He's bolder than you'd think

Tory Boy in the City

The thing about Cameron is that he is more radical and tougher than people think. It's this salesman gibe from Brown that obscures this

TGF UKIP

Oh dear, here we go again. Localism - another of those ishoos for the dinner party tables of Richmond on Thames to gush on about.

I suspect this is rather like "choice" where you can envisage the focus groups all nodding away about what a jolly good thing it is whereas the reality is for Mr and Mrs Twofulltimejobs C2s all they really want is to elect a government every four years ago which provides them with a good neighbourhood hospital and school. Choice is confusing, choice requires effort, choice causes arguments and choice gives you a headache.

Similarly, localism sounds fine but remember even when councils had far more powers than they do now, turn out for local elections was no bigger.

Remember too, why Mrs T stripped them of so many of their powers, it was because so many local fiefdoms fell into the hands of the looney left.

Similarly now localism would so often mean power and budgets being grabbed by guardianista teachers and public sector "professionals" as they are the only ones with not just the time but the inclination to run other peoples lives.

Finally, anyone over fifty will be able to recall the most salutary lesson of all on "localism." With locally elected boards was there ever a set of more shit commercial operations than retail co-operative societies and the smaller and more local they were the worse they were.

For God's sake Dave, stop listening to daft buggers like Hilton. "It's the economy, stupid!"

simon hb

Radical like Reagan, then - whose lasting tribute for his 'rolling back government' rhetoric is to have the largest US government building in Washington named after him.

Giving more power to local institutions sounds like a brilliant idea - until you look at what a bloody mess most councils are in. Asking parents to run schools sounds wonderfully inclusive - but what parents have got much of a perspective on how a school should cope with, say, emotionally damaged children? Or how much of the budget should be spent on special needs kids? And since a school is a community hub, why should only parents get a say? Shouldn't everyone? But why should those without children have a say?

This isn't a policy, it's not even a coherent position. Saying "give the people power" is basically a way of saying "I've got no bloody idea what to do."

Searcher

Hague could do heavy in foreign policy, if, as you say James, he were willing to give up his outside interests. But health under Lansley will always be light.

Right in a Sea of Left

I feel we are treating 'Mr and Mrs Twofulltimejobs' with a slight air of condescension. I would argue that for the average joe in the UK, choice does not equal a headache, rather it is a desired and essential part of our lives. Not being a parent myself, I cannot talk with any authority, but I'd guess that most parents care deeply about the education that their children recieve and would rather choose the curriculum and exams that their children sit, rather than have whatever the labour government decides to throw at them.

Also, Simon HB, I am amazed and amused that you have managed to make giving power and choice to the 'people' sound like bad policy making! It's what the western world is built on! Perhaps I'm taking it out of context, and i'm sorry if I am, but perhaps you would better suited living somewhere else? Saudi Arabia and North Korea spring to mind.

Paul B

On the contrary TGF, what I and my family want as C2s, is choice. The choice of good hospitals and schools and social services, rather than the monopolistic statist, provision take it or leave it, provision we have at present. I and others can choose between different supermarkets , different apples and pears ,different gins- Bombay or Gordons, so why not between competing public services. Dave maybe getting back to the idea the state becomes the consumer rather than the provider.Good.

I agree with the articles view that DC is more radical than some believe. I would also add, although its easy to be critical, it also should always be remembered, is that, he has an election to win.

Athesius the Facilitator

TF UKIP, I think you should retract your drip about local ism as I thought it was the cornerstone of UKIP policy to bring democracy closer to the people and here you are slagging it off. You sound as woolly as a Liberal Democrat and as quango-fied as a Neo Labour worshipper.

Carol-Ann

I hope Cameron has thought this localism stuff through properly as it could go disastrously wrong. Remember Thatcher was the biggest centraliser of them all and not without good reason.

Laura, London

The problem in this country is not that we need more localism but the increasing democratic deficit that has happened under New Labour.

A whole wave of agencies, departments and offices of this that and the other have been created. All staffed by bureaucrats and officials that make decisions and impose policies that no-one has ever voted for and most people disagree with half the time. The likes of whom I refer to are often classsified as 'independent' of governemnt or anybody else, which in turn means they cannot be held accountable in a transparent way.

Two examples that come to mind are, one, the recent 'goings on' with the police over the Damian Green affair. Labour insist that the police are operationally independent and our elected representatives must not interfere with them. Labour also insist that the police must not be politicised and cite this as the reason they have scrapped the idea of having elected police chiefs. This rationale does not make sense, you either need to have elected police chiefs that will be directly accountable to the people and communities they police and free from interference from political parties. Or you have elected reprensentatives (government ministers) incharge of the police and accountable to the electorate for their conduct and therefore must intervene in which case the police cannot be 'operationally independent' or they'll never be accountable to anyone.

Second example is the independence of the Bank of England. Seen as a genius idea when the economy was booming but when we hit turbulence a whole host of problems seem to arise. Elected Governments should control monetry and fiscal policy NOT an MPC at the BoE that cannot be held accountable by the people, the decisions they make affect. The Tories were in power for 18 years and used to be trusted on the economy if nothing else and they never made the BoE independent, today's Tories should ask themselves why. Osborne and Cameron have been blinded by Gordon Brown's and the media's fradulent claim that he has been the best chancellor we have ever had and that the making the BoE independent was the cure for all the ills of the economy. It was not as we are now finding out. Even Blair has recently admitted the economic good time under Labour was down to lady luck not Gordon Brown. If Brown hadn't made the BoE independent we might not be in the situation we are now......that we will never know.

Peter F

I was a parent governor of my local Primary School for six years and enjoyed being a part of the management of the school. There were a variety of reasons why I had to stop in the end, and not least was the fact that there is no requirement for my employer to make any provision for me to be involved in the running of a local school, and so not being able to give my responsibilities the attention they deserved I felt I needed to step down. But that does not mean that I would not want to continue to be involved in the various schools that all my children are attending. It need not be as a parent governor, or just having votes for every decision, but could be some middle way that took account of parents views on key management and school community issues.

It might also be true that many local councils ran and run services poorly, but surely central government has destroyed our economy and undermined much of our British and English society. Local government does not have the scope for such devastation. We may well need to do local government better, and do all government less and with greater humility. But I have felt for a long while that really local government is needed. Why can't have a real say in which roads are repaired first, where and if speed bumps should be placed, how parking is managed, what speed restrictions are in place, how licences for businesses are issued. Lots of things. It doesn't have to be entirely open to mob rule, but it can be democratic and responsive to those who are interested. I think that localism is the only way to get people interested in politics again. Central politicians are generally despised. It might be more complex. It might produce local anomalies. It will certainly produce a variety of responses to similar situations, and there is nothing wrong with that. To prevent the loony left or the loony right gaining power then just don't have any power at the local level, just an opportunity for local service responsive to local people.

Susan Hill

I wouldn`t worry about them being light on foreign policy. Thing about FP is, stuff happens, usually from left field, and whoever is in government has to make up the policy as they go running off to fight the fire. They can have whatever 'policy' they like in advance and in theory but then they find it doesn`t fit any current foreign scenario.
Remember Harold Macmillan. 'Events, dear boy, events.'
The events that give most governments of whatever party their first wake-up call are usually Foreign.

Roger Thornhill

Unfortunately, if DC talks of taking power from Central government and giving to local government, for me that suggests giving some to the EUdenrat and the rest to the Regional Development Agencies - Regions in waiting.

The real power devolution should be to the individual, not some local bureaucrat.

Ian C

Peter Oborne has done all a service as this is much the impression that I have had of DC but that he is timid in its promotion on a day to basis, mainly because he does not have a large credible caucus of senior Tory politicians around him who he can depend on.

TGF your contradictions have been once again well exposed by Athesius. All need to understand that undoing the centralisation of the past 60 years cannot be achieved in a couple of Parliaments. It is a 20 year project - with the country behind it. This means marginalising the remaining Trades Unions and especially the Civil and Local Service unions. Not an easy task and taken head on in the firs term of Tory Gov't would be unlikely to succeed. Thatcher’s lesson with the miners is relevant.

My own way of getting there would be to become a constitutional democracy that clearly lays out at least two things (among others): -

1) The maximum % of GDP the state is allowed to spend - 30% would be a good target at the end of 20 years.
2) Things the state is and will be responsible for - and will no longer be responsible for in N years time.
A document that defines the state as a set of principles.

This sort of radical is where the future of the Tory party lies. DC is showing good signs, but he is only one and there need to be many.

TGF UKIP

Athesius and Ian C as you should both full well know by now, I have no connection with UKIP other than being grateful to them for being a repository for my vote as the only genuinely eurosceptic conservative party.

I am profoundly suspicious and sceptical of "localism" which is something which all sounds wonderfully democratic and desirable but whose outcomes may be dramatically different.

I do agree, though, Ian C with your aims for a slimmed down state.

However, can I take up with you a matter which you mention again above and on which you had an exchange a couple of days ago with Verity. That is the question of Cameron and his team.

While a field marshal may be responsible and answerable for the selection of his officers, their disposition and their direction and motivation I understand your point to be the quality or the dedication of the material Cameron has to select from.

It is here, though, that I do not think that Cameron's conduct since becoming leader has helped at all.

First of all as even his worshippers, the fanzine hacks, have admitted he has been too reluctant to go outside his personal clique and this together with his over-reliance on a personal political guru of questionable political provenance can only be destructive of fighting spirit. It's a bit like a football or cricket team where it's the captain, a couple of his mates and whichever eight others turn up - not very likely to have a great team spirit nor to be particlarly successful.

The other highly relevant team factor is that it is generally helpful if all are on board for the team strategy to be followed. Once again here, it is pretty obvious that a significant number of Tories from all ranks were not on board for the Heir to Blair and Blue Labour strategy the clique had laid down for the first two years at least. While accepting that large political egos will always make absolute unity impossible, there were times where Cameron seemed to view it as an essential part of the project to piss off as many on the right as he publicly could.

Small wonder in many repects, therefore, that the Tory team seem so lacking in personal dedication and fighting spirit that it is probably the most frequently voiced complaint about them on this blogsite.

Finally, to make a football analogy. Gordon's team are hardly Liverpool, Chelsea or Man Utd (or a Rangers or Celtic for that matter) in terms individual talent, more like a Cowdenbeath really, but as a number of Premiership managers have and are demonstrating, team spirit, cohesive discipline, on pitch organization and off pitch dedicated back up and attention to detail can produce excellent team performances and perfectly satisfactory results.

Perhaps, your Tories should pack Dave off for a few lessons on successful team management from the likes of Martin O'Neill, Harry Redknapp or David Moyes.

Ian C

Would not disagree with you TGF but that was the learning curve he has been/is on. Imagine the lack of clear leadership if Davis was running the Tory party from a fireside in Yorkshire.

Cameron, I repeat, could do better, but has come a long way against a kicking and screaming Tory party who thought it was OK to pay their sons' university fees on Parliamentary salaries while GB was bankrupting us in other ways.

He hs shown great restraint, got on with the job, pissed off those who needed it (with a few others but that's colateral damage none of it fatal) and is coming out ahead over all.

It's a cup half full assessment as opposed to 'he's not good enough'. None of them are. They're politicians. They prove themselves when they get the chance. DC's is coming whether he's good enough or not. I would rather him than the alternative.

biggestaspidistra

sadly Cameron's perceived by most of us to be a lite-weight toff with a background in public relations, no matter what we're told. If only he had half the the star quality of Boris.

TGF UKIP

Good place to leave it Ian C, but can I perhaps say our fundamental difference is probably contained in your first para.

My view is that had Davis been Leader, the Tories would have been a far more effective opposition, would have pursued a consistent and a conservative policy line as a result of which they would now have an unassailable lead. (And oh yes,
I would be voting Tory not UKIP)

But it's such fundamental differences that make this Coffee House world go round!

Hysteria

@ B aspidistra - "Cameron's perceived by most of us to be a lite-weight toff"

evidence? (your opinion does not count..)

biggestaspidistra

hysteric: (your opinion does not count..)

fascinating.

Hysteria

ba - thanks ! I was having an off-day!