In yesterday’s Sunday Times Bruce Anderson defends David Cameron’s tactic of declaring Tory support for public sector monopolies in health and education. Anderson thinks the Tories need to prove their compassion and so, even though education vouchers and social health insurance are good ideas, they must be ditched because they would be caricatured by Labour as ‘cuts’.
Above all, he argues that David Cameron’s strategy is ‘subtle’. David Cameron, we are told, felt he would have a honeymoon period of about three months from the press and believed that he needed to 'strike fast and hard' during this time. Anderson claims that ‘In order to reconcile the electorate to his party, [Cameron] has to persuade the voters that he believes in the National Health Service and state education.’
Anderson then goes on to say that David Cameron is a Thatcher sympathiser and that ‘by persuading the voters that it has generous instincts, a Cameron Tory party would hope to earn the permission to be radical. In government, it would display the same intellectual momentum as Mrs Thatcher did when she was in power.’
This is very close to arguing that Mr Cameron has a ‘hidden agenda’ of radical reform, which he will only reveal when in office. Is this really Mr Cameron’s strategy, or just Bruce Anderson’s interpretation? Mr Anderson does not claim to be speaking officially, but we are assured that he has known Cameron well for 15 years.
Surely it would be better to spend some time thinking policy through, ruling nothing in or out for a few months, and then to announce policies when there are still three or four years of persuasion-time before the next election? Not so apparently.
Bruce Anderson directs his argument at what he calls the ‘reasonable right’ and suggests that they should accept ‘public opinion as it is, not as some Tories would wish it to be.’ But this is the wrong contrast. It is obvious that any party must start with public opinion as it is in order to get a measure of the persuasive task it faces. But, having measured public opinion, the next question should be: ‘What do I need to do to win people over?’ Most of us, after all, know perfectly well that we have a lot to learn about health and education reform. Even those of us who try to keep up with public policy debates, know that, if you relax your interest for a couple of months, you quickly fall behind. Professing to agree with public opinion just because that is what it is today is irresponsible. And imagining that conforming with received opinion can ever be a successful political strategy is a delusion.
Comments (7)
I was similarly depressed by Cameron's pronouncements.
However, there is another way of looking at things. In the last 50 years, despite various attempts, there have been few real reforms or dismantling of the state monopolies in health and education. So why now propose to dismantle rather durable monopolies all at once - an attempt that would unquestionably be easily (if wrongly) attacked by your opponents)? For example in the NHS, keep the state monopoly on commissioning healthcare and 'free at the point of use' principle (to diffuse attacks from opponents) whilst breaking the public sector supplier monopoly, the centralised pay bargaining, etc., etc. . Then, at some (much) later time the commissioning monopoly of the NHS can also be dismantled knowing that you have de-monopolised the providers?
If this is Cameron's strategy, it might make sense. But I don't know whether it is.
Posted by HJHJ | January 10, 2006 3:20 PM
Posted on January 10, 2006 15:20
"There are certainly soundbites that suggest it, but his track record suggests he's just a more presentable version of Michael Howard - a moderate interventionist."
It's even worse than that, James. He has backtracked even on Howard's timid reform proposals.
Posted by John Hustings | January 10, 2006 2:11 PM
Posted on January 10, 2006 14:11
If David Cameron is attempting to gauge the opinions of the 19 million people who cast a vote in the last election, he should also attempt to gauge the opinions of the 15 million who chose not to vote.
Posted by Henry Kaye | January 10, 2006 11:04 AM
Posted on January 10, 2006 11:04
It seems that the Conservatives have taken a page out of the Republican Party playbook when they were wandering in exile in the desert between 1932 and 1994. Then as now the claim was that the opposition, the GOP or the Tories, can run these social programs more efficiently and cheaper than the party in power. It wasn't much of a success in the US and I doubt it will be any more successful in the UK.
Posted by Pat Patterson | January 10, 2006 4:13 AM
Posted on January 10, 2006 04:13
In his 2005 Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture David Cameron appeared to decry precisely the sort of strategy Anderson is now attributing to him.
Anderson says that Cameron is telling people what they want to hear, and is doing so with regard to how the old policies were misrepresented, Surely this is just triangulation?
Anyway, Cameron said that:
One of Keith Joseph’s most brilliant lectures set out his distinction between the
middle ground, which he abhorred, and what he called the common ground, which he adored.
You seek the middle ground as an exercise in political positioning, splitting the difference between the parties.
You reach the common ground through a process of profound political inquiry, understanding the deepest values and aspirations of the British people.
As Keith Joseph put it:
“While the Middle ground is a compromise between politicians unrelated to the aspirations of the people, the common ground is common ground with the people and their aspirations.”
It seems to me as if he is seeking the "middle ground", and rather than relate Conservative beliefs to people's aspirations, is simply positioning the Conservative Party in relation to Labour.
Perhaps he should therefore heed his own conclusion:
"Seeking the middle ground, you define your position according to your opponents – and as a result you lose any connection between your values and your policies."
Posted by James Hellyer | January 9, 2006 5:20 PM
Posted on January 9, 2006 17:20
Is there any evidence that David Cameron a Thatcher sympathiser? That he is actually right wing? Or in any way classically liberal? There are certainly soundbites that suggest it, but his track record suggests he's just a more presentable version of Michael Howard - a moderate interventionist.
I also find Anderson's argument unconvincing. How is public opion ever to swayed in favour of structural reforms to the public services if the Conservatives merely parrot the current consensus view back at them?
Posted by James Hellyer | January 9, 2006 4:06 PM
Posted on January 9, 2006 16:06
From what I have read by and about Cameron, Anderson seems to be making a huge leap of faith. Cameron's comments so far are largely waffle, what is "social justice"? Bet he doesn't know. He comes across IMHO as a spoiled, little rich kid wanting power, just like Tone. All mouth and no trousers, but the poor amongst us will carry the can. That you can bet on.
Posted by Derek Buxton | January 9, 2006 2:30 PM
Posted on January 9, 2006 14:30