Boris & Cameron Are Stuck For Ideas Too

May 2008, Update in August 2008 with David Milburn's Guardian Article.

Background :- Heroes & Flops: Thatcher & Major, Blair & Gordon

Margaret Thatcher is now considered to be one the UK’s greatest Prime Ministers and is credited with putting in place the economic reforms which have made the UK one of most successful countries in Europe (in early 2008 GDP per head in the UK is slightly higher than the US and significantly higher than in France and Germany. Unemployment and economic growth rates in the UK have been significantly better than most of her European neighbours ever since Thatcher’s reforms). However, she was not always popular.

Within three years of winning power many in the Conservative Party had turned against Thatcher and her approval rating dropped to 25% which was lower than any prime minister before her. It is said that one has break some eggs before making an omelette, but Thatcher was lucky to survive long enough to start the cooking. Her luck, of course, came in the form of the Falklands War. Years later, however, the Conservative party turned against her again, this time over her scepticism towards the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (she was proved correct when Lamont later abandoned the ERM and devalued the pound). A spilt party compounded by an ill judged “poll tax” policy cost Thatcher power.

Her replacement John Major is widely regarded as one of the worst Prime Ministers we have had in the UK. Although he was popular for a while, in 1997 the Conservatives suffered an enormous defeat in 1997 election under his incapable leadership. The Conservatives didn't just loose loose the support of the working classes - the middle classes, the educated, the financial times and the business community all came out for Labour. Pretty much, only lunatics voted Conservative in 1997. John Major's Tory party was that useless - pretty staggering stuff.

After John Major came one of Labour's greatest Prime Misters, Tony Blair. For all Blair positives he did however have a major fault, cowardice. After years of walking softly in the face of public and party opinion and achieving much less that he should have, Blair finally stood his ground on one issue – Iraq – and when he was proven wrong his party ditched him. Just as the Conservatives replaced Thatcher with the hopeless Major, the Labour Party replaced Blair with the hopeless Brown. Initially popular, now Brown is said to be a 'dead man walking'.

Ken & Boris - Hero & Flop?

Just as Margaret Thatcher was prepared to defy her party and public opinion in the pursuit of reform, Ken Livingstone introduced a congestion charge in the face of opposition from both the general public and the major UK political parties. Shortly after its introduction, however, the Congestion Charge was widely acknowledged as a success and Ken’s popularity soared. Livingston chalked up a number of other successes including improving busses, supporting the financial markets in the city, forcing through planning permission for sky scrapers, winning the Olympics.

Ken's one policy failure was housing – by forcing all London residential housing developers to turn 50% of their development over to social housing, the number of new builds in London stagnated under Livingston even though immigration and other factors increased demand (in fact I believe history will show this failure to be of monumental significance - by failing to build new homes a property bubble has been created which has made London homes the most expensive in the world, and this can only end in disaster). Although a major falling, few have criticised him for it, and the electorate certainly have no idea about it.

Just as Thatcher’s courage to defy party and public opinion eventually alienated voters, the media and masses began to accuse Livingstone of being out of touch and corrupt. Combined with the seismic shift away from the Labour Party Boris Johnson was able to pull off a narrow election victory in the recent mayoral election.

It normal these days for democratic politicians to avoid detailing policy. Nevertheless, Boris Johnson has not even hinted at a vision, all he has offered is a few naïve and populist words on bendy busses and fighting crime. On housing, Boris has pledged mainly “more affordable housing”, but I am sure this means absolutely nothing. Economists were cheered by his subtle pledge to abandon the 50% social housing rule which could reinvigorate private sector building. However, he has also pledged “no rabbit hutches in people's back gardens”, which means he is abandoning Livingstone’s big plan to build residential sky scrapers in Lambeth. I am depressed because in my opinion that was the only exciting plan for London on the table, I do not give a hoot about the Olympics, now we have nothing.

The jury is still out, but the Ken & Boris show looks like the usual democratic hero & flop show.

Conservatives are out of step with the shift towards Chinese style Utilitarianism & Authoritarianism

I think what we are seeing from Boris & Cameron is more than just the usual policy smoke screen that politicians employ in the run up to an election to avoid alienating the voters - it’s a real policy vacuum - the sort of policy vacuum which has become common place amongst our shallow public opinion sensitive leaders today. The answers to the UK's problems are obvious, but the Conservatives give no sign that they understand at all.

I also believe that there is a subtle reason why the Conservative party has been and still is stuck in a policy wilderness - It has not come to terms with a shift in the need for individualist vs collective utilitarian policy. The solution to the problems facing the Uk today require a much greater degree of personal sacrifice under greater governmental authoritarianism.

Thatcher’s policy making was, in a sense, authoritarian; as aspect which David Cameron disowns and one of the reasons why he has described himself as a Thatcher cynic. Ken Livingstones policy added an addition touch of collectivist utilitarianism, which is very modern and even further away from Cameron's Conservative party. For Cameron Livingstone is “Stalinist”, but the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) publicly endorsed him a few days before the election. It's an eye opener when business feels closer and more confident with Labour than with Conservative.

Many call Livingstone an enigma- they don’t understand how the once "Red Ken" could support the "fat cats" in the City of London and oppose tax on "non-doms". In the same way many in Old Labour could not understand Blair's New Labour Policy making. What these people don’t understand is how left-right boundaries have become much less important as our understanding of economic policy has advanced since the 1980s. Economists have answered many of the questions the Left and the Right used to argue about, and today the importance policy differences have moved on to the issue of utilitarian authoritarianism vs lassiez-faire and individualism. Our overpopulated world increasingly demands radical policy action which requires the sacrifice of individual freedoms. That the politicians of the West are already out of favour with their public is obvious, but only the insightful can yet see how the intellectual tide is turning East away from Western individualism.

Just as the Labour party was in the wilderness for years while it adjusted to the seismic shift against old fashioned socialism, I believe the Conservative party is now stuck coming to terms with the seismic shift towards utilitarianism. Some down to earth examples? How far are the conservatives from embracing Identity Cards? What about Livingston's compulsory purchase orders to rebuild Lambeth Hong Kong style with one million new homes? What about forcing us to drive electric cars with speedometers in km/h? Giving up the pound and adopting the Euro to reduce the cost of trade? All these modern ideas are an anathema to today's Conservatives.
 
August 2008 Update - David Milburn's Guardian Article

David Milburn's article set out a vision for Labour. I enjoyed the article and believe it touched on what I am saying here as well. Milburn described Cameron as a "conservative not a radical". I used the word authoritarian, but I think we are driving at the same idea. Voters are not just sick of spin, they are looking for radical leadership. Of course the unsaid groundwork here is that the problems today are serious and the need for action is pressing.

My complaint with Milburn's article is that he did not set out the problems and solutions. He mentioned the nuclear issue but was still far too cautious, we need dozens of new reactors asap and we need to forget about windmills. He did not admit that schooling in the UK is a major problem. Since the abolition of Grammar Schools standards have fallen towards the bottom of the European league tables and social mobility has collapsed. Obviously vouchers are the way forward (also abolition of A levels and reform of higher education). On housing we need massive rebuilding on a Parisian scale. On tax and regulation much more aggressive simplification action is required.

Ultimately, as an Englishman, I despise all our politicians and the modern democratic process which elects them. I long for a radical overall of our hopeless political system, I wish I could explain it to people, and I dream about being involved in reforming the system myself.