Change needs to be Change

I would argue that the reason why the change message worked for Obama is that he worked very hard to assure people that he really would present a change. Ignoring for now the doubts many have about what he has and has not done, most people in 2008 believed that he was a chance to break with the flawed policies of W. That is one thing that got him elected.

Cameron, by contrast, sought for much of his time as leader to make the Conservatives for most purposes indistinguishable from Labour. The message of “Change” failed to stick because people found it lacked credibility – Cameron may have changed the Tories, but he changed them so as to provide less of an alternative to the Left. Little wonder, then, that anti-politics parties like the Lib Dems and the minor parties are capturing the change vote – they actually provide something different.

Of course, this does not mean that we should forget -

Change is not an end per se – it is a means to an end – nor is Change inherently good

The politician’s fallacy goes something like: “Something must be done. X is something. Therefore we must do X.”

This flawed logic leads to the incorrect conclusion that action is always better than inaction, that change is necessarily better than the status quo ante. Mr. Cameron seems worryingly close to seeking change as an end in itself, rather than saying why that change is needed.

Conservatism makes sense because we recognise that even the most intelligent of us cannot seek to approach the evolved collective wisdom of humanity. Our meddling may have effects beyond our comprehension – as the Democrats in the U.S. learned recently when dozens of companies that were supposed to benefit from Obamacare had to make massive writedowns to account for costs no-one predicted even days before – and therefore we should tread carefully. Things do need to change from time to time – but trying to achieve grand visions frequently leads to unforeseen and counter-productive consequences.

Mr. Cameron – Tell us that if it ain’t broke, you won’t try to fix it. Tell us that you’ve had enough with bureaucrats trying to deal with the picayune details of our lives. Tell us that you’re willing to see how things go, and only where the current system is intolerable (which in many areas, it is) will you make changes and then only the minimum intervention necessary.

When you’re backing a horse you know (or think you know) that it is more likely to have a favourable outcome than the alternative, but you take the risk that it won’t and you’ll lose what you put in. With Change, you’re taking a similar gamble, but in a world where even achieving your goal and ‘winning’ might lead to unexpected consequences. As Conservatives, we know that it’s not always worth that risk.

So, Mr. Cameron: go on TV on Thursday and tell us that you bring the change we need, not just change for its own sake and not just more of the same repackaged.

Caution and ambition are the two reins of her passion. So far, it must be said, she has led her party and handled herself with great skill and circumspection. Ministers who go around saying that she is “Labour’s secret weapon” underestimate her as party leader and as a vote-snatcher. She has shown restraint especially in refraining from committing herself to policies. Her tactical objective, now that the election can be glimpsed over the horizon, is to remain as uncommitted as possible while deflecting as best she can accusations of Carter-like “fuzziness” on the issues.

The Guardian, Wednesday 25th May 1977