Government must be competent, not revolutionary
GLOOM has descended on the Conservative Party fuelled by stagnant poll ratings, Cabinet divisions and setbacks such as the collapse of construction giant Carillion. But some Tories think they have the solution to this despondency. Their answer is that Theresa May should be more courageous and enterprising, with caution giving way to radicalism.
“Where’s the bold and the brave? So far it’s dull, dull, dull,” says veteran backbencher Sir Nicholas Soames.
“There is a timidity and lack of ambition about Mrs May’s Government which means it constantly disappoints,” said Nick Boles, MP for Grantham.
The answer to the Tories’ problems is not audacity but competence. Dull, solid, governance is exactly what Britain requires. In response to the nation’s difficulties ministers should exhibit administrative proficiency rather than headline-grabbing flashiness. After all, Theresa May rose to the top through her reputation for steadiness under fire. That is the quality she needs to display now.
Contrary to what many claim, running a country should be quite straightforward. No grandiose vision or overarching ideology is necessary. The driving force should be a determination to look after the interests of the nation and its people.
THAT means the maintenance of a sound economy where the books are balanced, businesses can flourish and sufficient taxes are raised to provide decent public services. It also means upholding order, cracking down on criminality and protecting borders.
Even Brexit is not nearly as complicated as its enemies pretend. Freedom from EU rule is not some radical departure but merely a return to the independence that Britain enjoyed for centuries before we joined the Common Market in 1973. National autonomy, complete with control over laws, trade, immigration, justice and taxes, is exactly the status of most democratic countries on earth. It is the EU with its dogma for federalist integration that is truly revolutionary.
Politicians’ demands for boldness are often inspired not by a genuine concern for the national interest but by vanity. SOLID: Theresa May has a reputation for steadiness They seek to portray themselves as members of a heroic vanguard, shaping our society and guiding our destiny.
It is that desire to parade their virtue that lies behind the monstrous £13.3billon foreign aid budget, the bizarre obsession with transgender politics and the neurotic addiction to multi-cultural diversity, all of them imposed without any mandate from the electorate.
In the same vein the enthusiasm for supposed bravery leads to the triumph of fashionable theories over tested practice. George Orwell wrote that “some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual would believe them”. Unfortunately politicians in their eagerness to appear radical have frequently surrendered to the misguided intellectuals.
Since the 1960s the education system has been profoundly damaged by enthusiasm for so-called “child-centred learning”, which has undermined traditional teaching methods and broken classroom discipline.
Similarly the progressive belief that offenders are victims of society has wrecked the justice system and led to decades of soaring crime since the 1950s.
All too often political “bravery” is code for more expenditure of taxpayers’ money, more state intervention and more bureaucracy. The
AS history shows that is the experience of all governments which proclaim their boldness. Disillusion invariably follows the attempt to don the mantle of radicalism. In 1963 Labour leader Harold Wilson extolled his attachment to “the white heat of the technological revolution” but he never lived up to the expectations he created and was defeated in 1970.
His Tory successor Ted Heath declared near the start of his premiership that “we will embark on a change so radical, a revolution so quiet and yet so total that it will go far beyond the programme for a Parliament”. He was out of office within three years.
Margaret Thatcher is often seen as a daring visionary but in reality she was at her best when she was heroically pragmatic, like in her fights against the unions and Argentina. In contrast she was at her worst when she was stridently ideological as in her disastrous insistence on the poll tax.
Sir Nicholas Soames should recognise that one of the most successful of all post-war administrations was led in the early 1950s by his grandfather Winston Churchill who, approaching the age of 80, had no grand dream at all beyond gentle reform and efficient rule. Today’s Conservatives cannot outbid Corbyn’s radicalism or profligacy. But they can defeat him with effective governance.
‘Demands for boldness are inspired by vanity’