‘Progressive conservatism’ riles Mandelson because Labour has achieved so little

Conservatism is beautifully simple. It flows from the belief that society is stronger and fairer when power lies with the many and not the few. It is about trusting institutions — the family, the community — while being sceptical about the grander claims of government. It is about believing that a man will spend the money he earns more wisely and justly than the state could ever do on his behalf. To be a conservative is, fundamentally, a vote of faith in mankind. But how can one distil all this into a soundbite?

David Cameron has struggled to answer this question. He watched uncomfortably as William Hague (briefly) and then Iain Duncan Smith tried to import ‘compassionate conservatism’ from the US Republican party. Since becoming leader in December 2005, Mr Cameron has used the label ‘social responsibility’, an idea which Steve Hilton, his brand strategist, had sold with much success to the corporate sector. Then came the idea of the ‘post-bureaucratic age’ — in itself the kind of unwieldy phrase you might expect a bureaucrat to use. But now, a form of words has been found which is successful insofar as it seems to drive the left into apoplexy: ‘progressive conservatism’.

Few Tories will have bothered to listen too closely to the speech George Osborne made on this subject on Tuesday. For them, it goes without saying that Conservative policies do most to help the poor and to promote social mobility — why else, after all, did Labour achieve so little with all that money in the last dozen years? As Churchill once put it: ‘We are for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb. They are for the queue. Let each wait his place until his turn comes.’