservative movement
Conservative Republicans in the US will remember that day in November 2008 when the Democratic Party consolidated their control of the US Congress by winning the White House.
To many in the media, President Obama's historic victory marked the ultimate rejection by the American people of conservative political philosophy and signalled the imminent death of the Republican Party. And I'm sure that many within the Republican Party were left scratching their heads, wondering what the implications of these changes were for the future of conservatism in America.
Over time, however, it became clear that what the American people were rejecting was not conservatism, but big government over-reach. Whilst the majority of people who voted for Obama would be unlikely to describe themselves as conservative, it would be true to say that people were tired of President Bush's expansionist government - the invention of another huge welfare entitlement, un-costed foreign wars, pork-barrel spending, and the general curtailment of civil liberties. Too many notable Republicans seemed to forget that championing first principles was more important than being an apologist for a nominally-conservative administration. All in all, it was understable why people voted the Republicans out of office in 2006 and 2008.
But the recognition of fault, together with the loss of political power, can only be a good thing for conservative Republicanism in the long run. Beholding the radical Democratic administration in Washington, and the rise of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, the Republican Party as a whole has been forced into seeing the wood for the trees, its own historical mistakes, and ultimately the re-discovery of the limited-government principles of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and other conservative pioneers.
The external pressures foisted upon the GOP have also led to the emergence of Republicans with personal integrity and sound conservative credentials - candidates who are viewed as being outside the Republican establishment - Marco Rubio and Rep. Nikki Haley are just two of them, who will be running for political office in Florida and South Carolina respectively.
As conservatives, we are all hoping for major changes in November. A new generation of Republican Congressmen and women will hold the President to account, challenge some of his administration's worst ideas, and ultimately propose positive policy solutions that rely on individuals, families and communities, more than the government, to solve the complex challenges of our day.
Let the spirit of 1994 emerge once again!
Conservative Republicans in the US will remember that day in November 2008 when the Democratic Party consolidated their control of the US Congress by winning the White House.
To many in the media, President Obama's historic victory marked the ultimate rejection by the American people of conservative political philosophy and signalled the imminent death of the Republican Party. And I'm sure that many within the Republican Party were left scratching their heads, wondering what the implications of these changes were for the future of conservatism in America.
Over time, however, it became clear that what the American people were rejecting was not conservatism, but big government over-reach. Whilst the majority of people who voted for Obama would be unlikely to describe themselves as conservative, it would be true to say that people were tired of President Bush's expansionist government - the invention of another huge welfare entitlement, un-costed foreign wars, pork-barrel spending, and the general curtailment of civil liberties. Too many notable Republicans seemed to forget that championing first principles was more important than being an apologist for a nominally-conservative administration. All in all, it was understable why people voted the Republicans out of office in 2006 and 2008.
But the recognition of fault, together with the loss of political power, can only be a good thing for conservative Republicanism in the long run. Beholding the radical Democratic administration in Washington, and the rise of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, the Republican Party as a whole has been forced into seeing the wood for the trees, its own historical mistakes, and ultimately the re-discovery of the limited-government principles of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and other conservative pioneers.
The external pressures foisted upon the GOP have also led to the emergence of Republicans with personal integrity and sound conservative credentials - candidates who are viewed as being outside the Republican establishment - Marco Rubio and Rep. Nikki Haley are just two of them, who will be running for political office in Florida and South Carolina respectively.
As conservatives, we are all hoping for major changes in November. A new generation of Republican Congressmen and women will hold the President to account, challenge some of his administration's worst ideas, and ultimately propose positive policy solutions that rely on individuals, families and communities, more than the government, to solve the complex challenges of our day.
Let the spirit of 1994 emerge once again!
Friday, 11 June 2010
In search of Sarah
Since bursting onto the US national scene as John McCain's Vice-Presidential running mate, Former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has truly never looked back as one of the country's leading voices in the resurgent conservative movement.
But just what is it about Ms Palin that has inspired so many people to feel moved by her hopeful espousal of traditional values, free enterprise and constitutional government?
There is no doubt Ms Palin has had her detractors, both in the Republican Party, as well of course in the mainstream media, who during her Vice-Presidential campaign attempted to trip her up with a 'gotcha' moment every step of way, rather than probe more deeply into the good that had been accomplished in Alasksa and enquire as to where the Governor stood on issues of concern to millions of Americans.
Ultimately, if Ms Palin does decide to run for the Presidency in 2012, she will need to learn fast about some issues, particularly those relating to foreign affairs.
However, such necessities should not blind conservatives from recognising the Governor's considerable achievements in office, her leadership qualities, her warm if somewhat unorthodox speaking style, and probably most importantly, her basic grasp of the principle that government should remain beholden to its people and not vice versa.
This is what has been exciting so many millions of Americans.
And with a host of inspiring Palinistas running in the November 2010 Congressional and Gubernatorial elections, we can truely say, that in President Obama's America, there is reason to be cheerful.
But just what is it about Ms Palin that has inspired so many people to feel moved by her hopeful espousal of traditional values, free enterprise and constitutional government?
There is no doubt Ms Palin has had her detractors, both in the Republican Party, as well of course in the mainstream media, who during her Vice-Presidential campaign attempted to trip her up with a 'gotcha' moment every step of way, rather than probe more deeply into the good that had been accomplished in Alasksa and enquire as to where the Governor stood on issues of concern to millions of Americans.
Ultimately, if Ms Palin does decide to run for the Presidency in 2012, she will need to learn fast about some issues, particularly those relating to foreign affairs.
However, such necessities should not blind conservatives from recognising the Governor's considerable achievements in office, her leadership qualities, her warm if somewhat unorthodox speaking style, and probably most importantly, her basic grasp of the principle that government should remain beholden to its people and not vice versa.
This is what has been exciting so many millions of Americans.
And with a host of inspiring Palinistas running in the November 2010 Congressional and Gubernatorial elections, we can truely say, that in President Obama's America, there is reason to be cheerful.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Welfare
Encouraging a culture of work
Government endeavours to relieve the poor in our society have all too often undermined the creation of a free and independent-minded citizenry. Individual hope, opportunity and responsibility have been replaced with the Welfare mindset - a dependency on the State, a poverty of ambition, and a general resentfulness against the so-called 'haves'.
Milton Friedman, the late American economist, set out some radical solutions to our collective welfare problems in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas advocated could be applied across the welfare system, and included the replacement of Public Housing with individual cash subsidies, a system of school vouchers in Public Schooling, and the abolition of the minimum wage. Whilst far removed from what is currently political possible, they provide, at the very least, some potentially great ideas to draw inspiration from in the future.
But how can we begin to shift our welfare system onto the right footing? How can we help to replace spiritual poverty with a sense of hope, dependence with contribution, and resentment with aspiration? One method would be to focus in on Britain's Work and Benefits culture.
It is no secret that the current regime, on the whole, inadvertently discourages work. Get a job, and you will rapidly lose your Housing Benefit entitlement. Get a job, and your jobseekers allowance entitlement will similarly vanish. There may seem nothing wrong with these mechanisms in theory, but in practice they act as a disincentive for people to choose part or full-time work over welfare.
A much better system would be a genuine partnership between citizen and State. Such an arrangement would allow for people to gradually move away from Benefits and into full-time, stable work. In short, it would help to encourage work, over dependency. There would be a number of tools the State could utilise to advance this cause - tax incentives, for instance, to allow the newly-employed to retain more of their initial earnings, phasing out such breaks over time as the individual increased their general net income. Working tax credits, in the form of payments to the low-incomed and their families, are already in existence, could perhaps be made more of - State maladministration aside.
The other side of creating such a culture of work would be to encourage the private sector, rather than the State, to recruit the unemployed, invest in them, and receive State money after a job recruiting-training-establishment operation had been carried out successfully. Such a shift of emphasis was tried and tested in America, when President Clinton's welfare reforms returned responsibility for welfare back to individual States who then experimented with different ways of adminstering entitlements and getting people into work.
The effects of these and other reforms will not been seen overnight. This is the case for much of the reform agenda, and conservatives should be concerned with the long-term effects of policy, rather than their sound-bite quality or ability to appease the tabloid press. We should expect, however, to see the benefits of such reforms within a relatively short space of time - and with the forward march of a free and independent citizenry, a longer-term retirement plan for the Welfare State Leviathan.
Government endeavours to relieve the poor in our society have all too often undermined the creation of a free and independent-minded citizenry. Individual hope, opportunity and responsibility have been replaced with the Welfare mindset - a dependency on the State, a poverty of ambition, and a general resentfulness against the so-called 'haves'.
Milton Friedman, the late American economist, set out some radical solutions to our collective welfare problems in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas advocated could be applied across the welfare system, and included the replacement of Public Housing with individual cash subsidies, a system of school vouchers in Public Schooling, and the abolition of the minimum wage. Whilst far removed from what is currently political possible, they provide, at the very least, some potentially great ideas to draw inspiration from in the future.
But how can we begin to shift our welfare system onto the right footing? How can we help to replace spiritual poverty with a sense of hope, dependence with contribution, and resentment with aspiration? One method would be to focus in on Britain's Work and Benefits culture.
It is no secret that the current regime, on the whole, inadvertently discourages work. Get a job, and you will rapidly lose your Housing Benefit entitlement. Get a job, and your jobseekers allowance entitlement will similarly vanish. There may seem nothing wrong with these mechanisms in theory, but in practice they act as a disincentive for people to choose part or full-time work over welfare.
A much better system would be a genuine partnership between citizen and State. Such an arrangement would allow for people to gradually move away from Benefits and into full-time, stable work. In short, it would help to encourage work, over dependency. There would be a number of tools the State could utilise to advance this cause - tax incentives, for instance, to allow the newly-employed to retain more of their initial earnings, phasing out such breaks over time as the individual increased their general net income. Working tax credits, in the form of payments to the low-incomed and their families, are already in existence, could perhaps be made more of - State maladministration aside.
The other side of creating such a culture of work would be to encourage the private sector, rather than the State, to recruit the unemployed, invest in them, and receive State money after a job recruiting-training-establishment operation had been carried out successfully. Such a shift of emphasis was tried and tested in America, when President Clinton's welfare reforms returned responsibility for welfare back to individual States who then experimented with different ways of adminstering entitlements and getting people into work.
The effects of these and other reforms will not been seen overnight. This is the case for much of the reform agenda, and conservatives should be concerned with the long-term effects of policy, rather than their sound-bite quality or ability to appease the tabloid press. We should expect, however, to see the benefits of such reforms within a relatively short space of time - and with the forward march of a free and independent citizenry, a longer-term retirement plan for the Welfare State Leviathan.
Monday, 4 January 2010
The European Union
Continuing the series on conservative reform.
Britain's relationship with the European Union remains an uneasy political subject, but is nevertheless a subject conservatives should be taking seriously - and discussing with vigour. Whilst it is important to move away from a narrow understanding of what issues are important, our relationship with the EU is at the heart of the conservative project's central objectives - more open and accountable government, appropriate subsidiarity between local and national politics, and the elimination of poorly targeted regulation wherever found.
The role of national governments
On examining the history of the EU, the most obvious development has been the 'salami-slicing' of powers away from national governments and in the direction of the EU and its executive branch, the Commission. In a manner equivalent to a Gordon Brown tax increase, this has happened gradually, and through stealth, without the proper consultation of the public or even a political discussion in Westminster of the consequences. Lest I bore my kind readers with too much detail, I will point to a specific example to illustrate the problem of decisions being made too far away from the centres of their impact.
Take the European Working Time Directive, implemented into British law in 1998. Ostensibly noble, the legislation aims to protect Eumropeans by maximising the number of hours they can work in a week, refining the use of night time work, ensuring rest break entitlements and paid leave annual entitlements. In practice, however, the results have been disastrous, not only for British businesses, but for organisations such as the NHS where a natural first priority is the staffing of patient wards at all different times of the day. In short, it is has been a mischief maker.
Whilst most people would agree that rights and responsibilities are involved in the employer/employee relationship, we must put an end to the EU's 'one size fits all' approach to legislation. Is it right that a group of 27 EU Commissioners and its rubber-stamping Parliament should be making such monolithic decisions on employment law, without regard to the unique working histories and cultures of each of the different member states? It is self-evident that certain matters should be left to national governments to legislate on, and only where individual contractual arragements or more localised employment laws are not possible to meet specific needs.
Policy
The other big concern we should address is the EU Budget and how it is allocated.
We have to question the value to the UK taxpayer, other Europeans, and the rest of the world, of the Common Agricultural Policy. Whilst the CAP claims to support vulnerable European farmers, what it actually does is subsidise comfortable French farmers and large agri-business. Furthermore, the policy is not only wasteful, it is manifestly immoral, keeping African farmers poor through the erection of extortionate import tariffs and subdising European exports leading to the dumping of European products on world markets.
In likewise fashion, we have to question the value of the Common Fisheries Policy. Whilst there is a clear need for the proper regulation of Europe's limited fishing stock, the present regime has had the opposite effect to that intended - summed up in no better way than the sight of dead fish being thrown back into the sea by European fisherman to satisfy EU fishing quotas. Add to that the contrasting seriousness with which some of the member states regard enforcement, (Britain and Spain being chief examples of the different approaches taken), and you have a recipe for anarchy and destruction in our waters.
The Conservative vision of the European Union
I am in favour of Britain's continued membership of the EU. In order to make it work, however, we must not be afraid to criticise where the European Project not only undermines our basic principles of government but does much harm in fields of policy. David Cameron's courageous decision to join a new political grouping within the European Parliament is an encouraging first step. It a sign that the Conservative Party are committed to an EU that represents a voluntary coalition of independent nation states, rather than a project for full political integration, and an EU that will shake off the shackles of special interests and focus instead on genuinely shared objectives concerning the common good.
Britain's relationship with the European Union remains an uneasy political subject, but is nevertheless a subject conservatives should be taking seriously - and discussing with vigour. Whilst it is important to move away from a narrow understanding of what issues are important, our relationship with the EU is at the heart of the conservative project's central objectives - more open and accountable government, appropriate subsidiarity between local and national politics, and the elimination of poorly targeted regulation wherever found.
The role of national governments
On examining the history of the EU, the most obvious development has been the 'salami-slicing' of powers away from national governments and in the direction of the EU and its executive branch, the Commission. In a manner equivalent to a Gordon Brown tax increase, this has happened gradually, and through stealth, without the proper consultation of the public or even a political discussion in Westminster of the consequences. Lest I bore my kind readers with too much detail, I will point to a specific example to illustrate the problem of decisions being made too far away from the centres of their impact.
Take the European Working Time Directive, implemented into British law in 1998. Ostensibly noble, the legislation aims to protect Eumropeans by maximising the number of hours they can work in a week, refining the use of night time work, ensuring rest break entitlements and paid leave annual entitlements. In practice, however, the results have been disastrous, not only for British businesses, but for organisations such as the NHS where a natural first priority is the staffing of patient wards at all different times of the day. In short, it is has been a mischief maker.
Whilst most people would agree that rights and responsibilities are involved in the employer/employee relationship, we must put an end to the EU's 'one size fits all' approach to legislation. Is it right that a group of 27 EU Commissioners and its rubber-stamping Parliament should be making such monolithic decisions on employment law, without regard to the unique working histories and cultures of each of the different member states? It is self-evident that certain matters should be left to national governments to legislate on, and only where individual contractual arragements or more localised employment laws are not possible to meet specific needs.
Policy
The other big concern we should address is the EU Budget and how it is allocated.
We have to question the value to the UK taxpayer, other Europeans, and the rest of the world, of the Common Agricultural Policy. Whilst the CAP claims to support vulnerable European farmers, what it actually does is subsidise comfortable French farmers and large agri-business. Furthermore, the policy is not only wasteful, it is manifestly immoral, keeping African farmers poor through the erection of extortionate import tariffs and subdising European exports leading to the dumping of European products on world markets.
In likewise fashion, we have to question the value of the Common Fisheries Policy. Whilst there is a clear need for the proper regulation of Europe's limited fishing stock, the present regime has had the opposite effect to that intended - summed up in no better way than the sight of dead fish being thrown back into the sea by European fisherman to satisfy EU fishing quotas. Add to that the contrasting seriousness with which some of the member states regard enforcement, (Britain and Spain being chief examples of the different approaches taken), and you have a recipe for anarchy and destruction in our waters.
The Conservative vision of the European Union
I am in favour of Britain's continued membership of the EU. In order to make it work, however, we must not be afraid to criticise where the European Project not only undermines our basic principles of government but does much harm in fields of policy. David Cameron's courageous decision to join a new political grouping within the European Parliament is an encouraging first step. It a sign that the Conservative Party are committed to an EU that represents a voluntary coalition of independent nation states, rather than a project for full political integration, and an EU that will shake off the shackles of special interests and focus instead on genuinely shared objectives concerning the common good.
Monday, 28 December 2009
The coming of age of David Cameron
Since David Cameron’s early days as Conservative Party leader, and Gordon’s Brown’s accession to the Labour throne, many believed the conventional wisdom about our respective Party leaders and by extension their parties:-
Gordon Brown, whilst not youthful or with the political skills of Tony Blair, was without doubt an outstanding Chancellor. Going forward, Gordon will steer the country in a clearer and more ethical direction than that of his superficial predecessor; possessing honesty and integrity, he will put an end to the spin culture proliferating in and out of the Number 10 press room.
David Cameron, whilst youthful and with some of the political skills of Tony Blair, is a priviledged Etonian/Oxonian, a man with little in the way of substance whose only experience working outside of politics was in Public Relations. By contrast with that man of steel, Gordon Brown, Mr Cameron is devoid of political ideas, preferring instead to perform vacuous public stunts, including but not limited to arctic adventures with huskies, solar panel spin, and riding a bicycle to work in front of a huge black motorcar of parliamentary papers.
It would be unfair to make too many direct comparisons between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, on the basis that whilst Brown had had to make real decisions for 12 years, Cameron has not. Neither do I want to make this piece a personal attack on our Prime Minster - it is not. However, I have still felt, certainly from the start, that the media and general public perception of Mr Cameron has been somewhat unfair, particularly where comparisons are made with Mr Brown and his record in Government.
Gordon Brown – policy and presentation
Whilst Mr Brown supposedly had a clear vision of the direction he was taking the country, it was the Conservatives who had been busy researching and advocating changes in the inheritance tax regime and the fiscal status of non-domiciled residents - only for Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling to promptly steal them and present them as their own. Their almost ‘coincidence theorist’-style defences were unlikely to convince even the most ardent Labour members, let alone the public at large.
Mr Brown was supposed to represent a more honest way of doing politics –a President Carter, perhaps, to Tony Blair’s President Nixon. Yet we have a Prime Minster whose governing style is apparently more dictatorial and secretive than anything witnessed during the Blair years. People genuinely expected Mr Brown to be an honest – if not eloquent - communicator who was more interested in policy than in playing politics. Needless to say, this has not been borne out in our experience of Mr Brown, and is unsurprising when we consider his record of openness as Chancellor.
After all, it was Mr Brown who tried, in his final Budget, to present himself as a tax cutter when he was stealthily raising them instead; it was Mr Brown whose 2004 Budget attempted to make savage civil service cuts - purely for the purpose of party political gain; and of course it was also Mr Brown who attempted to gain political advantage off the backs of the lesser-off by abolishing the 10 pence marginal tax rate and claiming at the very same time to be committed to poverty reduction.
I'm not sure I can see any direction in the actions of the Labour Party under Mr Brown.
David Cameron – policy, presentation and deliverance?
All this is not to say that Mr Cameron is 'above it all' and that a Conservative victory in 2010 will wash away everything we have come to dislike about New Labour’s culture of Government. Mr Cameron is a politician who by very definition will not be immune from ‘playing politics’ where perceived necessary. And it does remain true that the Conservatives have further work to do in improving communication of their central message and continuing the steady progress in developing policy ideas.
One is able to assert, however, that there has been more straight-talk from the Blues under Cameron than the Reds under Brown. This is in addition to a clearer philosophical understanding of where the Blues are coming from and where they are going to – a sense of consistency in public policy proposals and an understanding of the conservative bigger picture. Whilst there have naturally been internal quibbles, over the UK’s place in the EU, for instance, and the place in society of grammar schools, these have been finer points of detail within the same philosophical-political framework that is informing the Conservative Party platform for 2010.
By contrast, I do see a sense of direction in Conservative Party policy, and signs that David Cameron and his team will govern with more openness and directness than we have become accustomed to of late.
Gordon Brown, whilst not youthful or with the political skills of Tony Blair, was without doubt an outstanding Chancellor. Going forward, Gordon will steer the country in a clearer and more ethical direction than that of his superficial predecessor; possessing honesty and integrity, he will put an end to the spin culture proliferating in and out of the Number 10 press room.
David Cameron, whilst youthful and with some of the political skills of Tony Blair, is a priviledged Etonian/Oxonian, a man with little in the way of substance whose only experience working outside of politics was in Public Relations. By contrast with that man of steel, Gordon Brown, Mr Cameron is devoid of political ideas, preferring instead to perform vacuous public stunts, including but not limited to arctic adventures with huskies, solar panel spin, and riding a bicycle to work in front of a huge black motorcar of parliamentary papers.
It would be unfair to make too many direct comparisons between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, on the basis that whilst Brown had had to make real decisions for 12 years, Cameron has not. Neither do I want to make this piece a personal attack on our Prime Minster - it is not. However, I have still felt, certainly from the start, that the media and general public perception of Mr Cameron has been somewhat unfair, particularly where comparisons are made with Mr Brown and his record in Government.
Gordon Brown – policy and presentation
Whilst Mr Brown supposedly had a clear vision of the direction he was taking the country, it was the Conservatives who had been busy researching and advocating changes in the inheritance tax regime and the fiscal status of non-domiciled residents - only for Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling to promptly steal them and present them as their own. Their almost ‘coincidence theorist’-style defences were unlikely to convince even the most ardent Labour members, let alone the public at large.
Mr Brown was supposed to represent a more honest way of doing politics –a President Carter, perhaps, to Tony Blair’s President Nixon. Yet we have a Prime Minster whose governing style is apparently more dictatorial and secretive than anything witnessed during the Blair years. People genuinely expected Mr Brown to be an honest – if not eloquent - communicator who was more interested in policy than in playing politics. Needless to say, this has not been borne out in our experience of Mr Brown, and is unsurprising when we consider his record of openness as Chancellor.
After all, it was Mr Brown who tried, in his final Budget, to present himself as a tax cutter when he was stealthily raising them instead; it was Mr Brown whose 2004 Budget attempted to make savage civil service cuts - purely for the purpose of party political gain; and of course it was also Mr Brown who attempted to gain political advantage off the backs of the lesser-off by abolishing the 10 pence marginal tax rate and claiming at the very same time to be committed to poverty reduction.
I'm not sure I can see any direction in the actions of the Labour Party under Mr Brown.
David Cameron – policy, presentation and deliverance?
All this is not to say that Mr Cameron is 'above it all' and that a Conservative victory in 2010 will wash away everything we have come to dislike about New Labour’s culture of Government. Mr Cameron is a politician who by very definition will not be immune from ‘playing politics’ where perceived necessary. And it does remain true that the Conservatives have further work to do in improving communication of their central message and continuing the steady progress in developing policy ideas.
One is able to assert, however, that there has been more straight-talk from the Blues under Cameron than the Reds under Brown. This is in addition to a clearer philosophical understanding of where the Blues are coming from and where they are going to – a sense of consistency in public policy proposals and an understanding of the conservative bigger picture. Whilst there have naturally been internal quibbles, over the UK’s place in the EU, for instance, and the place in society of grammar schools, these have been finer points of detail within the same philosophical-political framework that is informing the Conservative Party platform for 2010.
By contrast, I do see a sense of direction in Conservative Party policy, and signs that David Cameron and his team will govern with more openness and directness than we have become accustomed to of late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)