Cameron can certainly put the Tory party back on her feet, but what about the country?

I was excited when I heard about Dave Cameron's speech this weeek. You know those times when the media, the atmosphere and the general ambient of an event create an anticipation of its own accord - a presumptive mirth in going with the flow. It was the same when the Obama bandwagon started: his reputation preceeded him. And also with the launch of the iPhone. Presumably the same can be said about Jesus walking into Jerusalem and the release of Diana Vicker's new album. Maybe it was The Sun's adamant front page promulgation:

``CAMERON CAN HAVE A GO BECAUSE WE THINK HE'S HARD ENOUGH!``

that sparked my pre-emptively excited hope. Well it's certainly hard to argue with that sentiment - knowing how level headed and unbias The Sun can be. Indeed, when reading the article, one would find it difficult not to be swept up in the soundbites they take from Cameron's speech; his ``yeah, I've been saying that for ages`` style digs at the Government, his shameless trowelling on of `blue sky thinking` in word and in stage colour scheme, his imperial personification of the UK ``We can put her back on her feet``, The Sun reports teary eyed.

However, coming home to youTube (a much faithfuler portrayal of the speech) I can't help but feel more than a bit sceptical. I suppose speeches are like Easter eggs really. You deliberate carefully on where to put your choco-trust in line with your rights as a tax-paying citizen. Which offers the best promises? Do you vote solely on the one that claims to be friendly to the environment but will cost you more in the long run? Do you pick the egg that will swell the choco-conglomerates even more? Or do you pick the one with a fair price, down to earth promises, brightly coloured packaging and the hints of `well do you want to improve your life or not?` Probably the latter sounds like the right choice until you get home and find out it not actually a solid creme egg the size of your head. It's hollow, brittle, and makes you wonder how the Mars egg would have made you feel.

This is how Cameron's speech made me feel anyway. Looking at it with less carried away eyes - it's plain to see that behind phrases like `the one person who sustained me this year is sitting in the front row [in a strategic £55 M&S dress]` and `Family, community and country ... lay at the heart of my beliefs. `, oh and `Don’t you [the Labour party] dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative Party, to fight for the poorest who you have let down.`. I could go on. No really, I could go on for a long time as these subjective, flimsy soundbites (and let's clear that these are phrases that go better as one line highlights in a column than in a congurent speech of the opposition leader) are all the speech is made of.

His spin doesn't seem a world apart from Obama's arresting oratorical skills in election '08. It's not a speech of disgust and dissent of the Government like most opposition leaders, it's a speech of unity. It's an alpha male's cry for cohesion, the calling to a common cause, the bestowal of an identity. In short, it's Cameron's revolution. And how right his advisors are for this. Brown's demise doesn't need Cameron's vilifications - he's more than dug his own grave by his sheer incompetence, and in trying to salvage the country has just etched his own epitaph. Cameron is by happy chance, in the position where doesn't need to convince the electorate of Brown's unsuiability.

For Cameron to gain his much sought after Commons Majority all he needs to do is be everything Brown isn't. The natural leader; the great unificater; the visionary; the pragmatist; the popular; the attractive; the young; the English; the relaxed; the effortless. In his own words, `It’s your character, your temperament and your judgment that in the end count so much more than your policies and your manifesto,`.

The problem is that though - it's his manifesto that doesn't flow on from his carefully strategised speech. Why? Because there bloody isn't one! `We pledge to cut public spending` isn't a policy. `We believe there are many reasons to be cheerful` isn't a policy. `[we would] lead Britain in a completely different direction`, isn't a policy. Cameron's speech was little more than a pep talk. A crowd pleaser that buys time for the general election for him to establish some actual policies, which begs the question: Can you really vote for a man who's priorities really put policy and manifesto second place to spin?

Capitolism vs Globalisation

Reading about AIG got me thinking: if a company is big enough to lose $28m a day for so long without anyone batting an eyelid and then enticing the self preservation statement``too large to fail``, what sort of a world do we live in when corporations become indispensible?

We live now, in a situation where (to the chagrin of the FSA) protectionism, tighter investment fund regulations, banker accountabilities etc all seem more like a responsible necessity. As someone who's not too badly hit by the recession - but still pissed off enough to look down on the banks from the moral high ground of irritated hindsight - I don't want to see a banking or economic system that's mollycoddled by the FSA or worse still, one that's under the thumb of the treasury as that would be contrary to the goals of capitolism.

Which raises the question, what relationship should the state have with capitolism?

That moral highground is leaning heavily to the left right now but that's because those affected by the economic downturn have been financially violated by everything from endowment mortgages to hedge fund performance. And then some more with looming redundancy and the tabloid's `WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!` stance on the situation! All this collaborates to ostracize the banks as brands to whom people entrust their money, and undermines the system through which the country grows its wealth.

But despite the sense that thinking offers, it's ultimately a knee-jerk response. A petulent attitude that's most often seen in the insecure opinion: the wrongly placed frustration against those whom you trusted but were let down by. The deferal of responsibility that doesn't acknowledge the need of the individual to so much as monitor, let alone police, those in whom they have quite literally, put their trust.

I'm not trying to defend the banks in saying that. Indeed if anything I think that thought vilfies them more by highlighting their indifference to their customer's collective blind eye.

But if the en masse consumer body are demonstrably incapable of protecting their own assets by scrutinising the funds their banks invest in, and the bonus system that governs the fund managers leads to unstable investments, then it stands to reason the government or FSA should patrol the corporate investments for danger spots.

But let us not forget that this financial year is the polar opposite of the 1980s where yuppies playing the market intellegently swelled the FTSE 100 growth to 13-14% over the year (or something like that) and if the endowment policy holders or savers of the time actually received anything near that amount would probably say that controlled market economies and protectionism are rediculous concepts. So it's reasonable to say that the `common sense` view on the relationship between state and capitolism is as whimsical as the markets themselves.

What the policyholders and bloggers are calling out for now is therefore a sustainable and effective banking system, where the state is simultaneously both and neither guarentor and naive to the practises of investment banking. I think it's tempting to argue that such an initiative has never been practised, and there is no precedent for such an industrious relationship to build from. I think that's an over complication of the reality of capitolism.

The very foundation of capitolism is that through pro-actove industry and the wherewithal for people to forge their own fortunes (and poses rights over the money they earn) is what the West is all about. This system works. It's always worked. It works because it calls on the basic human compulsion to work for the self, and in doing so society is mutually benefitted. Relatively small societies, such as the parochial village or market town all flourish on this concept of trade. The problem we face in this current recession is, however, nothing to do with capitolism, rather the globalisation of capitolism.

I think globalisation is the worst-case-scenario self-fulfilling prophecy of the nature of capitolism. There is of course, a moot debate over the simple pro's and cons of globalisation, but ultimately, it wipes out or engulfs competition to the point where the biggest business occupies a ~100pc market share. This then means the whole industry sub-sector relies on this one (or more) business and is at it's managemental whims and mercies.

This was the case in early broadcasting with the BBC, the Royal Mint, even the DVLA and for this instance governmental legislation is required to stop the compaies who monopolise the sector to abuse their position. So when the banks get into this position where five banks essentially run the country and the rest of the finance sector scatters market share between a handful of companies (like AIG) the mutual jostling and pro-active passion to make money through capitolist principles of sucess and entrepeneurism are overwhelmed by the closed circle investments that go on. As one bank swells in wealth, so too does the bank that has a stake in it. Put simply, when one fund area fails badly (like the American mortgage sector) the industry collapses like a pack of cards.

The globalised banks who are complicit in their own demise are certainly to blame for the economic crisis, as are the government agencies who allowed this all to go on, but the blame doesn't lie in the habit of investing in poor funds. Nor does blame lie in the bonus system that caused near sighted investment choices like that to happen. The blame doesn't even lie at the door of the FSA who's job it is to police the practise of commercially sensible banking. Instead the blame lies in the over globalisation of the banking sector.

The more banks that merge means the previously abundant pockets of fiscal capitol agglomorate more and more towards a singularity. The gamle is higher with bigger capitols, and the ante is raised too much for smaller competition to be taken seriously in terms of the wider trade markets.

So regarding the policyholder's cry for sustainable banking, the equalibrium between state intervention and autonymous banking doesn't lie in a legislative balance, but in a re-assertion of basic capitolist free-market principles but with the added flavour of wider competition and discrete investment funds.

Of course the industry needs policing in some way, but the legislation needs to be hands off: guidelines that shape the picture of the sector rather than dictate the cans and cannots of its practises. Free markets flourish, so to avoid this all happening again, we need to see the government keep the wealth scattered and the practise of mutually beneficial trade built on the backs of real world industries. We need to avoid putting financial eggs in the basket of imaginary money from American mortgages. Intead, keep investment in the working sector: in contruction, in property, in retail, in the fruits blue collar labour that won't go away.

In short: we need a typicly conservative free-market economy built on the backs of left wing values, and at the end of the day, that's all capitolism is, baby. That's all capitolism is.

Sir Alan Sugarcube -> Rory Mcgrath