The Tories want an ethical society too

By  Janet Daley

There are two fairly obvious ways that David Cameron might present himself this week in his last party conference speech before the general election. Since we are once again engaged in action in the Middle East, he could speak as a war leader, with all the gravitas and moral conviction that the historical moment seems to require. This would have, to put it in crass political terms, a number of advantages. First, it would justify a deeply serious, no-nonsense tone of prime ministerial authority that would make Ed Miliband’s performance last week seem even more absurd and irrelevant than it did at the time. 

Second, it would license righteous condemnation of the discord that Scottish nationalism and Ukip – with yet another defection in hand – have stirred in the electorate. By calling for a united stand against the real enemy of the values we all share as a nation, Mr Cameron could make a few of his domestic political enemies look like trivial distractions at a time of danger. 

Last, and certainly not least, this is a stance in which he is palpably sincere and eloquent. He truly believes that Britain should be actively engaged in the fight against terrorism, and can speak to that effect with impressive force. 

Yes, there is a lot to be said for a “war leader” pitch. But there is an understanding among Conservatives that however much public support there may be for our military involvement in Iraq, and possibly Syria, too, it will not be the deciding issue in an election. And considering that Labour has, thus far, supported (albeit incoherently) the Government’s position on this, it would not even be a differentiating factor between the parties. So the war will have to come into the speech, but it cannot be the defining theme. 

The alternative persona that Mr Cameron could offer is Saviour of the Economy. This would clearly be just a complement to whatever form George Osborne chooses for his triumphal message, but as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron can claim the overall credit for having presided over what is generally accepted to be a recovery. 

The political advantages here are almost too obvious to cite: he can depict his leadership as having had the right prescription and having persevered with it through a hail of rhetorical bullets from the Opposition, as well as achieving this under the peculiarly difficult circumstances of coalition government. The contrast would be between Labour’s economic policy, which is so disastrously shambolic that its leader sometimes forgets to mention it at all, and Mr Cameron’s own stoical determination to see through a difficult but necessary programme to the bitter end, etc, etc. 

There could be an expression of gratitude to the people of Britain (national unity again) for their forbearance and resilience during these difficult times, and for their support while the Government took uncomfortable but necessary measures. The underlying message: with your willingness to make sacrifices and our unwavering commitment to a policy we knew to be right, we have managed to clear up the mess that Labour left behind. The subtext, “Don’t ever let them ruin the economy again”, would scarcely need to be uttered. 

But the Saviour of the Economy option carries with it an obligation to say what will follow from this putative recovery. Either we are out of danger or we are not. If we are, then what happens next? Are the people to be rewarded for their sufferance? Even the Government’s most ardent apologists admit that the recovery (if such it is) has so far had little effect on daily life. Most working people feel no better off. Labour’s beloved “cost-of-living crisis” still resonates with families struggling to pay bills, and with the young who are being priced out of home ownership. 

So what will the Tories do to make this feat of economic brilliance felt by real people? The only credible answer to this – because it is the only action that governments can take directly – is to reduce the tax take on ordinary households. Will we hear anything – even pious hopes – about this? 

That brings us to what must be the central idea of this most important of speeches. There was only one vaguely attractive thing that the Labour leader had to offer during his perambulations around the stage at Manchester. (Side note to Mr Cameron: for God’s sake, stand still.) That was his party’s vision of what a virtuous society ought to be like. 

The principle of “together” (or was it The Principle of Together?) may have been a banal rehash of state-sponsored collectivism, but it did at least address the question of moral purpose. Mr Miliband used it to accuse the Tories of ruthless individualism: the philosophy of “you’re on your own” as opposed to all of us supporting each other. 

This is a very old political argument but it needs to be fought again. The Conservatives need to make it clear once more that there is nothing callous or immoral about encouraging self-reliance. The desire to be responsible for yourself, for your own family and, by extension, your own community is the precise opposite of selfishness. 

For a party or a government to expect able-bodied, normally intelligent people to take on such responsibilities is to pay them the respect they are due: to assume that they are fully functioning, conscientious human beings. This is, in fact, how most people wish to see themselves – which is why the Government’s welfare reforms are so hugely popular. 

Mr Cameron should take the “Together” thing head-on: match Labour’s neo-paternalism with a compelling Conservative social ideal (which, incidentally, is a quite different thing from individual sex scandals). This is not unconnected to the appeal of devolving power to local level, or to the English Question, which the Conservatives are now committed to addressing. Home rule for England, if it is not to look like blatant Tory opportunism, has to be set in the context of dissatisfaction with overweening central government. 

The mechanisms of the Big State – including Big Politics – are coming to be seen as out of touch, arrogant, dictatorial and extravagant. Mr Cameron should make it clear that he understands this longing for a new way to disperse political authority: to make it possible for nations, communities and neighbourhoods to be responsible for themselves in just the way that most households wish to be. A more humble political class – which is what everybody seems to want – would have to involve a smaller, less intrusive state. Mr Miliband cannot demand the one without accepting the need for the other. This should be natural ground for the Tories. Mr Cameron could turn Labour’s slogan inside out with a forceful argument for an ethical society that relies on people rather than government power as the source of virtue, which should not be all that difficult because it is, I think, what he actually believes. / Telegraph