What's the Big Idea, Dave?
There is much to cheer the Cameroons as they wait for the battle proper to begin. One thing, though, distresses them. It is the suggestion that they don't really believe in anything and that their man is nothing more than the "heir to Blair".
Today, David Cameron's one man think tank tries to answer that charge. Oliver Letwin is delivering a lecture in which he insists that we are now in a post-Marxist, socio-centric rather econo-centric world. Forgive the jargon. People, he suggests, only take you seriously as a political philosopher if you talk in such ways. In plain English, he goes on to explain that he's simply saying that politics is no longer based on arguing about rival systems of economic management but instead about how to make lives better. Perhaps I may be permitted to translate Letwinese into a glib soundbite - "It's no longer the economy, it's well-being, stupid".
Letwin goes on to say that whereas Gordon Brown believes in a "provision theory" of government, the Tories believe in a "framework theory". Again, plain English helps here. He is arguing that Brown wants governments to provide everything whereas he and David Cameron want government merely to set the framework to allow others - whether individuals or organisations - to do what's good for society.
This is not, he insists, a mere re-writing of our old friend laissez faire since the Tories are working hard to develop government initiatives which will, for example, help to develop social enterprises to tackle poverty rather than simply ignoring its existence.
There are, I believe, two big tests of Letwin's argument. First, will Gordon Brown as prime minister really act as if government should do everything or, on coming to office, will he discover that he rather likes state schools or hospitals run by voluntary organisations or private companies? Secondly, what are the Tories' specific policies which prove that they are not simply re-heating ideas from Tony Blair's policy unit or re-packaging Thatcherism? Watch this space.
I'm 
Comments
I have seen what Labour has done and I am hearing about what the Conservatives are planning to do. I do prefer policies based on fairness and sustainability. The state does not exist merely as a welfare state and it does not exist merely to create frameworks. We already had eighteen years of framework creation and more than ten years of welfare provision and neither approach has produced the desired results. People choose leaders that must lead. Leaders should not be baby-sitters or expect everybody else to tell them what to do.
Dear Mr Robinson,
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
Cameron is a phenonmena we haven't seen in Britain since Blair arrived on the scene.
Although completely different ideologically, they both have charm, charisma and the human touch.
This goes a long way in politics.
The cold, steely grip of the Chancellor Gordon Brown is hardly what voters are looking to, and if you take the results of the past week or so, some could argue that they are a perspective of British people's view of both Blair, but more importantly Brown.
I am truly surprised that despite the terrible poll and lack of popularity, no one appears keen to have a contest in the Labour Party?
The Libs and Tories did to great effect, but Labour definitely appears to be moving "backwards not Forward".
Have a good day.
Francis Fukuyama years ago declared the end of history when the Berlin Wall fell. I think the that the ideological battles have been lost and won so would have to agree that we will start to measure a government on the well-being of the population, especially now as we continually hear people are less happy with their lives today despite having more disposable income.
Surely, it's the fact the economy has been ticking over nicely under Labour that is forcing the Tories to explore other policy areas. If Labour had screwed it up (as the Tories predicted in 1997) then they would be quite happy to focus on the economy. Whatever policy initiatives they come up with, Brown will always try to bring it back to the economy because that's his trump card.
Or is it "we are all regulationists now"?
Far from all the ideological battles having been lost and won, it seems rather that politicians are not willing to engage with ideology at all. And if they have no ideology then they frankly have no ideas.
As an ex-Labour voter I want to see the Conservatives standing for a smaller state and encouraging a more active society through the development of frameworks (if we want to use that terminology).
As I told the Conservative council candidate on my doorstep last week, I want a choice of ideas and philosophies, I don't want the Conservatives to offer essentially the same as Labour. And if Government starts to consider that its role is to promote the 'well-being of the population' then we are in big trouble indeed and will rapidly become the subjects we seem willing to be treated as.
I'll happily vote Conservative if Cameron can come up with an ideology, but I will be essentially disenfranchised if he merely duplicates Tony Blair.
Mr Robinson,
I agree with Oliver Letwin, if he is arguing that this country is leading towards a centralised system where the state only can decide what services we should be provided with, and that we should only work for the state, and not for ourselves.
Why should David Cameron publicise his ideas so soon before a general election?
You and others of your political persuasion will pounce on them and pull them apart, denouncing David Cameron in the process, only for the Labour Party to present them a few weeks later as their own work.
It's happened so often in this tawdry government, that I suspect David cameron might be wise to it by now, don't you think?
I suppose it is easy to believe in the fantasy world of Fukuyama's 'end of history' and evangelise with Oliver Letwin about the 'decline of econo-centric politics', just so long as one does not belong to the poorer sections of society (who find the gap between them and other, richer groups increasing) or does not find oneself in poverty (which is increasing, not decreasing).
Then again, haven't we always had it from right wing ideologues and Tory politicians that 'economic management' is not the issue?
Internationally, the notion that 'economic management' is not of vital import would be laughable were it not so serious; even domestically, the propogation of such nonsense suggests a blinkered attitude.
Then again, haven't we always had it from right wing ideologues and Tory politicians that 'economic management' is not the issue?
The big question that David Cameron's Tory party have to answer is what tangible policies would they introduce as a credible future government?
I'd love to predict that warm smiles, new logos, 'tea & sympathy' is simply not enough ... but sadly the bulk of the electorate appear to disagree.
New Labour's claim (if I recall correctly) was neither large nor small government as a diktat , but rather government provision as appropriate (remember 'the third way'). To me this means (for instance) the very best health, education and transport infrastructure that the state can provide with economies of scale, but with the freedom for the individual to buy an alternative if they choose (but no refunds on their state contributions which provide the foundations). Frankly most people could never afford the all embracing type of private health care the NHS provides, and I for one don't want to be given a "Patient Passport", or a few quid refund to search the country for decent treatment.
"It's no longer the economy, it's well-being, stupid"
Heh. "Would you like a Strawberry or Blueberry cabinet with your McHappyGovernment, sir?"
No matter how grave the situation, the involvement of the state can always make it worse.
Try telling middle class middle income earners that the economics is "resolved". Incomes are not rising as fast as prices and through by-to-lets we are returning to a situation where fewer people own more of the nation's property. Hardly the Thatcherite dream of work paying and people owning their own homes.
Talk of the economy being solid is just that. Letwin will soon be back on economics when the crash comes.
Once again loads of soundbites from Letwin copying "Cameron Speak".What the public want is substance backed by policies.What a joke when the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has to explain what he was talking about today.Sorry all the spin about SOCIETY wont work, Thatcher once commented there is no such thing as SOCIETY.When will the Tories stop the action replay of Blairs New Labour.
NewsElephant wrote in comment 4 "Brown will always try to bring it back to the economy because that's his trump card."
Gordon Brown's claim to the leadership of not just the Labour Party but the nation as a whole is indeed that he has done well for the economy.
And yet, Nick, and yet, putting aside that it is remarkable in itself that he has only that one claim after more than ten years so near to the top, it is a claim which on closer examination does not amount to much. In fact what he has presided over is a "house of cards" - and one perilously close to collapse.
Enough, perhaps, has been said recently of the damage done to the final salary pensions system, once the envy of Europe, now virtually extinct. No more need be added to the news that he ignored contrary expert advice at the time of that decision. Let's not dwell on the selling off of the Nation's gold reserves at a low point in gold prices. Nor linger over the current short term difficulties caused for exporters by the two dollar pound.
Focus rather on the UK's terribly poor levels of productivity, now 15th in Europe. GDP per head is fully 23% behind the USA. Somewhat interestingly, all English speaking former territories but New Zealand and South Africa now surpass the U.K. in per capita GDP. This is largely due to over regulation of the private sector - which simply makes it more difficult to do business - and over management in the public sector, which means a lower percentage of people are actually producing something.
Not often advertised by the Treasury is the extraordinary dependence of the whole nation on the profits of financial services, the prosperity of The City, itself increasingly at risk. Yet unemployment is rising, exacerbated by the almost total dependency on the public sector for job creation. This despite the Chancellor's announcements that tens of thousands of such jobs would be cut, promises that never materialised.
The unsustainable level of house prices caused by the massive and unrelenting levels of rising population, mostly through immigration, is another bubble ready to burst. The fall out will be devastating, especially for those who have just recently obtained mortgages of up to nine times their salary in the face of increasing interest rates to curtail inflation. Overall the UK now has unprecedented levels of personal debt. It has the highest tax take ever. Along side this it has a massive balance of payments deficit.
Gordon Brown has borrowed his financial reputation.
One day someone will have to pay - and it will be you and I.
Most frightening of all Nick - this probably is the best man Labour has to offer.
Nick,
I would rather you ask these questions of Mr Brown. After all, he will be PM and what he does will be news. What the opposition says is only news in the context of opposition. Therefore, it behoves you and your colleagues to find out if this is really effective opposition to Mr Brown. We (the license payer) pay you to find things out that are in the public interest. I contend that the public interest will be better served by pursuing Mr Brown on policy matters rather than Mr Letwin. But, of course Mr Brown has beeen somewhat unavailable recently - and that too is in the public interest. I feel you have played the easy shot here and could do better; over to you.
The old old cry, Where are the policies.?
If anyone thinks DC is stupid enough to lay his specific policies out 2 yrs + before any possible election, they've got another think coming methinks.
For now, it's absolutely the right thing to bear down on the Govt and criticise their multiple failings. It's working well as it is, and I foresee no change for 18 months at least. The Tories can just sit and watch the Blairites and Brownites tear each other apart. That's the reality IMHO.
Oliver Letwin, a thoroughly nice person also a perfect gentleman who like Anthony-Wedgewood-Benn and the late Lord Longford live/lived on a different planet from the rest of us mere mortals.
We have our feet on the ground the above live and lived in Utopiah.
Does anybody really take Oliver seriously?
If a politician wishes to communicate with the electorate he, or she, needs to learn to speak in a fsahion that is understandable to it. We have far too many pseuds who dress up quite mundane ideas in a froth of poli-speak, sometimes inventing phrases to describe ideas with which they are not all that comfortable. David Cameron has an advisor called Danny Kruger who seems to specialise in such obscure dialect - Winston Churchill never found it necessary.
The man in the street is becoming ever more disconnected from the political ruling class by language.
Whilst I agree with the focus of much of what Mr. Letwin has been saying, what I'd really like to hear from him is whether or not he believes that the Conservatives are seriously committed to reconnecting enlightened with self-interest as the driving force for individuals in a minimal-State society. Does he recognise that, without this reconnection, small-State is ethically unacceptable, because it will continue to be essential for there to be considerable public action to counter the excesses of unqualified self-interest and to help those who cannot cope with its demands?
It may be that all that is being considered is a few palliative gestures designed to fool us into believing that the Conservatives are serious about social progress; while the main design of the policy is the dismantlement of State protections purely to assist the "greed is good" brigade. If so, the sooner this idea is blown out of the water, the better.
Sadly this shows the level of politics we have reached .Words that mean nothing because the corporate meaningless drivel has debased our language to a point where people don't challenge this rubbish because they do not want to appear seen to be ignorant.