The Tory leader displayed some of his strengths and weaknesses when he unveiled his party's manifesto, writes MARK HENNESSY
THE CONSERVATIVES, pressing their case for power, did so against the backdrop of one of London’s most iconic images, Battersea Power Station, soon perhaps to be the jewel in the crown of properties to be controlled by the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).
The “great British landmark”, as Tory leader David Cameron described it, has been left to decay since the 1980s, and several hundred million worth of Treasury Holdings loans secured upon it will be taken over shortly by Nama.
Using Battersea as “a symbol of regeneration”, Cameron sought to establish his philosophy of “the big society” against Labour prime minister Gordon Brown’s belief, as he put it, in “big government”.
Behind the slogans lie stark differences. Under Cameron, local communities and individuals would be offered more power, but, equally, they would have to shoulder the responsibility that comes with it.
Schools could be set up by parents unhappy with existing ones; errant MPs could be disciplined by their voters; local and national government would operate behind a pane of glass; those on welfare would have to do more, or face the loss of benefits.
However, it is debatable whether people want to take on more responsibility, or whether they want to enjoy the state services they do now.
Equally, Cameron must persuade voters that his “big society” is not a pretext for reducing the role of the state, a la Margaret Thatcher, poisoning the voters’ view of the Tories for 20 years.
The British jury is still out on Cameron. While there is an appetite for something new after 13 years of Labour, he has not convinced voters he has what it takes to occupy No 10 Downing Street.
Former leader William Hague, introducing Cameron, acknowledged that the Tories had been “too narrow in our thinking”, and “didn’t look like the people”, but change had occurred “because the party itself drove it”. But this may not be the case. Under Cameron, decision-making has been centralised around a core team, while a grassroots desperate for success has been prepared to go along with anything it believes might bring success.
Despite their protestations that they are on the cusp of power, the Conservatives put on a strangely lacklustre display yesterday, with little of the energy shown by other parties visible.
Besides Hague, who now commands a place in the political firmament that he never managed when he was leader, Cameron’s team is seriously short of talent.
George Osborne was, once more, flat, while others such as Caroline Spelman were unlikely to have been recognised by those who watched the live television coverage of the event.
So much hangs on Cameron. Bar one glitch on a question about green taxation, he was fluid and persuasive, particularly when he was challenged by the press: “It isn’t about ‘You, the government’; it is about ‘We, the people’,” he said.
Despite the Conservatives’ declarations about straight- talking, the party remains as vague as Labour about what it would do in practice to bring the UK’s deficit down substantially over the life of the next parliament.
Last week was taken up by an argument about national insurance costs.
The Conservatives won the PR battle; although, in truth, a row about £6 billion out of a £700 billion state spend is little more than a sideshow.