Time to shake 'em up Dave!

Crime, family break-up, drunks and drugs: the Conservatives—and apparently plenty of voters—think that Britain has a "broken society". Does the claim stand up?

Not really according to The Economist and if you don’t believe it, the figures and stats are there in black and white.

So, where does that then leave the section of the Conservative manifesto dedicated to dealing with what Cameron has labelled Britain’s "Broken Society"? Drifting pointlessly not addressing the real problems but sounding good, consensual, sounding almost Blairite in its sincere insincerity. It is, despite the populist undertones, nevertheless containing defensive proposals thrown out to make sure the Daily Mail readership don’t get the wrong idea with all that counter "gay-friendly", "hug your nearest elm" stuff that’s coming from the modernising wing of er...Mr Cameron.

Fraser Nelson speaking during the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture (thanks Fair Deal for the alert!) stated "it’s hard to see what’s Tory about the Tories". Nelson would preach a version of a right-wing, libertarian, Thatcherite Conservatism that I and I guess many members of the modern Conservative party would instinctively feel uncomfortable with. Yet where I would agree 100% with him is that from the present Conservative leadership what "is strikingly absent is a clear, moral case for what will be the Tory mission":

Where is the radicalism, be it rooted in the One-Nation Disraeli or the Neo-Monetarist Thatcherite variety?
What makes the Conservatives different from the Labour Party?

As the gap in the opinion polls between the two parties diminishes the public obviously doesn’t have much of an answer to that last one either.

For me, two events or policies have defined the potential of the modern Conservative Party; the wisdom (or in the case of one, even morality) could be questioned but both were the results of rarely seen courage on the part of Cameron and both have managed to shake up the body politic exactly where and when it needed shaken up. First was leaving the cosy federalist consensus of the EPP in the European Parliament and creating the new first mainstream non-federalist grouping there. Some of the partners in that project could have been chosen after a bit more research and with a tad more caution but the result has been to set out clearly and boldly where the British Conservatives stand post-Lisbon. Second policy was creating the, whatever it now is, with the Ulster Unionist Party. Cameron again went out on a limb, moved outside the stagnant comfort-zone re the mainland partys’ involvement in Northern Ireland. Again, it’s got people talking and thinking and if it works the way promised, then politics will be moving onto new unexplored territories. That's the kind of radical Conservatism which is a worthy legacy of both Disraeli and Thatcher.

It’s a bit lazy I know but Fraser Nelson’s finishing paragraph explains perfectly what I’ve been trying to get at it here- the United Kingdom is in need of and in the mood for radicalism and most definitely not another 5 years of Blair-Lite:

But against Mr Cameron’s good angel, making the case for radicalism in his ear, is a bad angel urging caution. This angel will say that any meaningful policy offers a hostage to fortune. It will try to persuade him of the greatest political deception: we should be cautious now, and do what we want to do later.

This is the mission statement of every failed prime minister: because when does this moment for radicalism come? At what point will the Tory party not be in election mode?

When Margaret Thatcher’s ministers presented her with a five-year plan, she would point out that Britain won a world war in less time. But the bad angel will tell Mr Cameron that winning, actually, is enough this time: the radical reforms can be left for the second term. Ted Heath thought the same. Mr Cameron will either be a radical or a failure. There is no middle way.