WHEN David Cameron assumed the leadership of his party, he made much of his social progressiveness. In his acceptance speech he famously talked of loving his country “as it is now” and not as it was in some mythical bygone era.
He correctly identified the Tories’ perceived antipathy to minority rights and equal opportunities as a fundamental weakness in his party’s appeal to the electorate.
But where are the new progressive policies?
On immigration his party may well be reflecting more accurately than Labour the real concerns of British voters. But it’s still the old refrain: too many foreigners.
On marriage and society, Cameron is threatening to reverse one of his own government’s measures, by reinstating the married couple’s tax allowance. Setting aside the arguments for and against this policy, how is it “progressive”?
On gay rights, where does his party stand, except in support of most of what we’ve already done? On women’s rights? On race?
I ask in a genuine spirit of enquiry, because it’s quite possible I’ve missed a recently-announced raft of such policies.
And before readers start fulminating against “progressive” policies on the above subjects, this is not about whether such policies are right (they generally are); it is about whether or not there is any evidence that David Cameron has followed through on his promise to make the Conservative Party more progressive.
Any thoughts?














Thursday 19 February 2009 at 10:45 am
When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he stated in his acceptance speach that his government would “work in partnership with business to create the dynamic economy, the competitive economy of the future. The one that can meet the challenges of an entirely new century and new age.”
He also said his grovernment would be rooted in “strong values, the values of justice and progress and community”.
And finally he said, “And it will be a government that seeks to restore trust in politics in this country. That cleans it up, that decentralizes it, that gives people hope once again that politics is and always should be about the service of the public. And it shall be a government, too, that gives this country strength and confidence in leadership both at home and abroad, particularly in respect of Europe.”
After 11 years in power, I would say Labour has failed with all 3.
It’s no use pointing the finger at the Tories. You should be looking at how and why New Labour has failed.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 10:50 am
I don’t think so and I think you’ve identified the crux of the problem – no matter how progressive David Cameron thinks he is, his party don’t seem to be.
I don’t know whether Cameron has been shutting down debate within his own party on many of these issues but I do not get a sense of an internal stuggle for the mind and soul of his party on these issues.
I only see a battle to have a disciplined adherence by his party to a new outward facing veneer.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 10:50 am
Hi Tom.
You’ve conveyed far more eloquently than I a comment I left on Iain Dale’s blog yesterday.
I get no sense that there is any progression in Dave’s Tories. Dave is a friendly face and a gifted orator. He conveys populist concepts frequently but….with no policies to speak of I have grave doubts on the validity of what he says. There is no evidence that any of Dave’s views are consistent across the Tories.
My reading of this is a strategy of Tory detoxification – get Dave to hint and pontificate that change is here in the Tories – but with no commitment in manifesto his party does not have to follow through on any of it.
My question to Iain was – can he bring his party with him?
My lasting impression is one of a desperate need to get back into government. Nothing wrong in that – but it seems a strategy for us to fear not support.
It seems to easy to me for Dave’s supporters to say “why should he announce policies now – Labour will just steal them”.
As an “undecided” voter I need to see the cut of his party’s jib. And at present – it’s driving me further away from the Tories than anywhere near closer.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 10:52 am
It is pretty difficult for him to be progressive really.
Any large party is essentially a co-alition of people with a wide range of often essentially conflicting interests.
In opposition – they might all dislike someone else enough to come together for a while, but this does not add up to a clear forward agenda.
Remembering the Conservative party conference, I always felt that the real story was in the faces of the audience.
The staging of cameron’s speech was clever. They picked a very small number of the acceptable faces to frame him, but the camera shots to the rest of the hall told another story.
To hold his temporary co-alition together David Cameron has to please people, and we always have to remember just who he has to please.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 11:06 am
No time this morning to do this question justice and in full detail (good question though), but as an exemplar:
Cameron’s latest ‘green paper’ on local government propose what I’m sure he thinks are very progressive ideas to enable people to seek a referendum on local matters of concern, as long as 5% of the electorate sign a petition on favour of such.
What he hasn’t realised is that for many parts of the country this provision, though less onerous in terms of the initial support needed, has already been existed for 35 years, and been used hundred of times, at Part 3, schedule 12, paragraph 18, subparagraphs 4 and 5 of the Local Government Act (1972).
Progressive? Rhetorically, yes. In substance, no.
(See my blog for utterly geeky detail.)
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 11:15 am
Are the Tories progressive? In a word, no.
I also have suspicions about Dave’s desire to stop political correctness. On one hand he thinks political correctness is awful……yet he’s keen to promote that everyone should demonstrate “good manners”? In who’s opinion are we to take what constitutes “good manners”? Sounds like political correctness under another guise to me. “A rose by any other name still has thorns etc…”
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 11:19 am
Simon @ 10:45.
I think your post raises a different question from the one you intended, if I can be presumptuous.
Your contention is that Blair failed.
Do you question his integrity; whether he wanted to achieve those things? I for one believe that Blair believed every word he said – his party also believed it and urged it to happen.
The question is – Does Dave believe in what he says? And more importantly – do his party?
I believe strongly the answer to both is no. I believe Dave believes it’s what the electorate want to hear – but he has no evidence to point to of him being a progressive. The Grammar school debate in particular points to the opposite.
So then the question becomes – if you believe that Blair and Labour wanted to change the Country (regardless of your view of his success), what gives you belief that Dave will effect significant change – if the available evidence is that he and his party do not consider it important?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 11:53 am
If ever a word was misused by politicians, it is “progressive”.
I was so concerned I had forgotten the true meaning that I had to look it up.
It means, “Moving forward; advancing; proceeding in steps”, etc.
The problem is that the general public assumes that “moving forward” means they will enjoy better times, but as the evidence shows, the opposite has happened for the majority of people, therefore we must look to other definitions of “progressive,” one being:
Re. pathology: “tending to become more severe or wider in scope.”
So it becomes clearer. The government’s pathological addiction to social engineering is becoming more severe.
So, to answer the question, “Are the Tories truly progressive?” I hope not if their idea of moving forward is the same as Labour’s, i.e. moving backward to Soviet Russia meets Nazi Germany.
Papers please.
No photography.
You were overheard saying a banned word, come with me…
Progressive or regressive, Tom?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 12:06 pm
@Cuse
It’s opinion and conjecture until it’s proven to be either true or false.
You can’t deny that TB set out a list of goals that his government would be judged on. He and his government failed in those goals.
Cameron is now setting out his list of goals. Whether you think he’ll succeed in them, (or even gets the chance to try), at this point is simply conjecture.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 12:29 pm
Tom
Have you never heard of keeping your powdwer dry. Decide on the election date and you will be told in good time.
What I think is more important to us is for you to explain how YOU are going to get us out of the mess we are in. Nothing you have done so far hjas made any difference onlt made matters worse.
Your type of question is a classic Labour red herring. Keep asking questions so you dont have to come up with answers for your problems.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 12:49 pm
Of course they’re not. What a silly question.
But the real question is, despite their lack of progressiveness, their republican economic harrumphiness that insists that government is always the problem and that poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, are they nonetheless looking like a better choice compared to a government that defends slashing a man’s penis on the grounds that if we talk about it in court then the US may or may not invite us round for tea and cakes any more? Would they be better, however marginally, than a government that bans the photography of policemen because everyone in the country might be a terrorist and the police never do anything wrong that the general public might benefit from evidence of?
I am unconvinced that the ‘political monoculture’ will be uprooted by a mere change of party, but as a lifelong liberal-socialist from the part of the country that used to have miners, shouldn’t the Labour party be embarrassed that they have driven me to even ask such questions?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 1:11 pm
Simon – I don’t agree.
There has to be a point where Dave demonstrates that he has his party with him. At present – there is demonstrable evidence that he hasn’t – Grammar schools being this cold, hard fact.
And Johnny Norfolk – Labour have at least stood up and taken decisions (some right – some wrong) on how to halt the recession.
Dave and Little Georgie have given nothing.
It makes it too easy to rebut your “Labour keep asking questions so you dont have to come up with answers for your problems” refrain.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 1:16 pm
OT- Tom, great post, but please turn off the bloke intrducing Cameron video from auto starting every time you come to the site, gives me a nasty shock every time!
cheers
Hopi
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 1:20 pm
I have no doubt whatsoever that – compared to the current Government – a Conservative Government will be progressiv.e
After all, it is hardly a high hurdle to beat.. Look a J Smith and laugh.. She makes all Conservatives look progressive.. as did Blunkett.
Let he who is without sin cast teh first stone..
(I of course am sinless so I’ve thrown 3!:-)
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 1:21 pm
And how much progress has there been in replacing the family with the surrogate family of the state?
At its heart Conservatism in its true Whigist sense is about protecting the rights of the nonconformist, that does not mean the state or society should express its wish of an ideal or preference.
Abortion is a good example of this Whig tradition, most people are not in favour of abortion per see and will argue and urge someone to go through with a pregnancy, that does not mean there should not be limited abortion rights for those who choose otherwise.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 1:23 pm
sorry correction “state or society should NOT express”
As in the state having preferences.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 2:27 pm
I could of course continue and be very unkind..so I will.
Progressive Parties believe:
in the right of the electors to have a say in things (Lisbon Treaty referendum anyone).
and in the rights of women to become Prime Minister on merit.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think Mr Norfolk makes a good point.
Your post is reinforcing my belief that Labour are already acting like an opposition party, everything they say or do seems to be defined by what the Tories are saying or doing.
I’ve no idea if the Tories will be ‘progressive’ in the way you put it, but the time to decide, for me, is during a General Election campaign when the all parties release their policies on which to win the election.
At the moment, when a GE is still probably 18 months away, I’m more concerned with how the party in power i.e. Labour is trying to get us out of the current economic mess.
The Tories are not in power so anything they propose by it’s very nature will only be rhetoric anyway because they can’t do much else as they’re ‘only’ in opposition.
However, all I’m seeing from Labour at the moment is not leadership, but a case of obsession with the Tories and subsequent Labour activity based on; ‘well if the Tories are saying this we will do the opposite’
Or as Johnny succinctly puts it: keep asking questions so you don’t have to come up with answers for your problems.
I don’t think at a time when, quite frankly, eye-watering economic news is released…:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5764793.ece
…we should be worrying just yet on the Tory’s position on ‘progressive’ policies.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hopi at 1.16 pm: I know! If anyone can tell me how I can convert this video into another format so I can edit it and upload it to YouTube, I would be grateful (as would every reader who doesn’t want to hear Mike Mendoza’s introduction to Cameron again).
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 3:12 pm
Yeah. True. But what progressive policies are the Labour party proposing? Nilch. Give me something to get fired up about! Give me something I can put on a sign.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 3:16 pm
The way Labour are behaving at the moement just proves they are a far better opposition than a government.
A good business like Tory government with a Labout party conscience is probably ideal,
with the Liberals and Greens feeding under the table like medieval dogs.
Just look at the mess Labour has made of things.
They have no idea what to do next.
Thats why Brown keeps on the move as it is not as easy to hit a moving target.
The Tories at their very worst were never ever anything like this.
Roll on the Election
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 3:20 pm
Tom,
Please define what you mean by progressive (is it just state enforcement of your preferences?), otherwise your question is meaningless.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 3:45 pm
And this from Dale’s interview with Cameron:
When my niece sees me on TV she rushes up to the screen and kisses it. What does your daughter do? Does she comprehend what your job is?
She does. She doesn’t kiss the TV, but she refers to it as ‘politicianer’. It’s a bit like doctor, lawyer, you’re a politicianer. She has come to the conclusion that what politicianers do is talk a lot. She said to me the other day, ‘oh, you’re always fixing a speech’. [giggles]. My children are very young but they have an idea of what’s going on.
She’s cracked him perfectly. He’s a politicianer, not a leader; a speech-maker, not a doer. Looking for Cameron’s progressive policies is like looking for Mark Hamill’s lightsaber.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 3:55 pm
Is there an official definition of what ‘progressive’ actually means?
For me, it’s always been synonymous with ‘left’, but that’s just me. It kinda means all things to all people…
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 4:05 pm
@Tom & Hopi
I solved the problem by using Firefox and the adblock plus extension. Inserting the filter *mogulus* (with the stars as a wildcard) turns off the thing completely.
There is no way to stop it from auto-starting though, so the only thing you can do is put a link rather than embed the video.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 4:33 pm
In Birmingham the Lib-Con coalition dubbed the “progressive partnership” meant dragging public services out of Victorian times and treating people like individuals rather than members of ‘communities’. Probably not what how you would define the word progressive, but so what? Labour’s multi-culturalist, prizes for all, anti-family policies are soooo last century, darling.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 4:37 pm
Or how about this answer. There are no ‘progressive’ policies. At the next GE we will be standing on the usual platforms of better services, lower tax, controlled immigration and increased democratic accountability. If you don’t like it, bad luck.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 4:41 pm
Precisely the point I was trying to make, Praguetory – that Cameron’s talk of being progressive was nothing more than that – talk. He’s an unreconstructed Thatcherite Tory.
Thank you for your support.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 5:01 pm
“He’s an unreconstructed Thatcherite Tory.” Lol. It goes like this, Tom. Cameron pretends to be a hand-wringing liberal and ‘nasty’ Tory grassroots like me pretend to be upset – all the way up to an election victory.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 5:47 pm
@Praguetory: ‘At the next GE we will be standing on the usual platforms…lower tax, controlled immigration and increased democratic accountability. If you don’t like it, bad luck.
We’re in the EU, there’s no such thing as controlled immigration because of numerous EU Directives including; Directive 2004/38/EC. To say otherwise is misleading at best.
As for lower taxes, Labour have traditionally been the party of higher taxes and spending (rightly or wrongly), even so any party that advocates lower taxes at the next election will also be misleading the electorate in the extreme.
Our economy is shot to pieces, higher taxes and lower public spending is necessary to bring our finances under control. Labour have acknowledged this themselves with projected cuts and a reduction in the public pension liabilities:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-labours-16337bn-stealth-spending-cuts-1035154.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4617198/Gordon-Brown-to-scrap-final-salary-pensions-for-MPs.html
As for increased democratic accountability? Er…Lisbon Treaty, Referendum, Labour Manifestos?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 6:44 pm
Yes, Tom, let us see some Lab proposals for improving government – I think they will now get a hearing in No 10 (but often not in the other Ministries), but the Blair years have made a lot of people think that they will continue to be rebuffed.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 6:49 pm
So Praguetory, you’re basically admitting that the only way the Conservatives can see to getting elected is to lie?
Well, combined with Tom’s apparent conviction that the only way Labour can get elected is to obsess about the Tories being worse, it seems you guys at least own the conversation. If the question is whether or not the Tories will be worse, rather than what positive things Labour will manage to pull out, it’s a sorry sign for the country in general, isn’t it?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 7:17 pm
Tom Harris:
“He’s an unreconstructed Thatcherite Tory”
One can only hope. I think he’s trying too much to be Tony Blair however, and will end up failing on both counts.
The reason i’m looking forward to a Conservative government is so they can slash spending and get Britain living within it’s means again. I’m not entirelly sure we’re going to get that however?
Oh and the terrosism acts repealed. That’s on my A list too. I don’t hold up much hope for that either.
Oh well, there’s always bitching about it in the blogsphere to make me feel better about it all, eh? ;o)
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 9:21 pm
Andrew F – “Give me something I can put on a sign.”
Specially for you.
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 9:39 pm
“So Praguetory, you’re basically admitting that the only way the Conservatives can see to getting elected is to lie?”
Not at all. Just pointing out that I understand the electoral service right-wingers do to Cameron when I characterise him as a dangerous centrist.
Besides my primary aim isn’t to get the Conservatives elected but rather to see Labour annihilated.
Friday 20 February 2009 at 3:17 am
Stewart – Well yes, the two million abortions is progressive actually. Allowing women control over what goes on inside their uterus is a liberal value.
Thank you!
Friday 20 February 2009 at 8:37 am
“Give me something I can put on a sign”
Brown out.
Friday 20 February 2009 at 12:00 pm
God, Praguetory wants to see Labour annihilated, the Labour establishment are obsessed with the Tories. For the love of God, is everyone in the big two parties just obsessed with destructive nihilistic partisanship? You both deserve each other, but for the life of me I can’t think what we did to deserve you.
Friday 20 February 2009 at 5:38 pm
Andrew F – I wrote a few paragraphs to enlighten and rebuke you, but the Birthday Boy didn’t approve them for some reason.
Let me just thank you for helping me understand what a Labour supporter thinks ‘progressive’ means and may God have mercy on your soul for your attitude towards humanity.
Friday 20 February 2009 at 8:30 pm
Stewart – Oh, that is a shame. I do like to be ‘enlightened’ with a few biblical quotations every now and then. Always adds intellectual depth to an argument.
Suffice to say that any God who thinks women should be forced to carry a life-threatening parasite for three quarters of a year can take his mercy and shove it where his sun doesn’t shine.
Friday 20 February 2009 at 8:45 pm
@ Stewart Cowen – “may God have mercy on your soul for your attitude towards humanity.”
I’m sure your imaginary friend will be extremely forgiving…
Saturday 21 February 2009 at 1:41 pm
Andrew – I wrote a piece for your edification. I tried to be as nice as I could under the circumstances: The ‘wisdom’ of a New Labour prole
Monday 23 February 2009 at 6:30 pm
This lifelong Tory would happily see Civil Partnerships outlawed.
Monday 23 February 2009 at 11:02 pm
Ah, Robert Eve arrives to point out why, even after all, holding your nose and choking down the Labour party dreck is still probably for the best.
Let’s just go whole hog and make being gay illegal again! After all, it’s not like homosexuals like Stephen Fry or David Hockney ever did anything for this country, is it? Things were so much better when we could arrest useless deadbeats like Oscar Wilde.
Honestly, if you’re still wedged so far in the past that you can’t get over the fact that some people do thing in their own bedroom that you don’t want to do, can you please try not to vote? It’s like having to go to the polls with a bunch of puerile six year olds, obsessed with willies and bums.