Steve Richards: So just how is Cameron going to give power to the people?
There's a paradox in aiming to improve services even as the Government does less
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
David Cameron's pre-election speech was almost the precise opposite of the one delivered by Gordon Brown last week. Brown launched a battering ram of policies, so many that his arguments were obscured. In contrast Cameron's case was clear, but the means by which he seeks to bring about his vision were fuzzy.
The argument was the one Cameron has been putting since he became leader and is summed up in the words he first delivered when he won the leadership contest and he repeated yesterday: "There is such a thing as society, but it's not the same as the state".
The single statement has brought forth a range of discussions and debates within Cameron's team and beyond about how they would address so called progressive themes such as poverty, the environment and the delivery of better public services.
At the top of the Conservative party the debates are deadly serious. They are not being held solely in order to re-brand their party, although such expedient calculations are bound to play their part. But even after yesterday's speech it is still not clear what binding agents would replace the state. Cameron argued in his speech that families, communities, newly empowered users and providers of services would be key components. Tony Blair put the same broad case 15 years ago.
Against quite a few paragraphs in Cameron's speech I wrote a single word: "How?" I used to do the same with Blair's early speeches only to discover in 1997 that he had no answers to the question in several key policy areas. Most fundamentally it is still not at all clear how Cameron plans to reduce what he calls Labour's debt crisis.
He framed the argument as a progressive one: "The progressive thing to do, the responsible thing to do is to get a grip on debt but in a way that brings the country together instead of driving it apart". Yes, but how? So far George Osborne has announced cuts amounting to £7bn and yesterday there was quite a focus on the areas where Cameron would increase spending.
International Development got a star turn with a video from Bono. Cameron repeated his pledge to increase spending on the NHS, an example of so called big government that he supports, raising questions about his wider argument on the size of the state. In addition he promised to increase the level of troops in Afghanistan as well as improving equipment. He also pledged to expand Sure Start, another example of an active state making a difference.
The essence of the Cameron argument is that if the state withdraws, people and companies will acquire responsibilities and become responsible. Social responsibility is another theme that has recurred throughout his leadership. In some areas perhaps this will be the case.
There is a great deal of interest among those working for Cameron and George Osborne as to how the internet could inform and empower local communities in ways that would revolutionise the relationship between users and providers of services. There is a faith that cultural pressures can be more effective than the big stick of the state – the so-called "Nudge" theory. Such an approach might bring about radical change, but I see little evidence that when, say, bankers are nudged to reduce their bonuses they are inclined to do so.
Still, words uttered in opposition and the stances taken determine what a party will be like in government. Although the means are unclear, a Cameron government would have to address issues relating to poverty, having placed such an emphasis on it in opposition.
The only moment when Cameron's speech came fully alive was in his attack on the current government's record in relation to poverty. He became unusually passionate and the hall gave him a standing ovation. The sequence will be replayed repeatedly if Cameron's smaller state makes the poor poorer, as smaller states have tended to in other equivalent countries. Similarly the NHS and schools had better improve after such a focus from senior Conservatives in recent years.
As with the leadership's commitment to the environment there is no point analysing whether the focus is tactical or has arisen out of conviction. The emphasis has been made and they will have to find the means to bring about improvements in public services, something of a paradoxical objective as their solution is for government to do much less.
Cameron's speech stands as an emblem of the conference season as a whole, which has managed to be informative and a sideshow compared with what is to come. In limited ways we know a little more about the three parties. The Liberal Democrats had some good themes, but messy policies. Labour's conference suggested that the mood of the party was to stick with Gordon Brown. The gathering in Brighton was sombre and introspective, not surprisingly for a party that has cause for introspection and melancholy, but there were occasional signs of energy and strategic thinking.
Not surprisingly the Conservative conference was the most disciplined and exquisitely choreographed. Opinion-poll leads are much the most effective form of control freakery. They give leaders the authority to act as they wish, and troublemakers stand to attention. Europe caused the slightest of wobbles, but on the whole the Eurosceptics behaved themselves. Even the hardened Europhobes will not cause much trouble when Cameron announces that there will be no referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. If the Conservatives are elected, the public obsession might well return but for now this is a disciplined party that wants to win. Tonally their conference was pitch perfect, conveying a seriousness of purpose and without a hint of complacent triumphalism.
Whether or not the Conservatives will secure power with a triumphant victory is another question and not one answered by the conference season. The Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, won plaudits for his apparent candour over spending cuts, but if his assessment of the scale of the debt crisis is accepted he was not being straight with voters. A lot of distinguished economists do not share his assessment that the situation is as apocalyptically grave as he suggests.
Still, by conflating debt levels with more immediate borrowing, the Conservatives have managed to convey the impression Britain is bankrupt. The cuts proposed by Osborne do no more than rearrange a few ashtrays in a derelict mansion. The real battle will be joined when the government unveils its pre-Budget report, probably next month.
What is clear is that the three parties have chosen to dance on terrain marked "spending cuts", which means that voters will get a chance to contemplate how reductions in government expenditure will impact on their lives. Specifics are dangerous in pre-election periods, as Labour discovered with their shadow budget in 1992.
The nature of the spending debate is one of the wild cards of the next few months. Elections always seem unpredictable in advance and clear- cut in retrospect. But this current battle does some to have more unpredictable elements than usual. They include the unpredictable direction of the public spending debate, the return of the MPs' expenses scandal this autumn, the electoral performance of the Liberal Democrats in England and that of the Conservatives in Scotland and Wales.
By a considerable margin the Conservatives have staged the most successful conference. But there are still several landmines and unanswered questions as they navigate their way towards next year's election.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Not much of a choice for poor British people who keep being ripped off by one government after another.... and they love being humiliated. They believe anything they see on TV.
I somehow doubt it.
Would he stop the steady expansion of number-plate recognition cameras that track us in our cars?
Would he cut back on face recognition cameras that track us in towns & cities?
Would he cut back on email surveillance?
Would he cut back on mobile phone tracking?
Might he even, horror of horrors, tell the police to destroy the DNA records of Innocent people.
Sorry, but power to the people sounds great, but then he would SAY that wouldn't he!
As to choice Mr Corbett, I agree, we have little real choice. One will be just as bad as the other!
In a supposed democracy the people grant the government power, unless through neglect, corruption and ignorance they allow it to slip into the hands of professional lawyers and career bureaucrats. Alas, that is the condition most 'democracies' find themselves in at this juncture.
But please, do not foster more illusion. We each give others power when we are afraid of our own power and autonomy. Government corrupts power as power corrupts it.
Cameron is clearly living on a different planet to the one the rest of us find ouselves on. It is obvious that he and the rest of his party have just swept all the recent scandal of politicians expenses and excesses under the carpet and ignored calls for parliamentary reform and a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
Without even a nod towards what the people really want, he expects us to believe that he will return power to the people. Carefully showcased conferences do not inspire confidence, Mr Cameron. We are all now aware of political spin and will not be so easily fooled by smooth and empty words.
Public spending cuts are where this election will be fought, according to the stance of all three main parties; but let us not forget why these spending cuts have become necessary. It is because OUR money has been irresponsibly thrown to a banking industry that gambled away all their own - and subsequently showed no remorse, awarding huge bonuses to these same failed gamblers. The conservatives supported the propping up of the banks and are as culpable as Gordon Brown himself.
In section 3.3. of the Tory green paper "Control Shift" we find "The right of popular initiative is a feature of many political systems in the developed world. In Switzerland, people have mechanisms for direct democracy on almost everything from planning applications, to the precise use of tax resources, to medical ethics. Perhaps the most famous expression of American civic independence is in Oregon, where the system known as “citizen initiative” was introduced as long ago as 1902.
Under the Local Government Act 2003, local councils can choose to hold referendums on any local issue. But there is no mechanism for residents to petition for a local referendum per se.
We will give power to residents to hold local referendums on any local issue by legislating to ensure that a referendum is held in a local authority area if 5 per cent of local citizens sign a petition in favour within a six month period." UNQUOTE
The above applies to the local government level. In a recent BBC radio broadcast David Cameron may be heard saying that the citizens' right to initiate a referendum would also be brought in at country/state level. (Source: BBC radio 4. Beyond Westminster: The case for replacing or revising our system of representative democracy. September 2009).
At I&R ~ GB, the campaign for citizen-initiated referendum, for over a decade we have advocated similar reforms, to enhance our indirect "representative" democracy with elements of citizen participation in the periods between elections.
Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-a