The Conservatives’ biggest challenge now is to show how a Cameron Britain would differ from Brown’s Britain. Deploring Labour’s record is necessary, but not sufficient. A changed role for the State was the main theme of a seminar yesterday organised by party leaders and the Centre for Policy Studies.

Oliver Letwin, the Tories’ policy supremo, argued that the share of public spending is not the whole story. As important is the nature of the State, how intrusive and bureaucratic it is: how public services are provided as well as how much is spent on them. This is correct but is also partly to deflect calls from the Tory Right for big cutbacks in spending plans: as always, it is easier to urge cuts in general rather than in detail.

The Tories’ latest slogan is about the “postbureaucratic age”, not perhaps the catchiest of song titles, even if the tune is appealing. Mr Letwin invoked the spirit of the Middle Ages, local and nonbureaucratic by default, and then Max Weber as the ideologist of the all-knowing, centralised State. But, now, the information technology revolution has changed the balance between the consumer/citizen and the State.

Subsequent Tory frontbenchers addressed the implications, both for strengthening the role of the consumer where individual choice can be exercised, and of the citizen, where there is still collective provision: the familiar choice and voice debate. There is scope to take the level of decision-making nearer to the neighbourhood and to individuals, as Westminster and some other authorities are now seeking to do.

But should this be done by creating new elected local officials and bodies, such as local police commissioners, which the Tories have already proposed? The dilemma was highlighted by Sir Simon Milton, Tory leader of Westminster and chairman of the Local Government Association. He gave warning of the risks of confusing voters with too many locally elected bodies, rather than one forum, the local council, to hold public services to account.

There is a more basic question, addressed explicitly by only a few speakers. Caroline Spelman, the Tory chairman and former local government spokesman, argued that devolution of decision-making inevitably means diversity of provision. At present, that results in headlines about a postcode lottery. However, to move to the desirable goal of postcode choice, she rightly argued, would require changes in our nationally focused media and political attitudes.

The underlying question, raised by Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the former Scottish Secretary, is whether local councils should be able to raise more of their own money above the current fifth of total revenues. The Tories are wary because of the scars of the poll tax debacle of 1988-91. But until councils are given greater financial freedom - no responsibility without taxation – talk about localism and devolution is largely tinkering. Voters need to be faced with the consequences of variations in local spending and taxation.

Fighting bureaucracy may gain the cheers of the Tory faithful. But you cannot do away with bureaucracy. The debate is really about how the State can, and should, be restructured and limited. The Tories needs to be both more precise and bolder.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone