If economics is the dismal science, manifesto-writing must rank as a candidate for the most dismal of arts. Too often in recent times it has been a case of writing down the word ‘future’ and then throwing virtuous-sounding words such as ‘fairness’, ‘change’ and ‘all’ into the air and seeing in what order they land. Manifesto-writers ought to subject each sentence to a test: do not include any statement unless you can imagine your political opponents saying the opposite. The title of Labour’s manifesto sums up its intellectual exhaustion: which politician this side of the 19th-century would ever have opposed a ‘Future Fair for All’?
That is what makes the title of the Conservatives’ manifesto so distinctive. Taken literally, the Conservatives’ ‘Invitation to Join the Government of Britain’ is of course absurd: David Cameron is not going to find room in his government for Doris of Dewsbury as undersecretary for pensions. Yet behind the phrase lies a genuine set of proposals which create a very big difference in ideology between the two main parties. The Conservatives, not before time, have coalesced around a philosophy of smaller and smarter government, in which individuals and communities are empowered to take over the running of services that for too long have been considered the preserve of the state. It is the very essence of Conservatism.
Adam Smith spoke of the ‘invisible hand’, by which the common good is unintentionally advanced by people acting in self-interest. Frédéric Bastiat spoke of ‘what is seen’ — government action — with ‘what is not seen’ — the harm caused by taxes levied to fund that action. Hayek spoke of ‘spontaneous order’ — how human society naturally inclines towards civility and co-operation. Now, David Cameron talks about the ‘big society’ which he wants to see replacing state control.
Explaining these ideas is always the hardest task of Conservatism. When government does not act, what does? How can you ‘roll forward society’ in the way Mr Cameron advocates? To vote Conservative is to vote for a less predictable agenda, to place faith in society rather than the state. Few of the most useful changes in society are anticipated, let alone encouraged, by the state. And it is not, of course, parents who will set up the most new schools, but companies. When they compete with each other, power is passed from the bureaucracy to the community. This is the revolution which Mr Cameron is pledging to bring.
There is one initiative which the Conservatives might have added to their proposals empowering citizens against over-mighty government: an end to the exemption which political manifestos enjoy from trading standards legislation. ‘We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next parliament,’ promised Labour in 2005. Those paying last week’s 50p tax would beg to differ. ‘We will put [the European Union constitution] to the British people in a referendum.’ Instead the Queen’s ‘yes’ was forced through by Labour whips, then flown to Rome where it was put in a vault.
Just as laughable is this gem from the same document: ‘Our economic record has finally laid to rest the view that Labour could not be trusted with the economy.’ And in the 1997 manifesto, ‘The myth — that the solution to every problem is increased spending — has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives.’ At least those designing the document treated it with the derision it deserves. On page 4, the italicised first letters of the first three paragraphs, which claim to have saved us from economic disaster, spell out IOU.
As for the Liberal Democrats, they are to be commended for their proposal that no one earning under £10,000 pays a penny of tax. But the tax-the-rich instincts of this party of opportunists comes through very quickly. Their plan for an asset tax is a signal for millionaires to leave the country at an even faster rate than they already are after the 50p tax proposal. Their plan to rule out the use of force against Iran in all circumstances is not the politics of a party serious about government.
Anyone tempted to dismiss the Lib Dem manifesto as an irrelevance should look at the opinion polls. Most still stubbornly point to a hung parliament, which would be a national calamity. Neither coalitions nor minority governments survive long in British politics: such a result would leave all parties expecting a second election, perhaps before Christmas. The lack of a decisive Conservative majority threatens to tip Britain into the same fiscal maelstrom that has swallowed up Greece.
As James Forsyth argues on page 12, the main enemy Mr Cameron faces is not so much Gordon Brown but the widely held feeling that no politician is worth voting for. Voters are, of course, there to be persuaded. Even at this late stage, imaginations are out there to be captured. By winning this week’s battle of the manifestos, the Tories have made a significant step towards doing just that.
Comments