30 May 2008
After the Crewe & Nantwich by-election, and the London and local elections, the Conservatives are looking like a serious election prospect. So what would their modernised policies mean for public services? Natalie Evans explains
With the dust now settling on last week's Crewe and Nantwich by-election, not to mention the local and mayoral election results earlier this month, there is no doubt that the political landscape has shifted – perhaps decisively.
The Conservatives have seen a significant national revival in their fortunes – graphically illustrated by their seizure of what had been a rock-solid Labour seat after the death of veteran MP Gwyneth Dunwoody. Even the most sceptical of commentators are now talking of them as serious contenders for government.
While there is no denying that many of Labour's woes have been self-inflicted, from disastrous policy decisions (10p tax rate), to dithering (what general election?) and downright incompetence (Revenue and Customs' data losses), there has also been a palpable shift in the public's attitude to the party.
Tory is no longer a dirty word and, on the doorsteps, campaigners are finding increasing numbers of people willing to listen and seriously consider voting for a Conservative government.
The leadership understands the importance of this shift in attitude and the huge opportunity it presents. As David Cameron said following the party's recent electoral success: 'I don't want anyone to think that we would deserve to win an election just on the back of a failing government. I want us to really prove to people that we can make the changes that they want to see, and that's what I'm going to devote myself and my party to doing over the next few months.'
And that is the challenge he and his colleagues face.
One of the main criticisms of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, including from his own ministers, is that his government has no clear vision or purpose and the British public don't understand what Labour stands for. The challenge for the Conservatives as a government-in-waiting is to show that they do have a vision for Britain, that it is one the public can buy into and understand, and that they have sufficient policy ideas to show how this vision would be put into practice.
Brown has led the charge that Cameron is merely a clever salesman and that there is nothing behind the eloquent words and polished presentation. Many in the media have echoed this view, questioning whether the Conservatives have enough substance. One of the consequences of being taken seriously is the increased scrutiny and expectation that accompanies it. However, while it is essential that the Tories convince voters that they have a clear sense of purpose about what they want to achieve and that they are capable of delivery, it would be a mistake for them to equate this with having to announce lots of policies.
With an election likely to be two years away, not only are the best ideas likely to be taken on by Labour – see Cameron's response to the government's recently announced draft legislative programme – but having a policy on everything can undoubtedly dilute the key messages that the party is trying to get across.
Furthermore, one of the biggest challenges the Tories have faced since 1997 is to regain their reputation for economic credibility. Having campaigned and lost the last two elections on a platform of higher public spending and simultaneous tax cuts, a message the public didn't understand and the Labour party could strongly attack, Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne are determined to avoid making the same mistakes again.
So that's why Cameron, speaking on tax and spending in Birmingham last week, continued to tread a fine line between stressing the Conservatives' commitment to 'proper funding' of public services and an ambition of long-term tax reduction. The speech outlined a three-part strategy for controlling public spending: reducing the long-term demands of the state; reforming public services; and making the public sector more efficient and transparent. It also reaffirmed the party's commitment to low taxes in the long term but clearly signalled that there would be no promises of unfunded tax cuts for short-term gain.
And by using phrases such as 'living within our means' and 'good housekeeping', the Tories are trying to speak in terms that many would-be voters understand and are themselves having to grapple with in these more difficult economic times.
With the government's economic reputation crumbling, this could be a vital part of a winning strategy. Indeed, the latest Populus poll showed Cameron and Osborne leading Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling by 10% in terms of the public's trust in running the economy. The government's recent £2.7bn borrowing to pay for the mistake of the 10p tax has blown a further hole in its economic credibility and also weakened its hand in attacks on unfunded Tory proposals.
What is more, the criticism that the Tories are policy-lite is somewhat unfair. In relation to the public services, the party has started to flesh out its vision and policy direction, issuing several green papers. Although these were largely ignored when they were published, they set out the party's approach in major public sector areas such as education, welfare and prisons.
And there are a number of themes that clearly underpin the policy thinking across these issues: a commitment to making society stronger, a determined effort to reduce interference from the state, and a devolution of power to a more localised level, be that to individuals, local authorities or institutions such as charities and the private sector.
It is perhaps in education that the party has been most radical and put forward its most coherent vision. With Brown and Schools Secretary Ed Balls rowing back from many of the changes initiated by Tony Blair, shadow schools secretary Michael Gove has set out an approach much more in his image.
The first green paper, Raising the bar, closing the gap, published last November, set out the party's ideas to 'raise school standards, create more good school places and make opportunity more equal'. The proposals included measures to provide more than 220,000 new school places through expanding the academies model and encouraging educational charities, philanthropists and groups of parents to set up new state schools.
The paper outlined plans to ensure that funding follows pupils and that those in the most deprived areas have more resources diverted to them. There was also a focus on discipline and tougher controls on failing schools. Many of these ideas draw on Policy Exchange's work, including greater parental choice in the education system and legal and financial independence for schools, so that other providers, such as charities and not-for-profit organisations, can run them.
In the area of welfare reform, the Conservatives published Work for welfare in January. While there are clear philosophical differences between the parties in relation to education, there are less clear dividing lines in relation to welfare, with all parties agreed on the need for reform. David Freud's Review has, to a degree, set the parameters of the debate, but the details of implementation remain up for grabs. This is partly because the government has been talking about reform for the past two years but has done precious little in the way of practical action.
With another welfare Bill announced in the draft legislative programme, it seems likely that little progress will be made in the short term. The Tories have said they will introduce a greater degree of conditionality on those claiming benefits, imposing work requirements of varying levels. On May 27, shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling advocated 'boot-camps' for under-21s receiving Jobseekers Allowance. There was no excuse for youngsters able to work not to do so, he said, and community work programmes would start the 'welfare-to-work' process for this group at a much earlier stage. The party also wants the private sector to play a much more significant role in providing welfare-to-work services.
Finally, in the area of criminal justice, Prisons with a purpose, published in March, sets out the Conservative vision for a prison service with rehabilitation at its heart. The paper advocates the decentralisation of public sector prisons, allowing them to become independent prison and rehabilitation trusts, responsible for offenders after they are released and paid for by results such as cutting reconviction rates.
The paper also proposes the introduction of minimum and maximum sentences, with no option for parole until the minimum sentence has been served, and replacing automatic release with earned release. It also recommends selling off old prisons and rejuvenating the prison estate, a policy we proposed in our research note, Unlocking the prison estate.
However, while the Conservatives have set out a clear policy direction on education, welfare and prisons, they remain timid on health. The underlying aim of the Conservative approach in this area has been to shut down health as an issue. While it has been successful in this regard, it is questionable whether this is enough. The party's work on reconfiguration is weak and it has failed to articulate a vision of patient-centred care, focusing its efforts instead on winning over the professionals.
Its commitment to match Labour's spending plans has blunted the government's attack that the NHS is not safe in Tory hands, but with an election probably two years away, the party needs to develop a more compelling story on the health service.
An area where it will be seeking to develop its narrative further is around the ideas of social responsibility and civil society. Cameron has recently talked about achieving 'progressive ends by conservative means'. On a number of occasions he has started to articulate the negative impact an overbearing state can have on society, arguing that if you start acting as if government action is the solution to every problem you create an irresponsible society.
To restore civil society, he has talked about the need to build up the voluntary sector and engage businesses; the importance of neighbourhoods and the concept of neighbourliness; and the need to reinvigorate a wider sense of community.
In a recent article Cameron wrote: 'For us, it's about the whole public realm, not just the public sector.' As public concern about gun and knife crime and binge-drinking rises – and a sense that respect and responsibility are somehow being lost grows – these ideas certainly resonate and will be developed over the coming months.
But the Tories need to work on their language if they are to get these ideas across persuasively. Talking about 'the post-bureaucratic age' will not chime with the general public; they need to make these ideas more user-friendly if they are to have real impact.
So the key lesson for the party to take from the Crewe by-election and the local and mayoral election results is to do more of the same. These wins show that it has earned the right to be heard but it is wholly premature to think that the job is done. Although great strides have been made, the deal has not been sealed with the electorate.
To keep the momentum going, the Conservatives need to stay on their modernising course. They need to continue to make the positive case as to why the British people should vote for them, and not rely on the government continuing on its self-destructive path. Setting out a vision for public services is a key part of the Conservative story.
They have started to lay the building blocks of a coherent narrative, which they need to convey to the public over the next two years.
Natalie Evans is deputy director of Policy Exchange
PFmay2008
