Civitas

A very good article with which I agree completely. David Cameron's political style seems to be to surreneder on any issue where previously the party had got some stick. Fundamentally this shows that he doesn't actually believe in freeing markets or trusting people. The typical Conservative failure has been that we'll discuss structural reform, but fail to link that to outcomes. As a result people have assumed that we're reforming for reasons other than improving services. Cameron's answer isn't to address that, it's to accept the other side's argument.

Perhaps this is no surprise. His brief time as Shadow Education Secretary marked him out as a technocrat and little else. The "rigour" agenda he talked up was little more than a riff on the idea that standards can be raised by fiat from the centre.

For all his talk of trusting people rather than telling them what to do - the distinction he drew between himself and Blair - the one thing he seems unwilling to do is trust people. He wants to tell teachers how to teach. He doesn't want to let parents have a true choice of schools. And this list goes on.

I think anyone expecting radical thinking from these policy groups will be disappointed. I can't see the likes of Ken Clarke and Stephen Dorrell suggesting anything exciting.

Aren't you in fact guilty of pre-judging the outcome?

Devil in the detail etc.

I don't understand this reaction. Cameron has gone from saying basically nothing about his policies, to dismissing specific scarily titled proposals, while still saying nothing about real goals.

Before nailing him to the wall as a traitor and a failure why not give him a chance to clear the detritus of poorly labelled ideas and their baggage?

He is in no position to do anything apart from create an audience for conservative ideas. To do that he's going to have to dance around a bit, get people back on side, clear the decks, show up the government as incompetent. Making statements about healthcare/education vouchers is not going to help that process, rather it will help define him as 'the enemy' and give TB & co a nice get out when their on the rocks by saying 'well the Tories would...'

If he was in power acting like such a milksop would demand derision. But he's not, and as you say those whose opinion needs changing, the population, aren't listening yet, surely the best way to get them to listen is to start somewhere their comfortable and build up. Marching in and saying, you're all wrong, here's what we should do is surely the most patrician approach of all? Not to mention doomed to failure.

There is an interesting article here (http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2005/12/19/face-transplant.html) which may explain things .....

Agree entirely with your comments on the man. I read comments by and on him before he got the job and did not trust him then and I see no reason to change. I will never again vote for the "not the conservative party". They have betrayed their/our trust too many times now.

Spot on with the article, Cameron has finally shown himself to be rightwing socialist he hinted at in the past.

But as a product of the right sort of society what else do you expect

You're right that some options are off the table. Cameron is not stupid - social insurance may be a good idea, but it is electoral suicide. Ditto education vouchers. Going to the polls with a list of smart ideas from right-wing think-tanks may seem bold and radical, but it doesn't win elections.

David,
Yes as far as your sentiments go, but the logic of your argument is that we only have two options.

Cameron could enter the next election with Conservative policies and lose.
Result = Nulab policies for the next 4 years,
or he could enter the election with a Nulab agenda and win.
Result = Nulab policies for the next 4 years.

I was always told that the art of politics was to argue ones beliefs and to win the electorate round to your point of view. It's a tragedy that no Tory has possessed this skill since Thatcher.

The only possibility left for Conservatives to secure conservative policies in the future is to vote for a right of centre party, i.e. none of the above.

Guido:

"Aren't you in fact guilty of pre-judging the outcome?"

Not when the broad sweep of policy in so many areas has already be unveiled.

David:

"Cameron is not stupid - social insurance may be a good idea, but it is electoral suicide. Ditto education vouchers."

Would you care to explain then how Rudi Guilanu, for example, was able to go the polls and sell just such policies? Surely the key to changing public opinion is to actually argue your case - something that simply has not been done in these areas.

Thanks for signing in . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(Because we are bombarded by huge amounts of spam, if you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site moderator before your comment will appear. Thank you very much for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: