So what overarching theory do Cameron & Co. believe in now? Is it Phillip Blond’s “Red Toryism”? Are they still invigorated by “libertarian paternalism”? Or have they struck on something else? This week’s Bagehot column in the Economist gives us a useful overview of all the -isms the Tories have gone through recently, before landing on a conclusion that the policy wonks in CCHQ may not like:
“The Tories should stop worrying about whether their view of the world works in theory, and concentrate more on generating ideas that will work in practice. They can live without an ideology; what they urgently require is balls.”
Bagehot’s take is certainly attractive. Like him, I’m sceptical about the real-world worth of some of the -isms mentioned above, and it would be nice if the Tories put as much thought into their health policy as they did into their abstract theorising.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in