They do not regard it as inherently malign, but as refreshingly honest, however contentious and uncomfortable its utterances may be. For the present Conservative ruling clique, this may have been almost impossible to admit, but for Labour it is apparently inconceivable. They cannot believe that their own working-class core voters, who are seen through a kind of pre-Eighties sentimental mist by the bourgeois Marxists now running Labour, are actually furious about a quite different set of injustices from the ones that the Left is officially determined to address.
By Friday morning, Ed Miliband, looking distinctly wan, had brought himself to utter the fateful, if wildly belated, words, "It is not prejudiced to be concerned about immigration," but look what it took to bring him to that startling admission. Face to face with the indisputable evidence that this is what was needed, he had to say what he clearly regarded as unsayable. He also admitted, even more remarkably, that he would have to "take on the idea" that Ukip represents the views of working-class people. Imagine that. Where has he been until this moment? Who has he been talking to? Has he ever stood in a bus queue?
But if Labour's old preconceptions have been left, as Trotsky almost said, in the dustbin of history, the Tory leadership is not exactly riding the crest of the wave either. As it happens, it went in exactly the wrong direction when it opted for its supposedly "modern" makeover. It moved the party to the Left just as the Left was about to become politically redundant. What we need to talk about now is how free markets can be made more effective and productive: how the wealth that they produce can be used more efficiently to create greater opportunity for larger numbers of people. This is the truly modern way for societies to progress if they want to remain free and prosperous.
Big State solutions are dead. Paying people to be poor is now obviously the opposite of compassion, and everyone ‐ even many of those who are trapped in dependency ‐ can see this. Social liberalism, which is so dear to the heart of the modern Tory party, is all well and good, but without economic liberalism it cannot be delivered to those who are not already affluent and educated. You need financial security and the freedom that it provides before you can enjoy the lifestyle of your choice, and that can only be delivered to the majority by a flourishing and hard-headed free market.
The voters who are so angry with the Left-liberal consensus, of which the Tories are a part, are becoming ruthless in their desperation. They have no time for either bourgeois guilt or outdated class loyalties. As far as they are concerned, all the parties, but most infuriatingly the "modern" Conservatives, dismiss them with a patronising arrogance that is anything but "inclusive". But at least
David Cameron... has stated that he is
certainly a big Thatcher fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite,which means he's not. Since he is
not deeply ideologicalhe lacks core principles and is easily led. He has been described as
certainly not a Pitt, Elder or Younger,but he does wear a nice suit so maybe he's Beau Brummel ...
and his friends seem to have learnt the right lesson faster than Labour. In his last party conference speech, and his sudden startling embrace of the plight of the disempowered English voter, the Prime Minister is clearly trying to retake the territory that his party should properly hold.
Taking those moves at face value, he is making a plausible fist of it. But is it too late for this to be credible? Maybe he does realise at last where the battle has to be fought ‐ and with what force ‐ but is the country too disillusioned to believe in his epiphany?