Hmm. I am not swayed by your argument. You list all the things that Cameron hasn't done - but then neither has he ever been in a position to do either do them or not. Currently, all he is is promises.
Now had the Conservatives elected Ken Clarke as their leader, a guy with a proven economic track record, that would be a different animal. Stick him with Cameron in a senior cabinet role as the heir apparent and season him. I'm not saying Cameron doesn't have leadership qualities, but at the moment he is the sum total of his promises.
As for 'personal responsibility', that is compatible with right-wing economic policy (as I outline above) and fiscal conservatism, but is sadly alien to the moral conservatives on the right. By moral conservatives, I refer to those that believe government has a place in obstructing abortion, or blocking gay marriage, which is not compatible with personal responsibility but with an overall agenda.
Now Cameron and Clarke represented the fiscal rather than moral conservatives in the leadership contest, and thats good. Unfortunately, their back bench contains moral conservatives (one of whom ruana1 has unleashed a number of vitriolic rants against on her LJ for her pro-life agenda). Thats the bit that causes me hesitation about swinging to their camp rather than their leadership.
Like larpexiles was saying, a centrist model which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative has a lot to say for it. That is, effectively, what Tony Blair offered us with New Labour - and, to begin with, they didn't do a bad job. Unfortunately, that train is somewhat off the rails.
So I can kinda see your point, but can Cameron really swing the Tory Party into a New Conservatives like Blair did? And how long before it would go off the rails (like Blair did)?
Now had the Conservatives elected Ken Clarke as their leader, a guy with a proven economic track record, that would be a different animal. Stick him with Cameron in a senior cabinet role as the heir apparent and season him. I'm not saying Cameron doesn't have leadership qualities, but at the moment he is the sum total of his promises.
As for 'personal responsibility', that is compatible with right-wing economic policy (as I outline above) and fiscal conservatism, but is sadly alien to the moral conservatives on the right. By moral conservatives, I refer to those that believe government has a place in obstructing abortion, or blocking gay marriage, which is not compatible with personal responsibility but with an overall agenda.
Now Cameron and Clarke represented the fiscal rather than moral conservatives in the leadership contest, and thats good. Unfortunately, their back bench contains moral conservatives (one of whom ruana1 has unleashed a number of vitriolic rants against on her LJ for her pro-life agenda). Thats the bit that causes me hesitation about swinging to their camp rather than their leadership.
Like larpexiles was saying, a centrist model which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative has a lot to say for it. That is, effectively, what Tony Blair offered us with New Labour - and, to begin with, they didn't do a bad job. Unfortunately, that train is somewhat off the rails.
So I can kinda see your point, but can Cameron really swing the Tory Party into a New Conservatives like Blair did? And how long before it would go off the rails (like Blair did)?
Reply
Leave a comment