ConservativeHome's 100policies

Sam Burke: "A Human Rights Minister"

Sam is a Parliamentary Research Assistant and is reading Law at the LSE. He is a member of the Conservative Human Rights Commission, Chairman of his constituency Conservative Future and currently serves in the Royal Naval Reserve.

> Policy summary

A Human Rights Minister to champion natural liberties abroad and further advance our Party’s commitment to the dignity of man.

> Policy explanation

As things currently stand, the member of the Government responsible for Human Rights is the Minister for Trade, Ian McCartney.  He is also responsible for: Trade and Trade Policy, Trade and Investment (UKTI), Economic Policy including Science and Technology, Global Issues (including sustainable development, energy, climate change), North America, South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania.  This begs the question: how can a person with so many responsibilities adequately defend human rights in a pro-active manner?

As the Official Opposition, our party’s situation is even more obscure.  Despite being in the privileged position of having Members on both the Frontbench and Backbenches with a deep rooted and long-standing commitment to Human Rights, there is no single point of reference on Human Rights on the Frontbench despite the significance of liberty, democracy, human dignity and the rule of law.

The solution, it seems to me, is to create a Ministry within the FCO specifically tailored to Human Rights.  Whilst in Opposition, we could make this a firm manifesto commitment and create a Spokesman on Human Rights to raise matters in House of Commons, with a colleague to raise similar concerns in the Lords.

In addition to Parliamentary duties, the Spokesman could produce an annual report akin to the America's Annual Report on Religious Liberty.  This could be co-authored with the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which might also inform other areas of the Spokesman’s agenda.

In America the creation of an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom has been widely hailed as a great success.  There is similar scope to develop our organisational structure to reflect our concern for Human Rights.

We have seen how DFID has ascended into one of the most prominent Government Departments and the public consciousness of International Development has reached an all-time high.  However, it is also time to recognise that economic development means nothing to ordinary people, if they are not afforded freedom from oppression, torture, extra-judicial action, slavery, equality before the law.  Furthermore, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religious conviction and worship, freedom of association, protection of property and most importantly, an adequate standard of living and bodily integrity, are fundamental expectations we must promote amongst all nations.

> Political risks and opportunities

This policy would allow the party to further take the lead on this most vital of causes.  The Conservative party of Wilberforce has a distinguished record in this area.  As we approach the bi-centenary of the abolition of slavery, we need to ask ourselves how we might best address the injustices of our fellow man.

Perhaps this policy would antagonise some members of the party who see Human Rights (along with Social Justice and the environment) as a “Lefty issue”.  However, such obstacles have not stopped progress thus far and must not offset momentum on this issue.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Have you ever been alerted about Human Rights concerns of the Government?
• Have you been informed of any party action from the Conservative Party on Human Rights?
• Should the Spokesman be a Peer or MP?
• Who would make the best Conservative Human Rights Spokesman?

> Costs

A lot of the costs are already met under the auspices of responsibilities of the Trade Minister though making Human Rights a stand-alone Ministry would mean a need to provide additional resources.  An approximate estimate of such costs might be £500,000: a Ministerial Salary, staff, cost of publication of annual report, travel and other administrative costs.

Peter Franklin: "Blacklist ugly and dysfunctional buildings"

Peter Franklin is a Conservative policy advisor, speechwriter and contributor to The Guardian's Comment Is Free.

> Policy summary

A national blacklist of ugly and dysfunctional buildings that should be demolished and replaced.

> Policy explanation

The current listing system for buildings allows planning authorities to identify and protect the most precious features of our architectural heritage. The system also helps direct the flow of public and private conservation funds to where they’re most needed.

However, in order to give due recognition to the carbuncles as well as the gems, the listing system needs to be supplemented by a blacklisting system for the worst buildings in our villages, towns and cities.

Bad architecture is much more that just an eyesore. Various studies have shown, as commonsense would lead one to expect, that ugly buildings have a negative impacts on local economies, community cohesion, neighbourhood security and even mental health.

Under the new arrangements, local people would have the right to petition their councillors to have their least favourite buildings blacklisted. Given enough signatures, the council would be obliged to vote on each petition. As with the existing system there would a grading system, with grade 2, grade 2* and grade 1 blacklisted buildings.

Government planning guidance would be amended with provisions requiring planning authorities to take blacklisting into account when considering planning applications and development plans.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is a possibility that a blacklisting system would allow a bunch of Prince Charles types to launch a national witch-hunt against modernist architecture. Well, that’s the opportunity; the risk is that it might not turn out that way! Still, it’s worth a try.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What should the hurdle be in terms of signatures required to get a building blacklisted?
• What sort of features deserve grade 2* status as opposed to the normal grade 2 blacklisting?
• How should the most spectacular horrors, deserving of grade 1 status be identified?
• What practical consequences should blacklisting have?

> Costs

The blacklisting system shouldn’t have any extra costs. Local campaigners would be responsible for the expense of organising a petition. Planning departments would be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date register of blacklisted buildings which would be published on the council website.

The system could even raise money by surcharging the owners of blacklisted buildings, the money raised going into a conservation fund for ‘whitelisted’ buildings or as grants for the demolition of blacklisted buildings.

 

Matthew Elliott and James Frayne: "Abolish Inheritance Tax"

Matthew Elliott is Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance and James Frayne is Campaign Director

> Policy summary

The abolition of inheritance tax.

> Policy explanation

Inheritance tax is currently levied at a massive 40 percent on estates worth more than £285,000.  This currently affects around 1.5 million households. However, the Halifax have projected that by 2020 the tax will affect 4.2million households if the threshold continues to rise very slowly at a time when house prices are rising steadily.  The tax raises around £3.6 billion a year.

We believe that inheritance tax should be abolished.  It is not simply a tax on the rich (who can and do employ expensive accountants to come up with ways of dodging it) but affects ordinary families.  It is immoral because it forces people to pay tax on their possessions, having already paid huge amounts of tax throughout their lives.

> Political risks and opportunities

Contrary to what many in Westminster seem to believe, inheritance tax is an issue that concerns ordinary people across the country.  The polls clearly show that people are opposed to it.  According to a Populus poll for the BBC in March, people disagreed by 73-25 percent that inheritance tax was a "fair way" for the Government to raise money.  The poll also revealed that over 40 percent of those questioned had had to take inheritance tax into account recently in their own lives.  This reflects two things above all:

(a) people understand the obvious immorality of what amounts to "double taxation"; and
(b) it is not seen as a "tax cut for the rich" - ordinary people are being hit by it.

A commitment to getting rid of inheritance tax would show the Party understood the concerns of ordinary middle class families and that it its agenda was driven by wanting to make life "fair" for people. The abolition of inheritance tax should form part of a wider campaign to reduce the tax burden on families - a campaign which should (like the Lib Dems) commit to changing the thresholds at which the various tax rates kick in, and reducing the basic rate of tax.

Of course there is always some "risk" in announcing any policy.  Here the risk lies in what message abolishing inheritance tax says about the Party's priorities at a time when the Party has been actively and explicitly briefing that it was moving away from tax as an issue because it does not fit the new "brand".  It will require a significant change in the tone of the Party's campaigning and a clear briefing that the Party sees the issue of tax as an integral part of its compassionate conservative agenda - for
example, because "reducing the tax burden on ordinary families will make life easier for them and give them the money to spend on their own priorities".  On the issue of inheritance tax specifically, whilst the public are opposed to it anyway, it would be better if, like in the US, the tax became publicly known as the death tax (which is essentially what it is).

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• How should the issue of tax be brought back into the Conservative "brand" given the Party's clear briefing that it has been excluded?
• What other high-profile tax cuts should be announced at the same time to minimise the ability of the Government to say it will mostly affect Southern voters?
• Would it be better to begin the process of abolition by raising the threshold massively?

> Costs

It is always dangerous to get into the game of "costing" tax cuts because tax cuts have "dynamic effects" - they create a "rising tide" which boosts the economy as a whole and leads to revenues holding up (look at Australia, Ireland, the US and elsewhere).  However, on a "static" analysis, the
abolition of inheritance tax would "cost" £3.6 billion - the amount the tax currently raises.  Given that the European Central Bank estimates that the British Government wastes over £80 billion a year, the figure is relatively trivial.

Louise Bagshawe: "To make forced marriage illegal."

Louise Bagshawe is the author of eight bestselling novels and is on the Party's priority list.

> Policy summary

To make forced marriage illegal.

> Policy explanation

The Labour establishment is currently displaying contempt for the rights of women. Their quangoes have suggested reduced penalties for rape because "prison is tougher", and allowing domestic violence abusers to receive lesser sentences if they merely express remorse in front of a judge. As part of this depressing pattern, Labour recently announced that forced marriage would stay legal in Britain. The Times reported that between 2003-5, 518 forced marriages were recorded in London and in 2005 alone more than 140 in Bradford. Victims have been killed, abused and maimed for refusing.

Baroness Scotland has been the point person on Labour's appalling refusal to protect young, vulnerable British women in the name of cultural sensitivity. Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police stated that this decision has already been taken, to his knowledge, by some groups as meaning that forced marriage is now approved.

Forced marriage and arranged marriage are not the same thing. It's important to be clear that Islam does not permit a woman to be forced into marriage against her will, and to make this vile practise a crime is not an attack on any religion. But real British girls are really dying. The majority of victims are aged between 16-20. And of course, if a woman marries solely out of fear and is made to set up home with a man she does not choose, then forced marriage becomes forced rape - multiple times. If Labour will not stand up for them, we should make sure that the Tories will.

> Political risks and opportunities

Some - and I emphasise some - Muslim groups have expressed the view that such a law might scapegoat their community. Many other Muslims, however, stand strongly against forced marriage. For example, Nafir Azal, a Crown Prosecution Service Director in London, stated "Forced marriage in Islam is no marriage at all." He supports a ban. The party would have to be careful to emphasize that the ban would be aimed solely at protecting victims and not at any given section of society. In terms of advantages, I do not believe you can couch a life-saving policy in terms of political opportunity. If we are indeed a moral party, and if we are serious about social justice, the public will see that if we act upon it. Even Yasmin Ahlibibi-Brown, not a woman I ever agree with, is in favour of a ban. When it comes to protecting women, why are Blair's babes so silent?

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• How could we best emphasize that we are prepared to defend young women's freedom of choice?
• How could we make it absolutely clear that the ban was not aimed at any community?
• What would be the legal standards to compulsion (victim statements, witnesses, etc).
• What would be the punishments for forcing somebody to marry under duress?

> Costs

Nothing above the normal costs of policing.

Andrew Boff: "To give London's voters the power to propose binding propositions on the executive or to recall the Mayor."

Andrew Boff is a resident of Hackney and a Conservative activist. He led the Conservative Group in the London Borough of Hillingdon when they took control of the council in 1990, and more recently trebled the Tory vote in Queensbridge Ward.

> Policy summary

To give London's voters the power to propose binding propositions on the executive or to recall the Mayor.

> Policy explanation

The perceived disengagement of the governed and the government has more to do with the people feeling out of the loop between regular elections rather than any failings in the voting system. At all-out-elections they must choose between parties that may have some of their views, but not all of them. To address this, politicians put into place sham “consultations” which often amount to nothing. Voters often feel like they don’t have a say.

A “Voters initiative” procedure will give people the power to control their government and to put into place objectives that are often lost in the overall party programmes. To prevent abuse of the process a set percentage of the registered electorates names on a petition should be raised within a fixed period (eg 10% in two months). Propositions would have to be legally sound before they could be submitted to ensure that they were in the remit of the Mayor. There would also need to be a guarantee that both 'for-and-against' arguments would have equal opportunities to be presented.

The same procedure would also be used to replace an under performing official as in the case of California's lacklustre Governor, Gray Davis. In London, this, of course, would apply to the Mayor.

> Political risks and opportunities

Would this be seen as power to the people or an abnegation of the executive’s responsibility? The Mayor’s platform would have to take account of likely propositions (which is no bad thing). There may be propositions that are contradictory to the thrust of the administration or, indeed, other propositions.

In answer to this, executives will have to explain why they are doing some unpopular (though perhaps necessary) things and reconnect with the people who put them there.

We have a chance to change local democracy itself. To send a message that the Tories are the engine of delivering REAL power to the people.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What restrictions should there be on the subjects of propositions?
• How many names should there be on a petition to trigger a proposition?
• What should the time limit be on a binding proposition?
• What other levels of government should propositions apply to?

> Costs

The proposal is that propositions should only be put to the electorate at the next ordinary elections and would use the electoral machinery that is already in place. Additional costs would be for checking the petitions, an extra print run of ballot papers and the additional time for counting. For London, this would amount to about £3 million per proposition.

ConservativeHome is not a policy-free zone

ConservativeHome's 100policies.com is a big experiment.  Can the readers of this blog propose, scrutinise and refine one hundred policies that will amount to a worthy submission to the Conservative Party's policy review process?  Can the 'wisdom of the crowds' match the careful work of the six policy groups, the various taskforces and the Westminster think tanks?  We'll know in a few months...

Beginning on Monday 14th August ConservativeHome will be publishing policy ideas suggested by grassroots Conservatives.  Every policy idea will be presented in the same format.  Each submission will have...

• A headline summary of the policy;
• An explanation of the policy;
• An assessment of the policy's political risks and opportunities;
• Questions for ConservativeHome readers on how the policy idea can be improved;
• A brief statement on the policy's cost (if known).

100policies.com - inspired by similar initiatives in America - will follow a three-stage process:

The following five policy ideas will launch the process:

• Monday 14th August: Andrew Boff advocates direct democracy for London and a California-style recall of London's Mayor.
• Tuesday 15th August: Louise Bagshawe advocates making forced marriage illegal.
• Wednesday 16th August: James Frayne advocates the abolition of inheritance tax.
• Thursday 17th August: Peter Franklin advocates the public 'blacklisting' of ugly buildings for demolition.
• Friday 18th August: Sam Burke advocates "A Human Rights Minister to champion natural liberties abroad and further advance our Party’s commitment to the dignity of man."

Do you have a burning policy idea?  What are you waiting for?  Please email Tim.