Which is the radical party?

Each would probably claim it.

Since no-one seems to know what the Libdems stand for - they seem prepared to say what it takes to be successful in a particular constituency and given the opponents, and they hold mutually inconsistent policies at the same time, how would anyone know if they are radical? They seem destined to be a protest party, so we shall never know.

The Labour Party may be radical, but is it Nulabour (Blair) NuLabour (Brown) or Old Labour which we would consider? Since old Labour is generally reckoned to be unelectable, perhaps we should consider the two versions of NuLabour. It must be said that shortly before his departure Blair seemed to appreciate the need for massive change, especially with foundation schools and hospitals. Perhaps it was because Brown was really co-leader and held all the purse strings that Blair had not been able to think in radical terms. It could be that Blair's "Middle Way"' apparently nonsense, could have transmorphed into some kind of social market economy as practiced in Germany for 20 years after the war and leading to their miracle. We shall probably never know.

Brown seems to be not at all radical - following the same centralised bureaucratic approach which has got us into the current mess. Centralisation and Municipalisation have been with us so long that he seems unable to change direction. This was Cameron's taunt in his speech at the end of the conference.

Conservatives as radicals? It seems almost a contradiction in terms. Do they not wish to preserve or conserve? That is true, but what is it that they wish to preserve? In the case of Cameron what he is proposing in the social sphere is revolutionary in parts, - trying to make families function better in order to give children a better chance in life, encouraging charities, faith groups and others to encourage and equip those at a disadvantage and to found new schools, - something they have not done for up to 70 years, and trying to make the contacts between individuals and the local society personal rather than bureaucratic.

What they do this wish to preserve are admittedly well proven and successful principles from the past, - freedom from state interference and dictation, sound money and freedom under the law. Some principles are "new" - the state providing for but not necessarily controlling the main areas of life - health, education, law and order. Whether these principles are old or new, there could be major changes from the national bureaucratic and centralised system we have been familiar with. Decisions would be made near, with or by the citizen and by the professionals who are responsible for delivery, not by Whitehall, regional quango or even local council. This is a root and branch change, and surely meets the label "radical".

The approach of the present prime minister is "More of the same, Nurse" decided in London and applied bureacratically. This is the system which has failed children in education, patients in health care and old people in retirement and led people to be apathetic about politics and voting.

The Brownian system has had its day - it has pumped billions into such areas without reform. Rather with constant policy changes from London, often ill thought-out, and all the costs of compliance with central diktat, it has caused disillusion, exhaustion and demoralisation. It will require a radical change to restore the efficiency of earlier days. Cameron is offering us some radical changes. He seems to be the leader of the radical party.