Mark Field, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, answers your questions.
Malcolm: Do you still think your public attack on our campaign in Ealing Southall the day after polling was a good idea?
I must confess that my regret was failing to give due credit to all of those Conservative activists who worked tirelessly in Ealing Southall during the course of the campaign. The disappointment they must have felt at the result can only have been exacerbated by my intervention. For that and to them, I apologise.
I gave some thought to setting out, in letter form, the essence of my ConservativeHome article and sending it privately to the Party Chairman. However, I became increasingly dismayed in the hours after the declaration of the result at the sense of denial from senior figures in CCHQ. In short, I felt it was important that a more accurate analysis of the by-election and its implications was given a full airing.
From my experience on the ground as the Shadow London Minister in the eighteen months leading up to the last general election, I saw just how hard Conservatives in Ealing Southall have been working to embrace the local Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities. Frankly the Party needs to learn from the very serious mistakes we made (especially the manner in which we were manipulated by the defecting Labour councillors during the campaign). Since 19 July I have received a number of letters from activists, councillors and Association officers in Ealing Southall, all of whom have expressed gratitude for my publicly taking a stand on this matter. I have also been sent several messages from members of the British Asian community in Southall agreeing with my analysis. I only hope that the Party will learn from this bruising experience for the future.
michael mcgough: As MP for the City of Londondo you detect a lack of enthusiasm or even hostility towards the EU by City firms, especially in respect of Mifid?
The City of London is now arguably the leading global financial capital. Whilst the EU is an important part of the mix, many financial services and related industries now have a keen eye on the growth of India and China, as well as the United States, as key trading partners.
One of the main reasons for the re-emergence of London as a truly international financial centre in recent decades has been the burden of regulation in New York. The emergence of the Eurobond and Eurodollar market came about as a result of the US withholding tax in the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly the effects of the Sarbanes Oxley Act in the aftermath of the Enron and Worldcom collapse have diminished the significance of Wall Street compared to London . The lesson is plain – we need to keep a constant eye on regulation and taxation and ensure that the regime in the City of London is not undercut by any of our global rivals.
That said, I detect a level of complacency amongst some City firms about MIFID. It is clear that some politicians on mainland Europe regard this all-embracing Directive as a way of reining in London’s predominance as Europe ’s financial centre. Nevertheless there are increasingly influential voices in Europe who recognise that the EU as a whole with lighter-touch regulation is well-placed, particularly in comparison to the United States , to attract work from South East Asia and fast-emerging former Soviet states as well as the oil and gas rich powerhouses in the Middle East
simon: ‘Culture and the Arts’ is a bit of a non-job isn’t it?
I think that is a little harsh although my own background as a small businessman and representing the City of London meant I was rather better suited to my two previous frontbench roles as Shadow Minister for London and Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Ultimately in Opposition it makes particular sense to be a ‘square peg in a square hole’, but I like to think I made a contribution to developing our policies on the National Lottery, libraries and the promotion of our creative industries. I was certainly mighty impressed by the commitment and passion shown by many who work in the Arts in my year as spokesman in this area and it opened my eyes to an area of public policy which, perhaps unfairly, is regarded as outside the mainstream.
Click here to read my reflections on the culture brief.
Stephen: I second Malcolm’s question. Have you no sense of discipline or loyalty? What on earth persuaded you to charge onto the airwaves to attack your own party? I’m sure we all had our thoughts about mistakes that were made at the by-election but your public intervention was either egotistical self indulgence of a high order or sheer malignancy borne of frustrated careerism. Which was it?
Amidst the personal abuse, I accept you make a serious point. However, as I have mentioned in my answer above, if I had been convinced that CCHQ was in listening mode about these matters, then I would have been happy to make my representations privately.
I also believe that it is important that we have an open and frank debate within our Party. As an MP I accept that I am privileged to have a platform to make my views plain. The other side of that equation is that I do so sparingly and in a way that, as far as possible, minimises any embarrassment to the Party at large. I desperately want to see the Conservative Party winning back seats in our cities, but unless we learn the lessons from Ealing Southall we will not make progress. My criticisms were, I hope, constructive and had a firm eye towards the future.
Prior to the General Election in 2005 I exhorted all the London candidates to fight as local a campaign as possible and promote their local policies in preference to national ones. I believe this helped us here in London achieve a larger swing than anywhere else in the UK and with it win eight seats in the Capital that had previously been Labour-held.
In by-elections we need to realise that a local base is everything. We need our local activists and our local councillors to be at the heart of our campaigning. They know the area, they know their people. As a party we have too often trodden on their sensitivities and lost vital local knowledge and help when we most needed it.
Incidentally, on a more general point, I believe it is important to note that an MP is the representative of all of his constituents not simply a mouthpiece for the national party. I represent 73 000 central London electors, including those who voted Labour, Liberal Democrat or other as well as a relatively high number who didn’t vote at all. They deserve every bit as much representation as my local Conservative Party activists.
Whilst I strongly agree that the Conservative Party should reach out to embrace a broader range of candidates, my biggest objection to the ‘A List’ (and any other Party list system such as applies for European elections) is that it encourages many Conservative candidates and future MPs to regard their role first and foremost as a mouthpiece for the Party leadership or CCHQ. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional role of a backbencher, which is to hold the Executive to account (a role every bit as important for government MPs as it is for Opposition backbenchers as this country has learnt to its detriment over the past decade).
Richard Woolley: Dear Mark, do you think that David Cameron downplays the importance of economics? Do you think that enough has been done to attack the government’s economic record (loss of economic competitiveness, rising tax burden, public sector waste, weak productivity growth, unsustainable levels of public debt, over a million jobs lost in manufacturing, etc.)?
I reckon you have a point although this perception arises partially as a result of David Cameron’s attempts to rebrand the Conservatives as the party of the environment and as holding the answers to our ‘broken society’. Whilst this is laudable, I believe there is a real risk that we allow many of the government’s failures on the economy to go unchallenged.
One of our difficulties is that the Conservatives have already made clear we are unlikely to propose at the next election any reduction in public expenditure. I fully appreciate that this is being done to pacify those who say we have a hidden agenda on the health service, schools and welfare. This is broadly sound politics but it also leaves us with little to say on the running of the economy. I have spoken in Parliament on several occasions in the last year about the unsustainable level of government debt. In particular, courtesy of PFI/PPP, we are consuming too much today and will be passing on the burden of paying for this to future generations of taxpayers (click to my speeches on 20 February and 21 March). More seriously still, government borrowing of the scale we have seen in recent years will severely restrict the room to manoeuvre of any future Conservative government. I have said it on several occasions – the effect of PFI on public borrowing is as irreversible for a future Conservative administration as privatisation in the 1980s and 1990s was for the current Labour government.
Tony Makara: Do you feel it is right that our museums portray trashy nihilistic works such as action painting, Dadaism and so-called conceptual art? Such manifestations cannot be called creative art. Would you support taxpayers’ money going towards buying a canvas full of fevered scribbling? Should our museums adopt a policy in which only creative and art-with-form is considered?
My main objection to what you regard as ‘nihilistic works’ is that they are not what the man in the street would even regard as ‘art’.
However, it is all too easy for Ministers and shadow spokesmen with an eager eye on tabloid headlines to criticise the arts world. I took a self-denying ordinance when I was spokesman in this area that I would not jump on that particular bandwagon. In the same way that the Conservatives plan to leave medical and educational decisions to the experts in the field, so it should be with the arts. Moreover, it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of public grant or National Lottery funding to arts projects finds its way to what would universally be regarded as good causes.
HF: How many hours of campaigning did you do in the elections in 1) Ealing Southall and 2) Sedgefield?
How many different quotes attacking the government have you provided in July? I could not find any on your website.
I spent two afternoons campaigning in Ealing Southall during the by-election campaign. As I mentioned earlier, having formerly served as Shadow Minister for London, it is an area I have got to know well over many years. I did not campaign in Sedgefield.
I have written a number of articles on my website during the course of July. As you will see, I posted a detailed paper on private equity in the UK, which is by no means wholly supportive of the government, and my articles on the future of the Poland Street Post Office (Soho) and Free Trade likewise make some implicit criticisms of government policy. More generally, I have written many hundreds of letters on behalf of constituents in the past month to government departments. Some of this has been routine administrative work, but the purpose of this correspondence has been to hold a range of government departments to account. This is the mundane but valuable bread and butter work of constituency politics and I believe it is every bit as important as ‘publicly attacking’ the government in holding it to account.
John: I’ve heard it said that Grant Shapps MP has been overpromoted, can be a bit of a toady to the leadership and made a major mess of Ealing. Do you think this is unfair?
I am tempted to use the Francis Urquhart defence – ‘You might think so but I couldn’t possibly comment’! More importantly with an eye to the future, I am sure that everyone wishes Grant all the very best in his new role as Shadow Housing Minister. This key role is clearly going to be an important battleground for the next election and will require sensitive handling and good political judgement. Grant has an important perspective here as a constituency MP: his seat is in suburban Hertfordshire, containing greenbelt as well as brownfield sites and is in many ways something of a microcosm for the debate that we need to have about increased housing supply especially for hard-pressed first time buyers in hotspots such as London, the South East and East Anglia.
Treacle: Any sign from ‘Team Cameron’ that they have taken on board any of the (very valid) comments you made about our lamentable by-election organisation?
I hope that I shall have the opportunity to speak either with someone from David Cameron’s office or the new Party Chairman, Caroline Spelman, before too long on these issues.
Graham: As a member of re-enactment societies which support many cultural events in this country, what support and protection (in law) would you enact for us?
I must confess I do not know enough about the re-enactment societies to which you refer to be able to give you an informed answer. Please feel free to drop me a line about them and let me know whether you have any suggestions in mind.
dgilders: Do you accept our politicians are responsible for the changes that have been brought about in many parts of the country through rapid immigration? Do you believe that the security of our heritage passed down by previous generations is the responsibility of the government? Is the public entitled to feel aggrieved about the impact of these changes on our lives, and entitled to charge the politicians with high-handed betrayal?
I sympathise with many of the concerns that you have set out here, particularly as I represent a central London seat which has seen significant increases in immigration in the three years since EU enlargement from fifteen to twenty-seven nations.
Whilst globalisation has undoubtedly affected immigration levels and altered traditional notions of borders, I think the government does have a degree of responsibility for the way in which immigration has been handled. On a national scale, the handling of immigration cases has not been up to scratch. I am inundated with letters from constituents who have been waiting many, many years for the Home Office to make decisions on their cases. Some people simply slip out of sight in this time and are absorbed into the black economy. Many others’ applications are approved on the basis that by the time a decision is eventually made, they have lived in the UK for some years and have therefore started families and formed new relationships. This administrative chaos breeds a lack of confidence from the public in our immigration system and creates a dangerous sense of hostility towards immigrants.
On a more parochial level, the government has not always been forthcoming with the necessary funding for those councils who have borne the brunt of mass immigration in terms of pressure on healthcare, education, housing and policing resources. In my own patch, for example, Westminster City Council long pleaded for the census to be revised to provide an accurate representation of the numbers who arrived following EU enlargement (known as A8 and A2 nationals), and for their share of government funding to be adjusted accordingly. They needed money for extra translators, a more significant police presence to deal with the increase in homelessness and coaches to transport those A8 and A2 nationals who wished to return home but had not the resources. Homelessness agencies in my constituency have also complained to me about the lack of co-ordination across government departments in dealing with A8 and A2 nationals.
I believe in those areas particularly affected by recent waves of immigration, residents are entitled to feel aggrieved to some degree. Housing allocation in my own constituency, for instance, has caused deep resentment amongst some as the government dictates that accommodation be given according to need and not according to long-standing connections with an area – Margaret Hodge bravely, if opportunistically, spoke out about this problem in her recent Observer article. I also receive regular correspondence from constituents who have had to deal with an increase in anti-social behaviour and homelessness following recent EU enlargements. There is a significant minority of young people who arrive on these shores without guaranteed jobs or accommodation, whilst many who have secured employment choose to sleep on the streets rather than spend their wages on expensive rented accommodation. They rely heavily on soup kitchens and local charities and their presence has been intimidating for many Westminster residents.
That said, recent economic migration has been vital to a number of British industries, in particular hospitality in my own constituency. Many of us have benefited from the influx of inexpensive, skilled and unbelievably hardworking young men and women from the accession nations who have filled roles which many of our own people were not willing or skilled enough to take up. London has the highest unemployment of any region in the UK, and the fact of the matter is that many of those in London without a job are simply unemployable - they often have chaotic lifestyles and lack the aptitude or the application to hold down a job of any description. However, many of them live in scarce council or social housing, where they benefit from security of tenure. As a result, the growing polarisation between rich and poor, which has been a characteristic of central London life for some years, is rapidly becoming an issue throughout the capital, and even beyond the M25. The government needs to now look closely at the reasons why those in this significant group of young British people do not the wherewithal to secure employment.
The public should also accept some responsibility for the lack of debate surrounding immigration. We have allowed political correctness to close down and stifle discussions on this vital topic. I suspect the fact that many of the most recent arrivals are white skinned may assist in our having a more honest debate on the issue without the fear of being branded racist.
Click here to read the debate I tabled on the difficulties faced in Westminster with homeless A8 nationals.
TaxCutter: Do you think the Conservative Party should promise to cut taxes in the next election, and if so what taxes?
As I mentioned in one of my answers above, I am more worried about the state of public finances and the enormous level of government debt which will have to be serviced in the generations ahead.
Frankly, in my view, controlling public spending needs to be a first priority, although we must always ensure that our business taxes remain globally competitive.
I have also made it clear in the past that I support the abolition of inheritance tax for the reasons I set out in an article of 30 August 2006 which I posted on my website. I would also like to see the abolition of stamp duty on share transfers.
That deals with specifics. More generally I believe that the Conservatives should make a much stronger case to ensure that the lowest paid in our communities pay far less income tax. It is nothing short of an outrage that people earning as little as £100 a week, especially those living somewhere as expensive as London, are already paying income tax. I believe that those earning below the average weekly wage should pay far less income tax. Ideally, I should like to see the threshold for income tax being raised to something around £10 000 per annum. Whilst this would be an expensive measure, one way it could be achieved would be to ensure that its effects were neutral for all those paying higher rates of tax.
TaxCutter: What policies would you propose to make your constituency more competitive in the global economy?
Global businesses and their highly-skilled work forces do not necessarily have an innate loyalty to the UK. They wish to conduct business where the legal, fiscal and regulatory environment is most cost-effective for them, and where the physical infrastructure, along with the general human environment, best meets their needs. With London as its financial centre, the UK has demonstrated its capacity to attract and retain such businesses, and the provision of leading-edge education and training services has been crucial in maintaining our reputation. If we are to sustain London’s position in the future, the development of the professional competences will be key. I tabled a debate in February on this very issue following the publishing of the City of London’s ‘Skills in the City’ report. The City of London has a growing interest in the skills agenda, which will help it to maintain its leading position.
I believe less attention should be paid to whether 35, 40, 42 or 50 percent of young people go to university and much more to the need for lifelong learning and adult education. Many people will embrace five, or perhaps six, careers during a working life that may extend into their 70s. If we are not adaptable, our work force will not be able to survive in a world that demands high value-added, high-resolution outcomes, especially in manufacturing.
I am a firm believer in globalisation and am confident that we can continue to benefit from it. One of the biggest threats to global prosperity, however, continues to come from the spectre of protectionism. I believe it is essential both for moral and economic reasons that we promote free trade, particularly if we are to encourage a policy of trade rather than aid in the developing world. We must reduce the amount of protectionism that the agricultural sector in both Europe and the United States enjoys, the effect of which is to strangle at birth many business enterprises from poorer countries (please see my website article of 1 November 2005). Contrary to so-called progressive sentiments here in the UK, the real problem with the world’s poorest is that their skills and labour are almost entirely unexploited because they live outside the global economy.
Mark Elliott: Are you proud that you hit the airwaves with your criticism and gave Labour an open goal following the Ealing Southall by-election? Such criticism might be worth saying in private but those of us fighting hard in key marginal seats would rather MPs showed some discipline and worked to help us – especially in London!
At the risk of sounding Prime Ministerial, I refer you to the answer I gave earlier!
Your point is well made and as you will gather from my earlier observations, the last thing I wanted to do was upset Conservative activists. Over the six years I have been in parliament I have endeavoured to serve in many of London’s key marginal seats alongside hardworking local Conservative campaigners. As you know, the swing to us in London in both 2005 and 2006 rightly encourages the Conservative Party to believe there should be no ‘no go zones’ in our cities.
Peter Kingsman: Westminster is home many of the top bars and clubs in the country. What steps do you think Westminster Council can take to encourage these establishments to promote responsible drinking and a zero tolerance policy on illegal drugs?
Westminster City Council already works very hard with all establishments to promote civil behaviour, especially for residents, and it does use its enforcement powers to close offending establishments where illegal drugs and drunkenness are rife. I personally served on the Standing Committee for the Licensing Act 2003 which tightened up the laws in order to encourage responsible, small, independent restaurants and bars to thrive.
The Council’s CivicWatch team is always very receptive and responsive when I report residents’ concerns over alcohol and drug-related anti-social behaviour to them, and has been successful in tackling such problems through its close work with the police and local drinking establishments. The Council has also recently put in place measures to prevent the sale of alcohol to the street community to curb the recent rise in anti-social behaviour by rough sleepers.
Harlequin.dane: I have no sympathy with those questioners above who seek to denigrate you for expressing a sincerely held view, shared by many I am sure. If our MP’s cannot express an opinion where is parliamentary democracy going in this country?
Now to my main questions. What should the Party do to minimise the effect of a surge in English nationalism as the next general election approaches. Is a policy of English votes for English Bills enough, or should we at the same time pro-actively seek to give the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments more powers over their economies?
Should we as a party campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland and then campaign to maintain the union?
I fully agree – we need more, not fewer, independent-minded MPs willing to speak their minds.
I must confess I am wary of the Party adopting an ‘English votes for English Bills’ policy and playing to English nationalism. There is obvious inequity in our current constitutional arrangements as a result of devolution, and there is increasing disquiet from many in England who are concerned about the imbalances left by Labour’s political settlement. But attacking Scottish MPs comes across as partisan and negative. Our mission should be to maintain and strengthen the Union and avoid promoting a solution that could be portrayed by our opponents as putting that Union at risk. This would play badly not only in Scotland (which many Conservatives too easily regard as a lost cause) but also amongst middle class, Middle England voters who continue to value the Union and all it has meant for us. It also runs directly counter to the positive, optimistic messages that the Party is trying to cultivate elsewhere.
But of course it is also dangerous to do nothing. The British respect the concept of fair play and there is a deep groundswell of unease about Labour’s one-sided deal which must be addressed.
I therefore propose a rather more bold solution than ‘English votes for English laws’ which I also fear would be unworkable in practice. I should like to see the Conservatives offer all the British people a new settlement that is demonstrably equitable for everyone.
Since the expulsion of most of the hereditary peers, I have, in principle, favoured the option of a fully or largely-elected House of Lords. However, I recognise that such an outcome is unlikely to be within the realms of practical politics, not least as the House of Lords as currently constituted is likely to be hostile and there would be little agreement as to the timing or form of elections. I would prefer to see the creation of a completely new federal parliament. Four, full, national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the existing powers of the House of Commons and over them a federal United Kingdom parliament, which would debate defence and foreign affairs, make treaties and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. It would be funded by a per GDP levy on the national parliaments. There would be no need for extra politicians, as the national parliaments would send representatives to the UK parliament and meet together for its debates, which could be held in the old House of Lords chamber.
I appreciate it is a bold, indeed a radical, suggestion but I believe that the only way to restore the balance of the British constitution, which had served us so well for so long, is to offer the British people this fairer alternative in a referendum once we have won the next election.
Brian Jenner: The Cities of London and Westminster constituency association is very important because it can potentially recruit thousands of young people for social events when they graduate and arrive in London.
Mark's Association is utterly hopeless at this. Its events are far too expensive and old-fashioned. What's he doing to reform his Association?
The Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association (CLWCA) has set up a Young Professionals Group over the past couple of years (I attended one of their events just last week), although I accept that our Conservative Future branch has needed more impetus in the past. Part of the problem has been that many young activists go into the ward or association structure (only one of the four Chairmen in my time as PPC or MP has been older than me!) and onto Westminster City Council, which has one of the youngest age profiles of any local authority.
Incidentally, the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Future branch is being relaunched this Saturday. I understand this involves meeting at the local pub and then visiting the Mamilanjis Club – a break away from the usual wine and cheese format! A monthly drinks event at the Contented Vine on Sussex Street is also being piloted on the first Monday of each month from 7-9pm. This event has been running since March now, and a regular group of young professionals turns up as well as the ward committee and local councillors. There are plans to roll this out across the constituency. I shall be trying to encourage CLWCA to involve people in a broader range of local activities such as these.
Constance Harper: What are the biggest challenges of representing what must be one of the most unusual constituencies in the country?
One of the biggest challenges is persuading people that the Cities of London and Westminster constituency is not just inhabited by wealthy people! It is a genuine inner-city seat with amazing contrasts of wealth and poverty (three of my twelve wards are classed as amongst the twenty percent most deprived in the UK – all, incidentally, have a full slate of Conservative councillors.)
We do lack two things – any agricultural interests (naturally) and no ‘Middle England’. I work closely with the Chinese, Bangladeshi, Arab and Jewish communities locally on a range of issues. Forty-six percent of my constituents were born outside the UK – but then again, so was I (in the British Military Hospital, Hannover). My excellent staff team (Chris, Julia and Emily) would say that they get the most mail on immigration, visas and asylum matters and the shortage of social housing and affordable private accommodation.
Neville Farmer: I, like you, was the lucky recipient of a Grammar School education - one of under 5% in my town. Unfortunately, the remaining 95% of school kids in Kidderminster were dumped into secondary modern schools that refused them even the right to sit GCEs (as they were then called) preparing them instead for a life in the local carpet factories (now closed).
If it is so important to you to create a Britain of well-educated, creative, scientific and technologically aware young people, why is your rose-tinted "bring back grammar schools" campaign focussing on a system that benefits less than a tenth of the schools population?
Surely the point is that we have far too many people incapable of competing in the modern world? How can streaming off 5-10% and leaving the rest to fend for themselves be considered a way forward?
And in what way does a system where school placements are decided by exam results and extremely limited local availability constitute parental choice?
I have never suggested ‘bringing back grammar schools’. However, the 164 that have survived decades of egalitarian muddle-headedness stand tall as beacons of excellence and should be encouraged to thrive. I would also support any new grammar schools if local Conservative councils, parents and activists who care for education in their locality wished to encourage one. In my article on ConservativeHome, I made it clear in the final paragraph why I regard elitist education to be so important in the modern world:
“Like it or not, we now live in a highly competitive global economy. The emergence of the two economic superpowers of the near future, India and China, will have profound effects especially in the field of education… If this country is to thrive and not be left behind we need urgently to promote choice and excellence in all our schools.”
luke: People seem to say lots of bad things about poor Grant Shapps, but I think he did really well in Ealing - he got our vote up by nearly one per cent, which seems a real achievement. Should Grant not be our general election mastermind?
Thankfully that decision is not mine to make!
Ruth Robinson: It is time the Conservative party started opposing - there is so much damage Labour has done, but we hear nothing about it from the conservatives. All we get are daft statements about putting 7p on a pint of beer. What good would that do except to close down more pubs? Under-age drinkers are not found in pubs. Binge drinkers get tanked up before they go out. I was in the licensed trade for 20 years and I know. Everyone is fed up with this surveillance society - what are the Conservatives going to do? We must hammer home to people the terrible waste of public money that has gone on and is still going on. PR trips to Rwanda and windmills on bicycles cut no ice with the general population. How is Rwanda suddenly our problem? It was not even a member of the Commonwealth. Nothing is heard about the terrible tragedy in Zimbabwe. Ian Smith was right. McMillan said years ago that we had laid down the white man's burden. Why are we still picking it up?
I agree with your concerns about effective Opposition and take on board what you say about alcohol consumption. However, there is little doubt that the relatively cheap availability of alcohol (as living standards have risen over the past thirty years) has contributed to the blight of binge drinking.
I am sorry to say I disagree with you on Rwanda – it is and remains, partly our problem. We are permanent members of the UN’s Security Council, which in 1994 abjectly failed to carry out its mandate in Central Africa. Alas, with other developed countries, we owe it to those in Rwanda and Uganda to make amends.
On Zimbabwe, the Conservatives held a debate on the floor of the House as recently as 19 July to pin down the government on their inaction over this human tragedy.
Suzy Gale: What are we doing, as a Party about our core vote and particularly those aged over 60?
I am all for encouraging voters from other age groups and backgrounds, but I firmly believe our core supporters are feeling neglected at this time?
Why isn't it possible to campaign in tandem with our own, longstanding and valued support while encouraging others to come and join and support us?
We need to be doing a great deal more to reach out to everyone.
I appreciate your concerns that we are taking for granted our core vote, especially in our attempts to appeal to the younger generation of electors.
I accept the strategy of the Party over the past eighteen months to reassure the public that our concerns are not simply inward-looking. Over the next four months we will be publishing more detailed policy proposals which will put some meat onto the bones.
You might be interested to read part of an article I wrote in October 2003, which I stumbled across the other day. It sets out my views on political positioning and I suspect is even more relevant today than it was four years ago!
“Be assured that the Conservative Party will hear more – much more – in the months ahead about the importance of appealing to the ‘centre ground’ or the ‘floating voter’. The only way back into contention – so we will be assured by political commentators – is to position ourselves one wafer-thin degree to the right of New Labour in order to appeal to the bulk of the electorate, which has deserted us at the last two General Elections.
The ‘centre’ in politics shifts from one moment to the next and I believe that our task is not to identify where this elusive position is now (nor even try and predict where it will be at the time of the next election) but rather to make the political weather. We should use the luxury of opposition (and it is one of its few benefits) to take risks with public opinion. Obsession with focus group and consensus politics will not pay dividends.
The floating vote slips with the tide and our task as Conservatives is to seek to influence the flow of that tide. If, as we widely believe, the electorate is repulsed by the politics of spin and illusion, then surely I am right in suggesting that authenticity and candour are the most effective weapons in the Conservative armoury? How else can we convince our fellow countrymen and women of what we stand for, unless we are ourselves convinced of the way forward?
This is more than a mere academic or philosophical debate. There is little doubt that, when the Conservatives next form a government, the economy will be faltering as the upwardly spiralling tax and regulatory burden on companies and individuals grows to fund Labour’s hapless mismanagement of public services. Our Party runs the real risk then of being paralysed by inaction if we have failed to develop coherent policy alternatives based upon our enduring principles. For example, we might well find ourselves unwilling to cut back on the burgeoning public expenditure for fear of incurring the wrath of the ever-vocal single-issue pressure groups. Such an irresponsible approach would be a disaster for this country.
In short, the policy development of the forthcoming year may well determine whether the next Conservative government will be like the one which took office in 1970 or, by contrast, that of 1979 – radical, pragmatic when necessary, but always determined to bring this country back to prosperity for those with aspiration, drive and energy, whilst caring for those who are in need of help.”
Paul: Where do you stand on the Hunting Act - would you support turning back the clock and wasting time on its repeal, or do you accept it as progressive animal welfare legislation that's here to stay?
Although I have never hunted (and have no desire so to do) equally I felt before the Hunting Act was passed that it was fundamentally a matter of civil liberties. I was particularly concerned at the overwhelming number of people who opposed fox hunting not out of deep rooted concern for animal rights but from sheer envy politics based on the erroneous perception of fox hunting being a “toff’s sport”.
Can the clock be turned back? Perhaps not, although some huntsmen I know reckon the current situation works well – the law is being widely flouted and is not properly enforced by the authorities. They fear that bringing the legislation back to parliament will serve only to increase demands for its rigorous implementation.
