Steve Richards: Cameron talks tough. But can he turn his words into action?

This was a reminder of Tony Blair in the 1990s - of his capacity to deliver an argument and move on before the case is fully formed

Thursday, 2 October 2008

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

David Cameron faced two tasks in his speech to the Conservative conference. Most immediately he had to address the changing political dynamics brought about by the crisis in the financial markets. And although the nature of this task is changing on an hourly basis he met the challenge with accomplished aplomb.

The second challenge was the more predictable one. He needed to show how he was going to meet his apparently soaring ambitious for social justice and improvements to public services. Although he has had a year at least to prepare for this task he failed to show how a smaller state, public spending cuts and lower taxes would lead to better schools, enhanced opportunities for the poor and a more responsive NHS.

The trouble was that he sought to have the best of both worlds. He said he would make tough choices, but not so tough that he would challenge the conflicting aspirations of those who want a stable economic climate, lower taxes and better public services.

But what about the challenge that he met brilliantly. The only line that Gordon Brown has delivered as Prime Minister that has resonated for more than 10 minutes was his declaration last week that this was not a time for novices. Wisely, Cameron did not dance around the issue. He took it on directly and in ways that threw the ball back into the court of a Prime Minister who suddenly finds he is back in the game.

Cameron tore apart the vacuous idea that experience is a qualification in itself. Much more important than that are the qualities of a leader making the decisions. His alternative joke will probably resonate too, that if experience is the criterion, then Brown will be Prime Minister forever, a prospect that would not even fill the most ardent Brownite with unequivocal joy.

In fleshing out his argument, Cameron gave a one-sided account of the origins of the crisis, but one which is entirely legitimate from his perspective. The loosening of the Bank of England's regulatory powers when it was given independence is one factor. The second cause, according to Cameron, was that Brown became a "spendaholic" in the later years. This familiar onslaught is disingenuous as Cameron himself claims to support the higher levels of spending in the key areas and calls for more spending in several others. Still, from the Tory leader's perspective it was an entirely valid argument to make in order to give substance to his broader case that Brown is not qualified to lead a crisis when he was responsible for its origins.

Although this part of the speech was tonally inconsistent – "We will work with Brown. The wretched Brown is to blame"– it had a clear argument. Cameron is at his best, like last year when he was facing an early election, when he is under pressure with an obvious case to answer.

But then he dispensed with clarity and performed a series of political conjuring tricks that will get him a good press for a day or two, but raise serious questions about the credibility of the Conservatives as an alternative government. The first trick was to declare that he was willing to take tough decisions in the new economic climate without specifying in any way what they would be. Instead he took the easy option of saying, almost certainly truthfully, that he was in politics partly to cut taxes. He added that could not make precise commitments now (although several cuts have been announced), thereby appearing responsible, but without challenging the indiscriminate tax-cutting instincts of his audience.

Next he announced that he would ask the shadow cabinet to review their spending plans to look for cuts. Again that sounded tough, and I am sure once more he was being truthful. Cameron is in essence a tax-cutter and a believer in lower levels of public spending, moving Britain away from Europe in this area and towards the United States.

But while being tough in a vague way he proceeded to be evangelical in a precise way about his belief in public services. His No 1 priority was the NHS. He was passionate about education. He wanted more health visitors. He was determined to create more schools that served children better than some of them do now. He wanted to deal with the causes of crime as well as punishing criminals.

In all these passages he spoke movingly, and again I believe that he is sincere in wanting to bring about these changes. Yet as I read the speech while he was delivering this section I wrote in virtually each paragraph: How? If he believes the state stifles and cannot be empowering, who will be the agencies that tackle these issues? If they are the voluntary sector, will they be funded adequately to carry them out? If it is the state that funds them it will inevitably have a say in how they perform. And anyway where is the money going to come from when he wants to cut public spending and taxes? Perhaps Cameron can find a way of bringing about US levels of taxation and European standards of public services, but he will be the first to do so.

The section on the environment was equally evasive. Cameron insisted the Conservatives were the green party. For him the quality of life mattered. Once more he is on to something big, but cannot bring himself to address the means. There was no mention of green taxes for example, another example of a genuine tough choice. He celebrated the virtues of flexible family working, but did not explain how this would be brought about, presumably not by the government or else that would place him closer to a left of centre view of the state.

Partly Cameron's role model was Barack Obama in his relentless focus on change. But Obama believes in an active state and is therefore better equipped to explain how he will bring about change. Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, is almost the opposite in its assessment of the relationship between state and individual to the arguments put forward by Cameron.

The Conservative leader delivered the speech with an engaging brio. He has Tony Blair's capacity to deliver an argument and move on before the case is fully formed. He also has the old master's capacity to convey a passionate sincerity and a self-deprecating wit.

In so many ways yesterday's spectacle reminded me of New Labour in the mid- 1990s. Before the speech there was a film that listed one by one a series of vaguely defined aspirations, some incremental, others revolutionary, but no distinction made between each of them. There was a genuine sense of expectation in the hall from a party that has in its composition become younger and more ethnically mixed. It felt fresh, exciting and, more important than anything else, there was a sense that the occasion mattered in spite of the financial meltdown elsewhere.

There was another echo. In the mid-1990s Blair argued that he was taking the tough choices, when quite often he was avoiding them with disastrous consequences. Cameron did the same yesterday.

s.richards@independent.co.uk