The Right Rules?

Always read past the first comma. I have added my own emphasis, so that you can see whether this would have been an acceptable definition of "a free market economy" if it had been offered by, say, Ken Clarke, or Anna Soubry, or Tony Blair, or Jeremy Corbyn:

"A free market economy, operating under the right rules and regulations, is the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created. It was the new combination which led societies out of darkness and stagnation and into the light of the modern age. It is unquestionably the best, and indeed the only sustainable, means of increasing the living standards of everyone in a country. And we should never forget that raising the living standards, and protecting the jobs, of ordinary working people is the central aim of all economic policy. Helping each generation to live longer, fuller, more secure lives than the one which went before them. Not serving an abstract doctrine or an ideological concept – but serving the real interests of the British people."

If Corbyn had delivered the words in bold, then they would have been screamed down as Trotskyism and as redolent of Venezuela. They could not be both, but let that pass, along with the fact that whenever Corbyn says anything, then it is screamed down as Trotskyism and as redolent of Venezuela.

In delivering this speech the day after Corbyn's, without even waiting for her own conference and while pretending that anyone cared about "the twentieth anniversary of Bank of England independence" (New Labour's original sin, and incompatible with the principles of today's speech), then Theresa May has conceded to Corbyn the absolute right to set the political agenda.

At best, she should now put flesh on the bones by adopting all of the policies that he set out yesterday, since every single one of them is at least fully compatible with the above. Unless she did that on housing, in  particular, then not only would she be finished, as we already knew that she was, but so would be her party.