The Conservative leadership contest has descended into a low-tax auction, which is not a good thing. The implication is that the Conservatives think government should be minuscule at the very moment when private enterprise is letting us down – the energy companies are raking in cash and spending it on stock buybacks – and the state seems to be on its knees.
We live in a country where it’s become widely accepted that if you call an ambulance, it won’t show up for several hours; the borders are wide open; social care is under-funded; and the police have ceased investigating certain crimes. If anything, this is a moment to rediscover an older Tory tradition of state-building.
Call it One Nation, paternalism or, if you’re feeling cheeky, Tory socialism – a philosophy, not a doctrine, because it begins by rejecting economic dogma, even materialism on the basis that man does not live by bread alone. Its genius is that it makes culture the engine of policy. Liberal conservatives start by saying ‘how do we grow the economy?’ – to make us rich and give us freedom. Tory socialists begin with ‘what kind of society do we want?’ – and then choose the economic strategy to produce that aim. Personally, I’d like strong families, the chance to exercise my talents, a thriving civil society and a vibrant sphere of leisure and art.
Now, it’s conceivable that the way to get this involves free markets and tax cuts, but sometimes the state can be a helpful actor. Take agriculture. I want a countryside populated with family farms, because they provide my food, manage my ecology and keep us all grounded in the soil. For this, they need markets, low tax, low regulation etc. But given how low returns can be, they might also need subsidies – and to protect them from foreign competition, they might require an aggressive tariff.

Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in