Maurice Saatchi and Dominic Nutt outline how a well-designed Royal Commission, above party politics and agendas, can bring together a blueprint to safeguard the future of the NHS.Read More
If as we enter the 1980s, Conservatives are everywhere questioning, with increasing insistence, ideas that post-war conservatism took for granted, it is not because we have read a few books – Adam Smith, Hayek, Friedman – and have been converted. It is because the certainties of the past thirty years can no longer be taken for granted. It is because things have not worked out as we were promised they would.
Although I sit on the cross-benches in the Lords, I am delighted to appear on a platform sponsored by the Centre for Policy studies. As I understand it, the Centre’s purpose is to enliven the pragmatic Conservative tradition by exposing it to intellectual fermentation. If you think some of my strictures rather pointed, don’t take them too personally. Imagine I am addressing some high Tory paladin to whom I might refer from time to time symbolically as, say, Perry.
The belief that the control of the money supply is a necessary if not sufficient condition for the control of inflation has become same thing of an orthodoxy. But a doctrine by itself is unsatisfactory if there is a lack of tools to apply it.
Land is one of the prime factors in economic production and a basic resource on which all economic activity depends. Policies primarily concerned with economic and social matters can, and invariably do, ultimately affect the ownership and use of land; conversely state policies to control the use and ownership of land cannot but affect the economy and the social ordering of society.
It is now a little more than a year since the first woman ever to lead a British political party led the Conservatives to a remarkable election victory, becoming in the process the first woman Prime Minister of any western democracy.
In his major work of scientific historiography, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S Kuhn argues that scientific progress is not a linear, ever-upwards process in which the more valid theories replaced the less so in an objective, open-minded fashion.
As you’ll see soon enough what we to say carries no special authority. I’ve been selling my work for nearly thirty years and living off it for over fifteen.
‘Much of our population lives without heroes, as it dies without religion’. Professor Thomas;s powerful plea for restored pride in our past based on understanding of its greatness and its unique qualities, is a reminder that a whole generation has brought up to misunderstand and denigrate our national history.
Public discussion and academic analysis of government intervention in industry both tend, inevitably, to focus on its more overt forms, such as nationalisation and price and wage controls.
It has become part of contemporary political folklore that a restrictive and divisive class system, almost a caste system, is the bane of this country. The system is supposed to be a major barrier to economic progress in Britain and also a significant source of justified social discontent.
I seek common ground today in pursuit of a common objective: a substantial and lasting improvement in the bleak prospects for employment. Members of all parties demand an improvement. But rhetoric and sympathy will not help to create jobs or generate growth.
The term “monetarism” has been much used in the last three or four years – sometimes as a clarion call for action to improve economic policy, but often an epithet of abuse.
One of the main reasons I took up the study of economic problems was indignation at the absurdity of unsatisfied wants side by side with idle hands willing to work which I believed existed before the Second World War.
A lengthy and influential report drawn up in November 1977 which set out a model for systematic policy-making, and, crucially, raised in unavoidable form the question of whether a Conservative Government could possibly succeed unless policies towards the unions were changed.
There is one outstanding difference, of which most Britons are unaware, between the ways in which they and all other European Countries educate their young.