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.
Oh dear - the siren voice of temptation. The shaking hand reaches once more for the bottle of right-wing populism...
Posted by: Tory T | January 25, 2006 at 08:12
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.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | January 25, 2006 at 08:34
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.
Posted by: Liberty Lover | January 25, 2006 at 08:50
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.
Posted by: Chris Hughes | January 25, 2006 at 09:01
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.
Posted by: malcolm | January 25, 2006 at 09:27
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.
Posted by: Peter Franklin | January 25, 2006 at 09:36
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.
Posted by: Peter Franklin | January 25, 2006 at 09:39
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!
Posted by: malcolm | January 25, 2006 at 09:57
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.
Posted by: Ed R | January 25, 2006 at 09:59
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.
Posted by: Peter Obtain | January 25, 2006 at 10:02
... 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.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 25, 2006 at 10:12
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?
Posted by: Gareth | January 25, 2006 at 10:12
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.
Posted by: Chad | January 25, 2006 at 10:28
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.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 25, 2006 at 10:37
"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.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 25, 2006 at 10:43
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?
Posted by: Michael McGowan | January 25, 2006 at 10:44
The losing candidate in that constituency wasn't even called Gareth!?
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | January 25, 2006 at 10:53
He means 2001.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 25, 2006 at 10:54
I simply asked a question. Thank you for "answering" it.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | January 25, 2006 at 10:55
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?
Posted by: Chad | January 25, 2006 at 10:55
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.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 25, 2006 at 10:57
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.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | January 25, 2006 at 11:09
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.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 25, 2006 at 11:13
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.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 25, 2006 at 11:26
Mark, we need to make the moral case for small government not simply kow-tow to our enemies in the media.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 25, 2006 at 11:26
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.
Posted by: PassingThru | January 25, 2006 at 11:31
"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.
Posted by: Chad | January 25, 2006 at 11:40
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.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 25, 2006 at 11:48
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
Posted by: malcolm | January 25, 2006 at 12:05
"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.
Posted by: Jon Gale | January 25, 2006 at 12:20
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.
Posted by: Alexander Drake | January 25, 2006 at 12:24
"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.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 25, 2006 at 12:35
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.
Posted by: Tory T | January 25, 2006 at 12:37
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.
Posted by: wasp | January 25, 2006 at 12:39
"Cameron has said that he will cut taxes"
When did he say that?
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 25, 2006 at 12:45
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.
Posted by: Editor | January 25, 2006 at 12:55
When did he say that?
It's a charitable interpretation of "sharing the proceeds of growth... if there is any".
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 25, 2006 at 12:55
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.
Posted by: Editor | January 25, 2006 at 13:00
Might I suggest a read of "After Blair: Conservatism Beyond Thatcherism" to understand the difference between the three non-conservatives with ticks and Cameron.
Posted by: Phil Hendren | January 25, 2006 at 13:01
The comments to this entry are closed.