Labour needs voters to start asking tough questions of the Tories too
[2008-5-28]
Tag: Hard Start
Political chatter has only one theme at the moment: Labour's woes and the life expectancy of its besieged leader. The premise of all this talk is the assumption that Labour will lose the next general election. Sorry to state the obvious, but if Labour is on course for a sound defeat, doesn't that mean the Tories are on their way to victory? In which case, while it's certainly more fun guessing the runners and riders to take over from Gordon, isn't it time we took a hard look at the party which seems set to rule this country in just two years' time?
Admittedly, it's a knack the commentariat, like the Labour front bench, has lost. The Tories were so useless for so long, scrutiny of Conservative ideas in the Hague-IDS-Howard era came to seem like a futile exercise, covering Tory speeches a job for the sketchwriters only.
That won't do now. The Labour party of Neil Kinnock was submitted to microscopic examination in the lead-up to the 1992 election. Indeed, the genius of the Conservative campaign in that year was to make the election a referendum on the opposition, rather than the government, a decision in which Labour was found wanting. At present, those still loyal to Brown insist that 2010 will be different from the local polls and last week's Crewe byelection because it will not be a plebiscite on Labour but a choice between the two parties. But fashioning the contest that way won't happen all by itself. It will require training the klieg lights on the Conservatives - starting right now.
There is plenty to be exposed. Last September, most Tories quaked at the prospect of an early election, knowing that the facade constructed by David Cameron concealed either a blank space or a tangle of contradictions. Despite the turnaround in their fortunes, those tensions and empty holes remain. Take the area where, along with greenery, Cameron has built his credentials as a new kind of compassionate Conservative: his concern for our "broken society". With IDS's report on "Breakdown Britain" in his back pocket, Cameron encourages voters to believe that the country is cracking up - descending into a netherworld of split families, feral youths and rising crime - and it needs the Tories to put it back together again.
Yet what are the tools available to a Westminster politician anxious to do such work? There are hundreds, but what they have in common is that they're in the toolbox marked central government. The trouble for Cameron is that he has disavowed these means, thanks to a philosophy that still sees the state as problem rather than solution.
Thus in a pitch for centre-left voters in the Independent earlier this month, the Tory leader proclaimed his determination to make Britain more family friendly: "That includes paying couples to live together rather than apart, and more help for parents in the crucial early years, through reforms such as a massively expanded health visitor service and flexible parental leave."
Putting aside the fact that Cameron wants to take Britain out of the European social chapter, which guarantees some of the employment protections essential for family life, how would he achieve these admirable goals? "In all these areas," he wrote, "instead of using the old-fashioned mechanisms of top-down state control, we will use the modern mechanisms of civil society - whether it's businesses ... social enterprises ... or charities and community groups."
Sounds lovely, but how does he expect charities to provide a "massively expanded health visitor service"? Which businesses, exactly, are going to pay for that couples' bonus? Has Cameron found the social enterprises who will take care of "early years" help for all Britain's children?
Reliance on the public realm rather than the public sector, as Cameron puts it, sounds very appealing. But it assumes a capacity that Britain's civil society, for a variety of reasons, does not have. This is not America, with its vast army of church-based volunteers. Expecting the voluntary sector to mend Britain's "broken society" while disavowing a central role for government is to make a promise that cannot be kept.
Political chatter has only one theme at the moment: Labour's woes and the life expectancy of its besieged leader. The premise of all this talk is the assumption that Labour will lose the next general election. Sorry to state the obvious, but if Labour is on course for a sound defeat, doesn't that mean the Tories are on their way to victory? In which case, while it's certainly more fun guessing the runners and riders to take over from Gordon, isn't it time we took a hard look at the party which seems set to rule this country in just two years' time?
Admittedly, it's a knack the commentariat, like the Labour front bench, has lost. The Tories were so useless for so long, scrutiny of Conservative ideas in the Hague-IDS-Howard era came to seem like a futile exercise, covering Tory speeches a job for the sketchwriters only.
That won't do now. The Labour party of Neil Kinnock was submitted to microscopic examination in the lead-up to the 1992 election. Indeed, the genius of the Conservative campaign in that year was to make the election a referendum on the opposition, rather than the government, a decision in which Labour was found wanting. At present, those still loyal to Brown insist that 2010 will be different from the local polls and last week's Crewe byelection because it will not be a plebiscite on Labour but a choice between the two parties. But fashioning the contest that way won't happen all by itself. It will require training the klieg lights on the Conservatives - starting right now.
There is plenty to be exposed. Last September, most Tories quaked at the prospect of an early election, knowing that the facade constructed by David Cameron concealed either a blank space or a tangle of contradictions. Despite the turnaround in their fortunes, those tensions and empty holes remain. Take the area where, along with greenery, Cameron has built his credentials as a new kind of compassionate Conservative: his concern for our "broken society". With IDS's report on "Breakdown Britain" in his back pocket, Cameron encourages voters to believe that the country is cracking up - descending into a netherworld of split families, feral youths and rising crime - and it needs the Tories to put it back together again.
Yet what are the tools available to a Westminster politician anxious to do such work? There are hundreds, but what they have in common is that they're in the toolbox marked central government. The trouble for Cameron is that he has disavowed these means, thanks to a philosophy that still sees the state as problem rather than solution.
Thus in a pitch for centre-left voters in the Independent earlier this month, the Tory leader proclaimed his determination to make Britain more family friendly: "That includes paying couples to live together rather than apart, and more help for parents in the crucial early years, through reforms such as a massively expanded health visitor service and flexible parental leave."
Putting aside the fact that Cameron wants to take Britain out of the European social chapter, which guarantees some of the employment protections essential for family life, how would he achieve these admirable goals? "In all these areas," he wrote, "instead of using the old-fashioned mechanisms of top-down state control, we will use the modern mechanisms of civil society - whether it's businesses ... social enterprises ... or charities and community groups."
Sounds lovely, but how does he expect charities to provide a "massively expanded health visitor service"? Which businesses, exactly, are going to pay for that couples' bonus? Has Cameron found the social enterprises who will take care of "early years" help for all Britain's children?
Reliance on the public realm rather than the public sector, as Cameron puts it, sounds very appealing. But it assumes a capacity that Britain's civil society, for a variety of reasons, does not have. This is not America, with its vast army of church-based volunteers. Expecting the voluntary sector to mend Britain's "broken society" while disavowing a central role for government is to make a promise that cannot be kept.
Related News »
In Focus »
footwear exports
Last month, European footwear manufacturers proposed extending anti-dumping measures against ..
B2B Keywords:
International market Chinese Importer Wholesale trade Wholesale products World trade Wholesale distributors International trade Foreign trade Wholesale distributor Importers Import export business Sell online Help u sell Global trade How to market a product Online supplier Wholesale product
International market Chinese Importer Wholesale trade Wholesale products World trade Wholesale distributors International trade Foreign trade Wholesale distributor Importers Import export business Sell online Help u sell Global trade How to market a product Online supplier Wholesale product
Feature Products»
Hot Products: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9
-
-
About Us -
Links -
Privacy Policy -
Terms of Use -
Site Map -
Contact Us -
Call Center: 0086-95105561 © 2007 Tootoo.com -
