Open Road

Wednesday Oct 1st 2008

Michael Gove speaks

Michael Gove gave a tour-de-force at a Policy exchange Q&A last night.
In between revealing that his first headmaster had been a Battle of Britain fighter pilot and defending the principle that more people should go to University (not an entirely popular proposition with Tory audiences), he set out a philosophical reaction to the credit crunch and what it means to Conservatives.
The Gospel according to Gove is that the Tories have never worshipped wealth or its acquisition per se - it is the use to which it’s put that matters.  And if regulation is necessary to prevent excessive power - or excessive irresponsibility - in the hands of the few then so be it.  That is the proper role of the state and the Tory party is more than ‘the political wing of Merril Lynch’.
This was all good stuff, but there is something a bit fake about it.  Proper Tories should believe that wealth creation is good in its own right, surely:  because the ends to which it is put are an issue for the individual, but economic activity is positive (unless criminal).
But Gove was on surer ground when he talked about a great dividing line between Right and Left.  Tories do not believe in the perfectibility of either human nature or man-made systems.  It is better to have something that works fairly well left alone:  ‘do not make the best the enemy of the good’.  Statist interventionists like New Labour think differently.  There is always a perfect solution out there to be attained, they say.  Unfortunately the result is bureaucratic nightmares like tax credits and Sure Start.
Gove quoted the elegant dictum of Isaiah Berlin: ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity not a straight thing was ever made’.  Seems to sum up the credit crisis pretty well too…

Tuesday Sep 30th 2008

Men of Munich?

In the time of crisis we must co-operate.  No more wrangling.  Stick together.  Thus David Cameron today. 
Salieri heard some different views immediately afterwards.  A Tory frontbencher was deeply disappointed by the commitment to work with the government on bank regulation.  ‘It won’t work’, he said, ‘and then ten months down the line when things are even worse we won’t be able to complain about it without looking hypocritical.  And the extent to which we are joining into the bash the capitalists is quite wrong.  Banks should be allowed to go to the wall, not propped up in way which brings wealth creation into disrepute’.
That’s not an isolated view.  It isn’t just rapid Republicans who distrust the degree of state intervention which they view as not only wrong but playing into Labour’s hands.  Plenty of delegates share the views of Republicans in the US that the nationalisation of the finance sector will be a disaster - and worse, will play right into Gordon Brown’s hands.
Of course every reasonable person supports the Paulson plan - or if not that then at least some form of intervention.  But the views of the majority are not always right.  Everyone thought Neville Chamberlain played a blinder at Munich in 1938, but he was just storing up trouble for the future.  The parallel might seem far-fetched, but we could all pay the price of hasty intervention in the financial markets now for generations.

Stormy weather

The news from Washington arrived last night as we sat down to the Open Road dinner - Bank Birmingham deserves a plug by the way - great place.  But the vote was not especially cheering.
Hence an uncharacteristically subdued performance from Cameron on Today this morning.  This really is very difficult for him.  Plainly, no political party has the faintest idea what to do and in any case they have to wait for the Americans.  It must really gall Cameron to hear Brown pontificating on the need to solve the crisis when his economic policies have left us bereft of all domestic means to do so.  But the response of sober all-party co-operation is the only way to go.

Letting go

Good fringe last night organised by the Centre for Policy Studies on politics and the internet, featuring inter alia Jeremy Hunt, the DCMS shadow, Iain Dale and Robert Colvile of the Telegraph.  Interesting split in questions from the floor, with one or two voices worried about the unrestricted freedom of the internet and others welcoming the loss of control this brings.
Hunt himself was very good - and Salieri liked his characterisation of the internet as offering the potential for ‘collaborative individualism’ - a very Cameronian concept that.
What makes that interesting in political terms is that we might have reached the high water-mark of message control that has been developing in the parties since the 1980s.  It stifled debate, promoted dull conformity at the expense of free-thinking, and - most importantly - turned voters off and lowered turn-out.  It was partly conditioned by the invincible stupidity of the British press and the BBC (especially the Today programme) with its obsession about splits and its lack of engagement with the issues.  But party leaders loved it too.
It would be a great thing if Brown, the control freak par excellence, were the last of this kind of leader.  British politics would be healthier for it.

Monday Sep 29th 2008

Not over yet

Spending most of last week in Washington DC one couldn’t help but be reminded that a week really can be a long time in politics and that American politics more often reflects a PT Barnum 3 ring event rather than Plato’s noble Republic.

And while the headlines seemed to scream something new every news cycle;

A hotel bombing in Islamabad, a car bomb in Syria, an assault in Yemen.

Further collapse in the financial markets.

An on again, off again deal between Congressional Democrats and Republicans to “bail out” Wall Street.

A “suspended"Presidential campaign (whatever that meant).

An on again, off again, finally on again Presidential debate.

Not much seemed to be changing.

Whether one was making their way up and down Washington’s corridors or watching cable news there seemed to be endless talk (even more than usual), lots of posturing (not to mention frowning and gesticulating), a bit of accusing and very little solution offering.

As a matter of fact, the absence of tangible economic policies was one of the highlights of Friday’s debate for me. Neither candidate seemed willing to table more than “principles” when it came down to getting the nation’s financial sytem back on track. It was as if they feared stumbling, preferring to wait for a White House/Congressional bill to emerge before weighing in more specifically. Senator McCain’s “I’d consider” spending freeze seemed like policy-making on the hoof but his opponent was even more vague.

Still, this is tricky territory for McCain. He has suffered poll wise since the crisis started and, with a Republican administration and Congress controlled by the GOP during 6 of the last 8 years, it is very difficult for him to either a) distance himself from the Bush record or b) to promise that he will be able to control a Congressional party with which his relations can best be described as cordial. History tells us that the public doesn’t believe the Republicans are caring stewards of a wayward economy (I refer honourable readers to 1992), and as selfish as voters may be they are struggling to see more tax cuts as the solution to this particular problem.

And there is a lot of anger.