Gordon Brown vs David Cameron

17 June 2006

Irwin Stelzer says that the sharp policy distinctions of the past are no more, but that the choice ahead of the voters is still one to relish. This is his audit of the scores so far

If, as seems more and more possible, Brown is succeeded by Cameron at the next general election, there is a danger that the Opposition leader’s quest for Greater Well Being will be reflected in workplace rules that raise costs just as the economy is threatened by low-cost competition from China and Eastern Europe. After all, like Brown, he has never been at the hard edge of wealth creation, unless you count his experience as a public relations practitioner, in which it should be noted he did recognise that without paid advertising there would be little independent programming. The implications for the level of competence that his largely inexperienced team will bring to the various ministries are unpleasant to contemplate. Finally, there is real reason to worry that Cameron will prove unable to rise above the political correctness that, among other things, sets diversity above merit when it comes to selecting candidates for Parliament.

My own guess is that Cameron will not veer into nannyism. He seems to be groping for the space between laws and regulations on the one hand and decent individual and corporate behaviour on the other. That space, which Brown is inclined to fill with regulations, Cameron would prefer to see filled by individual actions — personal, corporate and civic. If a bit of preaching from what Teddy Roosevelt called ‘the bully pulpit’ available to national leaders is needed, so be it. So long as he doesn’t cross the line between legitimate exhortation and trivialised nannyism (his successful war on chocolate oranges being a prime example of the latter), Cameron offers a less intrusive and mighty state than the one Brown proposes for Britain’s future — more precisely, for England’s future, Scotland already being far down that road.