Politics

11 July 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

The opportunity for Mr Cameron here is awesome. The ‘progressive’ banner lies abandoned: he should grasp it and brandish it with vigour and pride. Doing so would not be in the least bit cynical, but the fullest expression of the true conservative mission. Mr Brown’s obsession with money — and his love of tax credits to redistribute it — blinded him to the true nature of modern poverty and its causes. Those Labour MPs who do understand the futility of state social engineering and grasp the evil of worklessness lost the argument. And some, like Alan Milburn, have decided to walk out of parliament rather than fight on.

Mr Cameron already has a taste for this fight, but often talks as if he has not yet grasped its full potential. When he addressed the Centre for Policy Studies reception on Monday evening, he repeated his intention to pursue ‘progressive ends using conservative means’. This is a more authentic Tory mission than vainly trying to win over the environmental lobby, or cynically protecting the NHS budget from much-needed cuts. If Mr Cameron wants to win over Labour voters, his strongest suit would be to say that the government had lost its battle against poverty, and that anyone serious about continuing the fight should at least consider other more contemporary methods.

It might seem odd to claim to be ‘progressive’ as we enter an era of harsh spending cuts: but in fact it is not. Mr Brown’s government spent like no other, and was socially regressive. The Prime Minister’s greatest contribution to conservatism (other than his helpful internal demolition of the Labour party) has been to test to destruction the idea that money solves social problems. The Tories have been out of power for more than a decade because Mr Blair stole so many of their clothes. By becoming the authentic tribune of social justice, Mr Cameron can now steal those clothes back.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Annie B

July 9th, 2009 12:41pm Report this comment

Excellently argued Fraser, as I have been saying for very many months now - "Everything they touch turns to dust!"

John Law

July 10th, 2009 4:11pm Report this comment

Fraser
It gets worse, I have just watched Brown at the G8, committing to tackle African poverty.
Poor Buggers!

I unlike most NewLav apparatchiks, I actually grew up in a relatively poor community and understand that the important thing, is to give people a good education and a chance to succeed.

Unfortunately with regimes like the current one, the people who can shop at GUM (remember that?), do rather better than the kulaks

Keith M

July 11th, 2009 5:53am Report this comment

David Cameron would not be 'stealing' so much as restoring genuine ownership to good principles and practices that were fraudulently obtained and then abused by Blair, Brown and that pack of charlatans calling itself New Labour.We have to hope that David Cameron will be a worthy tribune, I believe the prospects are good.

davidke

July 13th, 2009 2:05pm Report this comment

Be fair ref. Blair did tell all teenage voters the night before the election that if they voted labour they would be able to drink all day. Fair's fair.

Bendy Girl

July 14th, 2009 1:03pm Report this comment

£87 per week disposable income? Seriously? As a disabled person in receipt of state benefits I can't imagine knowing such wealthy poor people! Is Fraser Nelson perhaps confusing the £87 with an income support payment for someone with genuine and demonstrable health conditions?
http://benefitscroungingscum.blogspot.com/

cybn

September 2nd, 2009 1:16pm Report this comment

Apart from being absolutely on the mark, this made me reflect on the left's obsession with "poverty", as if it were somehow worse than say cancer. It is not. Grinding poverty is baleful, granted. Relative poverty on the other hand is a different thing altogether. Do I have the right to riot given that 51% of the population earn more than I do?

Post comment