In The Observer today, Peter Oborne argues—as he has in the past—that David Cameron is far more of a radical than most people realise:
“[Cameron] has been accused, especially by supporters, of being long on ambition, short on principles. This is almost the complete opposite of the case. I have read most of his speeches since he became leader and they are incredibly brave. Fundamentally, he has been calling for the British state as it currently stands to be dismantled, with power taken from central government and given back to local communities and institutions.
There is an intellectual coherence here. In a series of brilliant speeches, Tory education spokesman Michael Gove has argued that schools should be freed from central control and run by parents. Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve insists that police chiefs should elected by local communities. Iain Duncan Smith, in a series of meticulously researched papers, has argued that we need to recognise that the state alone is incapable of mending broken communities and families and voluntary institutions must come to the rescue. If Cameron wins the next election it will be with a far more ambitious manifesto than the one which secured Thatcher victory in 1979.” Peter is right that the Tories are more radical than most people appreciate: on education and localism a Cameron government would create a new settlement that Labour would probably have to accept before they could win again. But on certain other areas—I’m thinking in particular of health and foreign affairs, the policy remains worryingly light.
The praise that Peter offers is balanced with a criticism that Cameron’s circle is too small. There is some truth to this; party management is one area where the leadership could certainly do better.
But part of the reason the circle is small is that so few Tories seem to be solely committed to the task. Peter criticises the fact that William Hague, among others, is “regarded with suspicion and partly frozen out”. Yet in some ways this is an inevitable consequence of Hague’s desire to keep up a considerable portfolio of outside interests. These other, time-consuming commitments are bound to make Hague semi-detached from the project.
Comments