The enemies of conservatism are characterised by Braverman, the ERG, Nigel Farage and those like Matt Goodwin more bothered about where someone went to school than whether they do their job well
I concluded a few years ago that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a conservative but much more of a liberal, while Cameron, May and Boris were more conservatives. It's why I'm a liberal, not a conservative.
While I support your view that Cameron was into noblesse oblige, he failed at the "good administration" part. I never quite understood why Cameron ever wanted the job. If it's not about the money, it should be about the outcomes. You do it because you want to make a better widget, or to change the world in some way. I'm not sure there was any improvement in terms of administration, and there was also no improvement in terms of scrapping what was unnecessary or reforming what there was. And I admit to being more of a radical about the structure of government, but some reform is always necessary, yet under Cameron, May and Johnson, there has been almost none that was not something externally forced upon them.
I really don't care if someone does a job out of good charity or not. I would rather have people in charge for the money. It's what Pepsi, Microsoft and Toyota do, and that seems to work a lot better than government, because they don't treat the job as a favour like most MPs do. Sadly, most of the public get stroppy about spending less than £100K on their MPs, even though £500m spent on MPs would more than pay for itself if they properly scrutinised HS2, the Iraq War, Connecting for Health and all manner of bad public spending.
Were you not in a recent post, praising Margaret Thatcher, who most would consider a radical?
And when the current policies (and the largest number of potential candidates to be put in charge) themselves radical, what use is sustaining the status quo?
We have at least three truly radical sets of events and policies happening in the last few years and ongoing in lockdowns and the COVID response, the push for net zero, and the significant demographic changes to the country. If you outright support these things then fine, but if not, then tinkering with which person runs some quango doesn't seem very effectual.
Great article. Completely agree re: effective adminstration and reversal of Blair era changes (though as you suggest, these started with Thatcher - the extent to which Thatcherism led to the increase of civil service power over elected officials and others perhaps underestimated because of the rhetoric? Union power was many things, but it was accountable to people not employed by the unions). Grey areas about reversing changes, though - not a sharp dividing line between doing so with the EU in 2016 and with the Nolan Principles now.
The commentary here (re whether Margaret Thatcher was a liberal, a conservative or a radical) will I think find this post sheds some light: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
I concluded a few years ago that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a conservative but much more of a liberal, while Cameron, May and Boris were more conservatives. It's why I'm a liberal, not a conservative.
While I support your view that Cameron was into noblesse oblige, he failed at the "good administration" part. I never quite understood why Cameron ever wanted the job. If it's not about the money, it should be about the outcomes. You do it because you want to make a better widget, or to change the world in some way. I'm not sure there was any improvement in terms of administration, and there was also no improvement in terms of scrapping what was unnecessary or reforming what there was. And I admit to being more of a radical about the structure of government, but some reform is always necessary, yet under Cameron, May and Johnson, there has been almost none that was not something externally forced upon them.
I really don't care if someone does a job out of good charity or not. I would rather have people in charge for the money. It's what Pepsi, Microsoft and Toyota do, and that seems to work a lot better than government, because they don't treat the job as a favour like most MPs do. Sadly, most of the public get stroppy about spending less than £100K on their MPs, even though £500m spent on MPs would more than pay for itself if they properly scrutinised HS2, the Iraq War, Connecting for Health and all manner of bad public spending.
Were you not in a recent post, praising Margaret Thatcher, who most would consider a radical?
And when the current policies (and the largest number of potential candidates to be put in charge) themselves radical, what use is sustaining the status quo?
We have at least three truly radical sets of events and policies happening in the last few years and ongoing in lockdowns and the COVID response, the push for net zero, and the significant demographic changes to the country. If you outright support these things then fine, but if not, then tinkering with which person runs some quango doesn't seem very effectual.
Great article. Completely agree re: effective adminstration and reversal of Blair era changes (though as you suggest, these started with Thatcher - the extent to which Thatcherism led to the increase of civil service power over elected officials and others perhaps underestimated because of the rhetoric? Union power was many things, but it was accountable to people not employed by the unions). Grey areas about reversing changes, though - not a sharp dividing line between doing so with the EU in 2016 and with the Nolan Principles now.
David Cameron and (thank goodness) an ever-decreasing share of the electorate.
I agree that substantive personnel change on the right will be wonderful when it eventually comes.