By PETER OBORNE Something extraordinary took place yesterday: the Conservative Party went into hibernation and a new political party arose in its place. The new party is based on a pragmatic recognition by the old Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that the voters want something new and different. Cherished Conservative ideas have been ruthlessly dumped – and in their place David Cameron and Nick Clegg have thrashed out the most detailed and comprehensive political manifesto Britain has seen in over half a century. One voice? Nick Clegg and David Cameron lead their new Cabinet yesterday Out go long-promised tax cuts. Out goes reflex hostility to Europe, including the pledge to repatriate powers from Europe. Out goes the Tory pledge to ditch the Human Rights Act. In come a raft of pure LibDem ideas, many of which the Tories have always despised, such as electoral reform. But – as Clegg and Cameron insisted yesterday: ‘We have found that a combination of our parties’ best ideas and attitudes has produced a programme for government that is more radical and comprehensive than our individual manifestos.’ They are not exaggerating. The ambition of their joint ‘programme for government’ can only be described as awesome. It sets out plans to turn Britain’s failed welfare system upside down, to restore standards and quality to our schools, and to rebuild family life. At the same time, Clegg and Cameron aim to reshape the way Britain is governed by changing the relationship between politicians and voters. They are determined to strip power from central government and hand it back to communities and local people. At the heart of it all is one basic idea: New Labour’s big government has failed. Its attempt to change Britain by issuing orders from the centre end in squalid failure. ‘It is our ambition,’ say Clegg and Cameron, ‘to distribute power and opportunity to people rather than hoarding authority within government.’ Thus, parents will be given the opportunity to set up new schools, and towns can elect their own police chiefs and set their own priorities for law and order. Voters will be able to sack their own MPs without waiting for an election. All this combines the LibDem passion for civil liberties and desire to halt the relentless march of the surveillance state with Cameron’s much-mocked proposal for a ‘Big Society’ which calls on everyone to become active citizens rather than passive consumers of government services. It is an astonishing achivement that something so precise and detailed should have been agreed in less than one week. In European countries, where hung parliaments occur, the process of hammering out a joint manifesto of the kind can take up to three months. Such a document can only have been produced in such a short time with genuine warmth and enthusiasm among those involved. Both sides have made important, and very painful, concessions. The LibDems have done a humiliating U-turn on economic policy. During the election campaign they denounced George Osborne’s plan for £6billion immediate spending cuts as reckless and irresponsible. Now though, they have had to change their mind. The Lib-Dems have also had to bite the bullet and accept Tory plans to place a ‘cap’ on immigration and ditch their planned amnesty for illegal immigrants. What is more, they have agreed to drop their long-standing opposition to the Trident nuclear missile programme, a very bitter pill to swallow for LibDem activists. However, despite these areas of concord, there are worryingly still many disagreements, including over vital matters such as reform of the broken banking system. These unresolved issues have been put out to review. The number of such reviews? No fewer than 34! It is worth noting that two of these are ‘full’ reviews, one is ‘ comprehensive’ and one ‘fundamental’. This must surely imply that the other 29 reviews are neither full, nor comprehensive nor fundamental. Many hurdles lie ahead – and the biggest danger to their plans is the economic crisis. Some of the most ambitious plans in this manifesto (such as the scheme to encourage unemployed back to work) require extra funding in the early stages. As the document acknowledges: initial investment delivers later savings. The burning question is whether, at a time of terrible financial difficulties, that extra investment will be available. The economic crisis poses a second threat to the coalition. The spending cuts which are now inevitable in the months ahead will prove deeply unpopuar and divisive. Bitter arguments are certain to break out between the coalition partners over where the cuts should fall. Meanwhile, both Cameron and Clegg are likely to face ever more mutinous party members. Nevertheless, yesterday’s joint manifesto gets them off to the best possible start. And the possibility that a new political party – the ‘Liberal Conservatives’ – will emerge from the stunning events of the last two weeks should not be ruled out.Awesome ambition, but will it work?
Saturday, 22 May 2010
Last updated at 10:51 AM on 21st May 2010
Posts
