I had a conversation yesterday with someone who is writing an article on ‘Ten things David Cameron could do first’. I won’t go into what we discussed, as it’s his article, but I’ve since read the Economist’s Bagehot column which concludes, “The Tories should stop worrying about whether their view of the world works in theory, and concentrate more on generating ideas that will work in practice. They can live without an ideology; what they urgently require is balls.”
I would go further and acknowledge that there are some inherent contradictions in current Conservative thinking. For example, it is undeniable that despite championing the concept of localism, there are many policy interventions that are anything but localist. It is undeniable that despite talking the talk on encouraging stable families, the marriage tax bonus is planned to be limited to a man married to a woman, whether or not they have children, and will ignore the many other varieties of what I would argue are also ‘stable families’. It is undeniable that inheritance tax cuts as the first Conservative tax cut was at the time morally wrong, to my mind, and now probably unaffordable. Fortunately that one seems to have been kicked into the long-grass.
The overarching problem, though, is that despite all my belief in being consistent, it is just not possible nor even desirable to single-minded pursue a restrictive ideological agenda in every area. Yes, in an ideal world we would all be consistent all the time, but, to quote my old office’s favourite phrase, we are where we are, and it’s just not possible.
I once had a conversation with an old boss, where I argued that Matthew Parris’ theory of the Governor’s Eyebrow was generally the best way to encourage responsibility. His counter-argument was that his personal Governor’s Eyebrow told him that allowing anyone to carry a gun for protection was right, and that homosexuality was wrong and should be banned (he is American). I had to admit that my support for the Governor’s Eyebrow in those instances didn’t resolve anything.
While I still argue that judgement is far more important than dogma, we do need to square the circle of the inconsistency of lots of government intervention in some areas, and much less in others. I think the way to do this is to come back to the outcomes we desire, and celebrate the fact that Conservatism is so flexible. So if we want an outcome that has a very wide impact, ‘big government’ intervention is probably the only way to achieve it – say on environmental measures. If we want an outcome that affects individuals (even if lots of them), we press more heavily on individual or local action – say on localised programmes that help with literacy or with local crime problems.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t want to see a hugely ideological manifesto. I do want to see one where the focus is on outcomes and what will work to achieve those outcomes.
Related posts:
The inheritance tax cut pledge – and decision to stand by it, even after tax revenue started to plummet and spending rocketed – was the reason I left the Conservative Party. Perhaps it had its aspirational merits in happier times, but, in the middle of the most serious economic slump since the Great Depression, to quote the West Wing, “I think if we’re going to spend millions of dollars on tax breaks, we should consider
spending it on people who don’t have millions of dollars.”
To be honest, I bet Cameron would be happy to see that commitment go away, but the truth is that his party, and future government, of young, right-wing, socially conservative, NHS-hating, anti-immigration, power-starved bigots wouldn’t stand for it.
The sooner Tory MP’s understand the unholy mess the Countries finances are in the better.
The old ways of sorting the problems out will not do, this is a gigantic problem, and it is not good enough to muddle through for years and years hoping inflation will put our problems behind us, they won’t.
We need some radical action to cut the cost of Government, the public sector and taxes.
A good start would be to re-visit the Flat tax idea that George Osborne flirted with in the early days.
The Tories are presently giving off the whiff of the same old remedies, the problem will be that the Electorate do not believe they will work and they would embrace radical action on all of the above.
Where is the ambition and courage to really resolve our financial problems???
Pingback: As the Election Looms, Will Tory Bloggers Start to Pull Their Punches?
Dom, I don’t think the last part of your post is at all fair. The vast majority of Conservatives are not the caricature you describe. I return to a point I made earlier in the week though – if we can’t even discuss alternatives, some of which may have merit and some which may not, nothing will ever change.
Fiona, of course my second paragraph was rhetorical, but I stand by the sentiment. Whichever way you look at it, the class of 2010 will be significantly to the right of Cameron. The row that his (entirely sensible) commitment to protect foreign aid spending provoked may well be a taster for the years to come.
Re: Daniel Hannan, the point is not just that he dared to criticise the NHS. It’s the fact that he did so on Fox, further encouraging the American right to drag Britain’s reputation through the mud by focusing unfairly on the things the NHS does worst, while ignoring the things it does better than America (such as dealing with common ailments, and, say, not leaving poor working people to die). If he wants a genuine debate on the future of the NHS then he should campaign for his views in Britain, and seek direct election, rather than hiding behind a party list.
I thought this website had folded ages ago but Iain Dale has a link to it so congratulations for still being around.
I think one should be very careful with such revisionism about something like inheritance tax for quite a few reasons. Firstly, the announcement of the policy saved us from being out of power for another five years in October 2007. Secondly, far from being morally wrong, people view their ability to give away what they have earned (after tax, mind) over a lifetime to whomever they please without confiscatory levels of taxation being applied as being an extremely important moral right. Furthermore, they go to many lengths to avoid it with the rather unfair consquence that it only affects those who die unexpectedly; the very rich, of course, barely ever pay it. Finally, the idea that MPs and the government can spend one’s wealth better than oneself or one’s nearest and dearest has now been tested beyond destruction.
I think its morally wrong to cut ANY taxes whilst we are in this mess. We need a much simpler system for a start, and one that enables small businesses to thrive – not like the present system for SBEs which began under Brown as OK ( Inherited from the Tories) and then has got progressively more difficult, as well as down right confiscatory viz encouraging sole traders to register as a company and then whacking then for a whole lot more tax.
Kinglear
Cannot agree with your first statement. Your second disproves it anyway.