What can the CamCons learn from the CanCons?

Following Stephen Harper's success in Monday's elections Michael Howard rushed to the microphone to draw parallels between the British and Canadian political situations:

"We are seeing a recognition across the world of the failure of the centre-left to deliver... The defeated [Liberal] prime minister is someone who was finance minister for a very long time, wanted to take over the top job much earlier than he was allowed to and, when he got the top job, proved to be a long way short of a success in it."

Mr Howard would be unwise to draw too many lessons, however.  The graphic below shows that David Cameron's Conservative Party is increasingly out-of-step with its English-speaking world counterparts...

I don't suggest that David Cameron would necessarily be politically wise to embrace all of the five positions outlined above...

But: Harper, Bush and Howard (John) have shown that traditional conservative fare is acceptable in three very different countries.  None of the three men are charismatic in the way that David Cameron is.  In the absence of 'stardust' they've focused on bread-and-butter conservative issues that appeal to the embattled victims of left-wing failure - the strivers.  For example...

• Stephen Harper emphasised modest tax cuts and increased defence spending in his attempt to unseat a corrupt Liberal establishment.

• George W Bush's tax cuts have powered the US economy (and Gordon Brown's) - his recent opinion poll rebound has reflected this and his unashamed defence of his administration's wiretapping of possible terrorist suspects (see graphic on right).  (Gordon Brown was emphasising homeland security in his criticisms of David Cameron yesterday).

• John Howard has consistently championed lower taxation and public sector reform and has emphasised opposition to uncontrolled immigration.

Newslinks to more analysis of the Canadian elections are on the frontpage.

Comments

[Tory T]

Oh dear - the siren voice of temptation. The shaking hand reaches once more for the bottle of right-wing populism...

[Matthew Oxley]

Isn't talking about Stability (largely because the public is still scared since Black Wednesday) and pledging to put tax cuts on a low priority, in a tax burdened economy, just a little populist?

What about climate change, an issue with huge public support, isn't that populist? or recruiting people like Bob Geldof to sound off about world poverty?

There's a few of those 5 which I don't agree with (and thus agree with Cameron's stance) but I don't think we should Ignore the lessons learned abroad by other leaders. Tax cuts are a core conservative value and while taxes are so high it seems a perfect time to start to sell them to the british public again.

[Liberty Lover]

The furore over wire-tapping in the States is because it is ILLEGAL.

Blair is putting together a police state by stealth based upon insecurity and fear.

I would rather face the danger of a bomb than be snooped upon.

[Chris Hughes]

While its true some prudent conservative policies in other countries probably wouldn't be as effective in the UK, this graphic is nevertheless a welcome post for showing just how out of step Cameron is with other conservatives.

Cameron refused to cut taxes, and supports "Kyoto environmentalism" which is an oxymoron, since Kyoto does nothing but hamper the growth of the economies of countries that bother keeping to their targets. And I can't even remember him talking about foreign policy.

Cameron is not just out of step with 3 middle aged men heading different governments in far off countries, he is out of step with critical elements of conservative thinking itself.

[malcolm]

I am not as familiar with Canadian politics as I should be but friends in Canada tell that Harpers victory is very much a case of the Liberal party losing it (because of corruption) than an idealogical surge towards Conservatism.Time will tell I suppose.
I am suprised that Harper's virulently anti Kyoto,I'd always thought the enviromentally concious Canadians would be more in favour of that than Bush's 'technology' based solutions which as we all know is just an excuse to do absolutely nothing.

[Peter Franklin]

Just to re-cap: The CanCons gained just 36% of the vote; they have nowhere near a majority and no credible coalition partner; they beat a demonstrably corrupt governing party by just six points; even if one takes out the separist Bloc Quebecois, the combined Anglophone centre-left (i.e. the Liberals and the New Democrats)still have more MPs; this is not a great victory; the Liberals have been left in strong enough a position to recover (Ignatieff for leader?); and the new Conservative administration has a limited life expectancy. I really hope that David Cameron will do better than this at the next election. And perhaps because he does support do-something-environmentalism and seeks to defend our civil liberties he will.

[Peter Franklin]

By the way, if John Howard opposes Kyoto environmentalism then why has Australia unilaterally adopted the carbon cutting target it would have had if was a signatory? Funny how this is never mentioned by the Kyoto-sceptics.

[malcolm]

It's still a pretty good result Peter as the Conservative Party in Canada was at one stage down to two MPs!Like you,I hope Cameron can do better than this.
I think it will be some time before we are able to draw any conclusions as to whether David Cameron can learn anything from Harpers policy positions or not.
One benefit of Canadian politics in general 'though is that it has taken Michael Ignatieff off our TV screens.A bit like Neil Kinnock he would never use one word where a hundred or a thousand would do!

[Ed R]

Points 4 & 5 are areas I definitely do not want to see Cameron emulate at all. And while I see the logic of point 3, I think Kyoto is a useful starting point for leading a general push for a more environmentally-aware Britain. Frankly, the only one of these I would like Cameron to be stronger on is tax cuts and I don't have any problem believing that a Conservative administration would lower taxes overall, if much less radically than other Tories might. Fair enough. At least, unlike Bush, I wouldn't have to hold my nose at the ballot box. Or, more likely, abstain from voting.

[Peter Obtain]

Whilst I understand the point the Editor is making, in one significant way he is being totally disingenuous. Bush is no tax cutter - but a proliferate public spender. He has spent more on education, welfare, defence, a huge amount on white elephants and pork barrel projects - with future generations having to pay the bill through the largest public borrowing program the US has ever seen. (Wait till US interest rates go up - then the US will truly see the economic path Bush has laid for them).

Whilst he has portrayed the actual image of a tax cutter, the burden on the US middle class has actually gone up since 2001 (see CBO report of Sep 04). Infact, the US "Tax Freedom Day" is rising once again.

Bush has a very poor idea of economics - hate to say it, but in this field Clinton was more supply side the him!

So if we are going to talk about what made Bush a winner, lets be smart and stick to the facts not the fiction.

[James Hellyer]

... hate to say it, but in this field Clinton was more supply side the him!

Not by choice. Clinton faced a Republican congress that blocked his spending plans.

[Gareth]

How many times do you people need to lose elections before you recognise that the voters aren't voting Labour and Liberal because they think we are insufficiently right wing?

[Chad]

I agree Gareth, but the fine balancing act is to modernise whilst still being true to core conservative values.

For me that includes small government, low taxes to stimulate the economy, effective action on law and order and opportunity to escape from poverty through your own efforts.

I would like to see more of positive, modern but conservative statements along the lines of "as a Conservative, low taxation is core aim to fund increased public expenditure through increased overall revenues" etc to show that the aim is to increase government take through growing the economy not squeezing ever more out of the existing band of taxpayers.

[James Hellyer]

How many times do you people need to lose elections before you recognise that the voters aren't voting Labour and Liberal because they think we are insufficiently right wing?

Objection! The gentleman is leading the witness.

Actually, I don't think anyone suggested that people didn't vote for us because we were insufficiently right wing. If anything they didn't vote for us because we weren't good enough.

Becoming "good enough" doesn't mean nipping off to the left. It could mean demonstrating how your policies and values connect with the aspirations of the elctorate.

[Selsdon Man]

"I would like to see more of positive, modern but conservative statements along the lines of "as a Conservative, low taxation is core aim to fund increased public expenditure through increased overall revenues" etc to show that the aim is to increase government take through growing the economy not squeezing ever more out of the existing band of taxpayers."

That is big government Conservatism. Government spending is too high due to waste and bureaucracy and the creation of a police and warfare state.

[Michael McGowan]

The problem, Chad, is that a lot of "modernisers" don't believe any of these things. They have little or no affinity for the ethos of the centre-right. They want office, pure and simple. If the means to that end is to turn the Conservative Party into a proxy for New Labour, well a pol has to do what a pol has to do.....

By the way, Gareth, were you the losing Tory candidate to Kate Hoey earlier this year in Vauxhall?

[Matthew Oxley]

The losing candidate in that constituency wasn't even called Gareth!?

[Mark Fulford]

He means 2001.

[Michael McGowan]

I simply asked a question. Thank you for "answering" it.

[Chad]

Michael:
I agree totally, and it is very frustrating.

I want a conservative government because I believe in its core values, not a Conservative Party victory no matter what the cost in terms of ditching values.

I am 100% convinced that a conservatism can be modern and relevant.

Selson Man:
"That is big government Conservatism"

Why? Don't confuse spending more as simply retaining the current inefficiency and adding to it.

You can be more efficient, and spend more.

For example, if Labour deliver a Ford Focus for 100k so are spending a lot but inefficiently, you can spend 105k and deliver a Bentley and thus be spending more, but also providing value for money.

Plus by increasing spending through increased investment in a lower tax environment, you can deliver the increaed spending by taking less from the individual.

Promising to deliver the same for less will just be thrown back as "cutting spending" and we do need to shed this particular image, imho. Surely we should aim to go even further, by increasing both efficiency and spending whilst taking less from taxpayers individually?

[Selsdon Man]

Chad, please give examples of efficient, higher spending governments. More spending leads to more waste, as this Blair government shows. Your thinking is a danger to prosperity.

[Matthew Oxley]

Every government would love to deliver better value for money. It's one thing to say and another thing to achieve.

I think minor efficiency savings could be made by 'trusting people' (as Dave puts it) and giving Public services greater autonomy but not on the scale of Ford Focus -> Bentley.

At some point a government, a future government whether Conservative, Conservative-Liberal, or otherwise may need to be strong enough to make the case for freezes is public sector spending.

And Michael McGowan, sorry if my 'answer' caused upset, I was merely trying to be helpful.

[Mark Fulford]

Selsdon, you are right that government spending is too high due to waste and bureaucracy and the creation of a police and warfare state.

However, when we talk of reducing public spending, commentators will always put that in the context of the NHS. We have to be very clear that, while government spending generally needs to reduce, in some departments it has to increase.

[Chris Palmer]

As a cross in the "a tax cutter" box suggests - we still haven't quite grasped that David Cameron hasn't actually ruled them out. The situation isn't one of absolutes; ie. yes or no, but a situation of when.

[Selsdon Man]

Mark, we need to make the moral case for small government not simply kow-tow to our enemies in the media.

[PassingThru]

Question
"What can the CamCons learn from the CanCons?"

Answer
Hope that Labour embroil themselves in Scandal like the Liberals over in Canada.

In all seriousness, we never have good smear campaigns anymore, surely theres a lot to undermine Gordon Browns position. Probably backfire though.

[Chad]

"Ford Focus -> Bentley"

I think this kind of significant improvement could be achieveable in some areas.

For example, a flatter, simplified income tax system, that could perhaps even include a local tax element to replace the council tax and create a single, cost-effective collection stream could create enormous savings.

Or how about our whole relationship within the EU? Could a looser pro-European alliance create positive gains that we could not dream of with simple tinkering?

We need to be more bold and creative in our thinking if we want to make real improvements, and offer innovative government.

I'm not saying the above is a fixed promise, or solution, but that I would rather see Conservatives really thinking about creative, innovative, new ways of government instead of boxing ourselves in.

Cameron told Blair that with Conservative support he could be "as bold as he liked", but I would like to see thate boldness, the innovation, the fresh ideas originating from the conservative camp.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark, we need to make the moral case for small government not simply kow-tow to our enemies in the media.

Agreed, but we simultaneously need to make the case to increase spending on the NHS, education and defence.

[malcolm]

You are probably being a bit 'tongue in cheek' Passing Thru!But seriously,we don't need to 'smear' New Labour all we have to do is tell the truth about them.
Currently we have the cases of City Academy donors being proposed for Peerages by Blair and Straw and Blair denying all knowledge of CIA flights.From us on these subjects we hear.....nothing.Why? Perhaps Howards' experience of Hutton has robbed us of all self confidence.
This government is perhaps the sleaziest and most corrupt of the modern era.Haven't we a duty to point this out and promise to be better if we are elected

[Jon Gale]

"Cameron refused to cut taxes" and similar

Cameron has only said a Tory govt would not cut taxes "if the public finances were in a mess" but would cut taxes as the economy grows. He also goes on a lot about competitiveness and overreglation. Tick the box.

[Alexander Drake]

John Howard benefits from cultural conservatives being among the key groups of swinging voters, particularly in Australian marginal seats.

David Cameron has correctly recognised who the swinging voters in those crucial marginal seats are - and they ain't cultural conservatives.

John Howard and David Cameron have both identified who the people are to target, in order to get over the line. The difference is that they are different in the UK to Australia.

Is this unfortunate? Yes. Is there much he can do about it from Opposition? No. Cameron has to play the cards dealt to him - for now.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Kyoto does nothing but hamper the growth of the economies of countries that bother keeping to their targets."

Hogwash. Kyoto is far from perfect, but setting limits on emissions does not necessarily hamper growth. If anything, such limits should promote development more efficient use of resources and thereby stimulate growth. Besides which, I don't think we should be overly concerned about growth being hampered in countries which waste billions on pointless vanity projects.

[Tory T]

malcolm - please can we NOT start banging on about "CIA flights"? Just because we don't approve of Blair in the round doesn't mean we have to jump on every far left, anti-American bandwagon. Abu Graib was a disgrace precisely because a mighty and freedom-loving nation left its (legitimately captured) prisoners in the hands of a few retarded frat boy guards. The CIA is a force for good in a world where we are all targets for psychopathic Islamist terrorists. Andrew Tyrie's campaign on this subject is as obnoxiously unconservative as Grant Shapps' pathetic self-publicising fuss-about-nothing on DNA databases.

[wasp]

Tim I think you overstate your own case. Harper "won" because of Liberal scandals and won't last.

Bush won because of a highly suspicious court judgement preventing a recount that would almost certainly have given Florida to Al Gore.

These are also not similar countries, they are new world countries with very different national outlooks.

Kyoto is the right idea badly done, but without targets there is no incentive for cuts in carbon emissions or for new technological developments. Cameron has said that he will cut taxes but its a little difficult to do in opposition. What the hell is wrong with gay marriage and civil liberties are crucial to national security.

Lets also remember that Bush is hated in Britain, I can't think of a worse right wing leader to copy.

[Sean Fear]

"Cameron has said that he will cut taxes"

When did he say that?

[Editor]

Wasp: "Tim I think you overstate your own case."

My case was pretty limited on this occasion, wasp.

All I was trying to say was that Cameron is pursuing different emphases than other (successful) conservatives in the English-speaking world. He might be right to be different in a British context but there can be little doubt that he is pursuing different paths.

I agree that the other leaders may have largely won because of failures of other parties but that's nearly always the case. All three were, however, able to stick to traditional conservative causes and not put their electors off.

[James Hellyer]

When did he say that?

It's a charitable interpretation of "sharing the proceeds of growth... if there is any".

[Editor]

Peter Franklin says Kyoto environmentalism = "do-something-environmentalism".

Not in Canada (or in most of Europe where nations aren't meeting their Kyoto targets).

Kyoto is really poseur environmentalism.

Canada's emissions actually have been rising twice as fast as those of the US although it has been a Kyoto signatory.

If rich European etc countries aren't willing/able to make Kyoto work there is no chance that energy-hungry China and India will make it work.

[Phil Hendren]

Might I suggest a read of "After Blair: Conservatism Beyond Thatcherism" to understand the difference between the three non-conservatives with ticks and Cameron.

[Selsdon Man]

"Sharing the proceeds of growth" suggests that the Cameron and Osborne think that it is the government's money to share. It is not, it the people's money taken from them by force. It is a Conservative government's duty to minimise taxation. The problem with the shared proceeds approach is not just one of policy, it is of philosophy and core values.

[Selsdon Man]

Editor, the modernisers' Kristolite neo-conservatism is poseur conservatism.

[James Hellyer]

I agree with you, Selsdon Man.

[Peter Franklin]

Mr Ed, what you're effectively saying is that given Canada's grotesque hypocrisy, she should follow the example of the unrepentant sinner next door. Hmmm.

As for the Europeans they've been making some progress: hence do-something-environmentalism. It is isn't enough which is why the whole world needs the bracing discipline of a post-Kyoto treaty with tough enforcement mechanisms.

The WTO is a good example of the way that binding international agreements can be enforced. Of course, progress towards global free trade is itself a bumpy road, but that's no excuse for not sticking to the right path and redoubling our efforts.

Still looking forward to the exciting programme of action agreed at the Asia-Pacific Partnership meeting!

[Editor]

What I'm saying is that those who are REALLY serious about the environment should recognise that Kyoto is a failure and look to build an alternative. Every year you and other Kyoto fundamentalists insist on a "redoubling" of efforts is another year wasted. I don't think there is enough US etc political will behind the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development but it is a more honest way forward - as Tony Blair seems to realise.

The USA's world-leading investment in green technologies will do more for the planet than crude caps on growth.

[William Norton]

People who downplay Harper's achievement are being a little churlish. It may not sound much to knock out one minority govmt and replace it with a minority govmt but in the circumstances of electoral position, recent history etc its a pretty good result. The Bloc Quebecois are a major roadblock to any right-wing administration (and historically, Canada hasn't had right-wing govmts). Add on the factors that the Canadian version of the BBC played a blinder for the Libs, and the Libs appear to have a fine electoral machine for getting votes from people who are dead, have multiple identities etc.

The Libs didn't help themselves - if you want a laugh watch their attack ads in the bottom right hand panel at here - "Harper on military presence"(aka "Soldiers with guns") is a hoot.

Harper's done pretty well for a party which was only formed in 2003, out of a merger between a sort-of UKIP and a slushy middleground group called the Progressive Conservatives (sic), the ones who famously went from govmt to just 2 seats.

To put it in context, Harper's result would be the equivalent of our Tory Party getting 260 seats in an election where Labour falls to about 215, and the Scots Nats have at least 100 seats. I think we'd settle for that at the moment.

[Jon Gale]

When did he say that?

"Mr Osborne...told an audience in the City of London: "We will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes...."

..."our tax and spending levels are soon set to be higher than Germany's, our productivity growth lags well behind France, and our rate of business development is shrinking at a time when it is rising across the rest of Europe. There could hardly be a worse response to the challenges of the new global economy," the Shadow Chancellor said."

Now, he obviously understands the need for lower taxes, but wont lower them if the economy is in a mess - which lets face it no government would do anyway. Plus doesn't want to scare people by sounding like he wants to cut public services.

[James Hellyer]

... When did he say that?

Apparently he didn't!

[wasp]

I'm no Kyoto fundamentalist, I don't think it is possible to tackle this problem with international treaties that set low levels of cuts and then only cover some nations.

But Editor your approach on climate change seems to be "wait for the technology to change".

A head in sand burying approach - neccisity is the mother of invention, and without binding targets there is no neccessity.

We may not like competition but as any businessman will tell you its the only thing that makes you any better. Without trading and targets the neccessary technological advances will not be developed.

More private investment needs to go into fuel generation technology rather than just government projects.

[Chris Hughes]

The problem with Kyotophiles is that the end of the world is never as nigh as they'd like it to be. We had a new ice age coming in the seventies that never came, and now we have global warming - and they are so desperate to prove that that every possible meteorological phenomenon is now evidence for it - hurricanes, increased ice and cold weather, falling lettices, are proof, disguised under the term "climate change". I'll look forward to 2012, when lack of climate change is cited as evidence of climate change. See you there. I'm off to start a bonfire.

[Peter Franklin]

"What I'm saying is that those who are REALLY serious about the environment should recognise that Kyoto is a failure and look to build an alternative."

Kyoto has already succeeded in cutting millions of tonnes of carbon emissions. Your prefered alternative has achieved precisely nothing. You want to swap something for nothing. Bad deal.

"Every year you and other Kyoto fundamentalists insist on a "redoubling" of efforts is another year wasted."

Flattery will get you nowhere! Redoubling millions of tonnes of carbon mitigation would not be a wasted effort -- especially if the alternative is to redouble nothing (which according to my calculations comes out at nothing).

"I don't think there is enough US etc political will behind the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development..."

What was that about being REALLY serious about the environment? Sounds like the Partnership has wasted enough time already.

"...but it is a more honest way forward - as Tony Blair seems to realise."

There's nothing about a scheme that literally promises the Earth and then does nothing. Until it comes up with something, it is just a grubby PR exercise. By the way, under pressure from David Cameron, Tony Blair has recanted.

"The USA's world-leading investment in green technologies will do more for the planet than crude caps on growth."

Where the USA does lead in green technologies e.g. in low emission cars it is thanks to Kyoto style policies at state level -- especially in Arnie's California.

Tip: To be seen as a REALLY serious environmentalist it is a good idea to occasionally mention the environment without having a go at environmentalists.