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.

[True Blue]

In this troubled world we definitely need more money spent on defense, and particulary intelligence - humint as a priority. We will need to replace our nukes and the money for that will have to come from somewhere.

The US will spend $441bn this year, up 52% from 2001, and 43% of the world's military expenditure. In 2004 we were fourth in the world for military expenditure after the US, China and Russia. Clearly that's not good enough with all our commitments.

Bush has cut taxes, particularly those for wealth generators, but his spending is AWOL. The federal deficit is large, tax revenue is decreasing and expenditure as a proportion of GDP has gone up. Lower personal taxation will lead to increased revenue, but this will take time to filter through. These are not low tax and spend policies, and not a model to follow.

Although I admire attempts to make public expenditure more efficient; public provision is inherently inefficient, so decreasing public provision is the way to go. The perception that a "cut" in public spending guarantees a "cut" in services, when private providers should be doing the job in many cases should be fought.

Kyoto is worse than useless. We'd be better of fitting a free carbon filter on every single new coal fired power station in China than bothering trying to get down our own energy consumption. If we are going to spend a fortune on tackling global warming, we should do this as efficiently as possible - energy efficiency. Changing building regs so that all new build has to comply with more strenuous requirements is a start.

When people are trying to blow us up, some compromise should be made between national security and civil liberties - but only if it can demonstrably work. Locking up ten or thirty people without trial for 90 days if there is strong evidence that they will do something unpleasant is fine. People who can't get bail are locked up for longer than that all the time, and there are no complaints. An ID card that does nothing to stop terrorism is a foolish idea. Until the IT people can work out how to run a decent sized database without screwed up information, we should leave this alone. Perhaps we should contract it out to the clucbcard people?

Cameron won't be able to reverse the civil partnership, but perhaps it could be extended to other people who wish to share their life and wealth, not just the homosexuals. A general emphasis on family values and not just horrible moral relativism would make sense.

[Richard]

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

If they are non-conservatives then what are they? They're not liberals, libertarians or socialists and only the far-left would call them fascists.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

I have spoken to at least one leading Tory MP on the Canuck Tory victory. He told me and a large audience that there is nothing to learn from the Canadian Conservatives. How sad...

I think Cameron & Co are deluded themselves into thinking that moving to the left actually helps right-of-centre parties to win elections...

[Chris Palmer]

Who was this "one leading Tory"?

[Andy Peterkin]

"I think Cameron & Co are deluded themselves into thinking that moving to the left actually helps right-of-centre parties to win elections..."

Quite right. There is a very troubling "year zero" mentality around the current leadership.

[malcolm]

You speak for yourself Tory T you most certainly do not speak for me.A government that lies about this subject as ours appears to have done is a government that deserves to be exposed and punished.

[PassingThru]

Wasp said;
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.

OK, your first bit that Kyoto doesn’t cover everyone makes sense, but unfortunately for us, burying their heads in the sand is what the big players who matter want to do. Fact.
China, India, might even have good intentions, but their astounding growth will have insatiable demand, and we have no right to restrict it.
Maybe naively, I was hopeful the recent spike in oil prices might encourage Americans to change their attitudes. It didn’t. The reality is that it was used as another reason to start drilling in Alaska. That is the huge gulf between us and the countries that matter. We can keep putting more and more national targets on business here all we want. But so long as oil is traded on a global market, it means zilch, zero, nil for the consumption of oil and its burning. In fact, as our demand falls, so might oil prices and give the US and China more oil for less money – and given they burn less efficiently, actually putting off more pollution output per input unit of oil. This is the inescapable reality of the situation.

Your analogy of having a competition (I presume about carbon trading) is like competing in a world cup minus any of the worlds biggest teams. It might make us feel good, but winning is pretty much meaningless.
Unfortunately, I think the most forward looking party on climate change will not be the party that tries to minimise it, but how to best cope with it, and prepare for it.

[Martin Smith]

Missing the debate in between and going back to the start of the thread here.

The problem with the analysis of the 4 "Conservative" anglophone leaders is that 4 of the criteria do not distinguish Conservatism as a whole, they single out the Editor's strand of Conservatism, which has mistakenly been attributed to all Conservatives, which believes that all Conservatives must be religious, that there is a choice between civil liberties and fighting terror, and that our religion leads us to oppose gay marriage, and, unconnected, that we are on the side of bigger defence spending.

If, however, you don't recognise the false choice between fighting terror and maintaining presumption of innocence and free speech, if you think that religion suppresses the capability to individual thought so essential to Conservatism, and that the state telling people who can marry and who can't is a form of big-government moral dictatorship, and that defence spending should be an entirely pragmatic decision, then all you're left with as essential elements to everyone's Conservatism is anti-Kyoto and tax cuts.

As for Kyoto, I don't think DC has actually said the word "Kyoto" when it comes to tackling climate change. He also has not ruled out lower taxes, merely saying they come second to stability. As low taxes are essential to prosperity and stability, they are a logical result of a commitment to stability.

The important thing though are the missing criteria, the individual ones that got each of those men elected.

Harper: opposed a corrupt government: check.
Howard: removed a PM (Keating) who had been in for 20 years and thus was universally hated (check) and then run the economy exceptionally well (check).
Bush: Live in a deeply conservative (small c) country and have 2 bumbling morons as opponents: check.

None of these applies to Cameron and so comparisons are a little innapropriate IMHO.

[Alexander Drake]

Editor, I noted that you said:

All three were, however, able to stick to traditional conservative causes and not put their electors off.

In the case of John Howard, he ran as an unreconstructed 'white picket fence' conservative in the 1987 federal election, and lost - badly.

In 1996, John Howard moved back to the Centre, reassured the swinging voters, and then won.

Since then, he's (properly) regained his place on the centre-right - but only AFTER he was elected, not before. The key is to regain the trust of the punters, and THEN to pursue an agenda.

[John Hustings]

"In 1996, John Howard moved back to the Centre, reassured the swinging voters, and then won. "

You said before that the swing voters in Australia are conservative. Make up your mind!

[tory guy]

"Since then, he's (properly) regained his place on the centre-right - but only AFTER he was elected, not before. The key is to regain the trust of the punters, and THEN to pursue an agenda."

But Cameron doesn't want to pursue that agneda. It would be different if we were talking about William Hague coming back. The better analogy is with him and Howard or Harper but, unfortnately, Cameron is leader of the Conservative Party (for now), not Hague.

[tory guy]

Perhaps it goes to show that if you lose an election or two you shouldn't go and do something stupid, like the UK Conservative Party now.

[James Hellyer]

You said before that the swing voters in Australia are conservative. Make up your mind!

It seems they're lefties if you want to justify Cameron moving to the left by using the Howard example, and conservative if you want to say how they aren't like our swing voters, so Cameron can't follow the Howard example.

[tory guy]

"It seems they're lefties if you want to justify Cameron moving to the left by using the Howard example, and conservative if you want to say how they aren't like our swing voters, so Cameron can't follow the Howard example."

Exactly. Since the argument appears in many forms on this blog, this is not meant personally but, broadly speaking, it is being advanced by a few different groups of people. (1) The faction that now controls the leadership of the party who want the "Right" to believe that something better lies around the corner; (2) activists who don't have any power but don't want anything to do with tax cuts, education vouchers, social insurance etc and (3) people who want to believe it is desperately clever to pretend not to believe in said things and then, hey presto, deliver them after a general election. (3) is perhaps the saddest group of all considering that Cameron and cronies have no intention of doing this.

[tory guy]

Perhaps there is a fourth group of activists who just go along with whatever the new leadership says and does. Some of them want something I suppose and others just want to support the leadership whoever they may be.

[Richard Carey]

"is as obnoxiously unconservative as Grant Shapps' pathetic self-publicising fuss-about-nothing on DNA databases."

Publicising an issue is bad? Having a Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party on national news broadcasts, talking about a key civil liberties issue is a bad thing? Strange, I must have been playing the wong game all this time.

Grant Shapps showed himself prior to the last General Election to be one of the best campaigners in the Party.

I get worried when people start branding things conservative and un-conservative. I get this strange sense of deja-vu from somewhere in American history...

[Matthew Oxley]

After conducting some investigations on gareth I am led to firmly believe that he was indeed the unsuccesful candidate in the 2001 election, findings as follows:

- Gareth Compton was a candidate at the 2001 election for Vauxhall

- gco , the start of his email address is perfectly likely to represent somebody called Gareth COmpton.

- Following his email link, a search for that name finds a match at 'no5.com'.

- Cllr Gareth Compton has multiple profiles when googled, and looks quite like a barrister

- He is also mentioned on Cllr Lindley's weblog, who is another person who expresses considerable dislike towards regular conservative members

- gareth also shows an aversion towards us, linking into to the point above

So, if you are happy to believe the above (In spite of some of the absurd assumptions ;)- beer ) then it may be an answer to michael's question.

If so then I find it quite revealing how he refers to us as 'you people', it could have almost come from Francis Maude himself. I fear the mention of tax cuts now makes me seem almost as evil to these modernising brand, as communists do to Americans.

[James Hellyer]

If so then I find it quite revealing how he refers to us as 'you people', it could have almost come from Francis Maude himself.

"You people" is a lovely formulation, isn't it? It's beloved of racists and indeed anyone else wanting to dismiss and group while distancing themselves from it.

How modern...

[tory guy]

" "You people" is a lovely formulation, isn't it? It's beloved of racists and indeed anyone else wanting to dismiss and group while distancing themselves from it. "

It's just like how Maude at the conference spoke to those present eg, in reference to Paul Marlamd: "You are very lucky to have him." They are into us and them, these "modernisers"

[Kenneth Irvine]

Grant Shapps is campaigning to remove the DNA profiles of 24,000 children (aged 10 to 16), who have not been cautioned or charged with a criminal offence, from the national DNA database. It is a worthy cause.

[Editor]

Responding to Peter Franklin's latest attempt to 'fisk' me on Kyoto... all I can say is that you would be an excellent civil servant, Peter. Your arguments are an excellent way of deflecting criticism by getting bogged down in the detail. I could almost hear the Minister of Administrative Affairs using your talking points at the Despatch Box. Talk of limited progress here and there would be designed to send the Commons to sleep. There would be no talk of the economic costs of this limited progress or the fact that targets were being missed left, right and centre. The intent would be to give the detailed impression of progress but we'd all be lost in the woods of impenetrable civil service speak.

These are the facts that no amount of fisking can hide Kyoto from:

* If Kyoto was implemented in full it wouldn't be much more than 1/40th of what environmentalists say needs to be done. The public view of Kyoto would change rapidly if they knew that.

* Even then - Kyoto ISN'T being implemented in full. Most of Europe and Canada are failing to meet their modest targets even though they are deindustrialising (and exporting much industrial capacity to the developing world). The two EU countries that are doing OK on Kyoto are partly doing so for unique reasons. Germany closed down the industry of the old East and Britain made a once-in-a-lifetime dash for gas from using coal.

* Any progress that is being made by Kyoto's developed world signatories is being overwhelmed by emissions growth in India, China etc who have NO intention of signing up to the 39 new Kyoto-equivalent reductions in emmissions that (in the Kyoto fundamentalists' worldview) are necessary.

* However currently inadequate the tech-based APPCD is, it's the only show in town and fortunately the Great US Satan is spending at least as much as green technology as the Angelic Europeans. If the rich west isn't prepared to make the modest sacrifices that Kyoto demanded of it don't expect the development-hungry developing world to make bigger sacrifices. You can argue that they should... but they won't. Period.

[Rob G]

Editor: I don't know whether Peter will accept your 1/40th figure. But, even if it is correct, I think 1/40th (Kyoto) must be better than nothing (APPCD). And, as has been said repeatedly on this blog, both Kyoto and APPCD rely on technology to reduce emissions - the difference is whether you do it with or without targets.

Do you have a view on the experience in California? I thought there was an argument that technology was delivering substantial improvements because Governor Schwarzeneggar (another great Conservative in the mould of Ronald Reagan????) had set targets.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If Kyoto was implemented in full it wouldn't be much more than 1/40th of what environmentalists say needs to be done. The public view of Kyoto would change rapidly if they knew that."

Unfortunately, sitting on our hands and doing nothing whilst waiting for clean technological solutions will achieve even less than that. Forgive me for quoting an old Chinese proverb, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Small progress is better than none.

"Even then - Kyoto ISN'T being implemented in full. Most of Europe and Canada are failing to meet their modest targets even though they are deindustrialising (and exporting much industrial capacity to the developing world). The two EU countries that are doing OK on Kyoto are partly doing so for unique reasons. Germany closed down the industry of the old East and Britain made a once-in-a-lifetime dash for gas from using coal."

It does not automatically follow that because Kyoto signatories are failing to fulfil their commitments that Kyoto itself is flawed. Perhaps they're just not trying hard enough.

"Any progress that is being made by Kyoto's developed world signatories is being overwhelmed by emissions growth in India, China etc who have NO intention of signing up to the 39 new Kyoto-equivalent reductions in emmissions that (in the Kyoto fundamentalists' worldview) are necessary."

I see the old 'they're not doing it, so why should we?' argument has popped up again. Can't you see that this emissions growth in China and India makes it imperative that we make some attempt at counteracting that? In addition, we should be taking positive action to encourage both these countries to reduce their emissions rather than simply shrug our shoulders and say there's no point.

"However currently inadequate the tech-based APPCD is, it's the only show in town and fortunately the Great US Satan is spending at least as much as green technology as the Angelic Europeans. If the rich west isn't prepared to make the modest sacrifices that Kyoto demanded of it don't expect the development-hungry developing world to make bigger sacrifices. You can argue that they should... but they won't. Period."

See my previous point.

[Alexander Drake]

John, you are quite right that I wasn't sufficiently explicit about John Howard tacking to the Centre. My apologies. I should have added "on economic policy".

Howard tacked to the Centre on economics, but his record as a strong monarchist, and his caution on multiculturalism meant he didn't need to elaborate on that theme.

Since then Howard has reassured people worried about economic reform while he has pursued it that it's in the country's interest, but he's only been able to do it from the vantage point of incumbency.

That's where I see the parallel with Cameron - he's seeking to smooth the edges of the Party's image in order to boost electoral success. Sorry if I wasn't clearer.

[Peter Franklin]

....all I can say is that you would be an excellent civil servant, Peter.

You say the sweetest things, Tim!

"Your arguments are an excellent way of deflecting criticism by getting bogged down in the detail. I could almost hear the Minister of Administrative Affairs using your talking points at the Despatch Box."

Gosh! If you call that detail, you should see some of the stuff I've had to wade through. I'm afraid detail comes with the territory -- after all we are talking about the whole planet here. All very tedious for you humanities graduates I know, but there's very little I can do about that.

"Talk of limited progress here and there would be designed to send the Commons to sleep."

Maybe it's just me but I find the idea of millions of tonnes of carbon being saved quite exciting actually. Yes, yes, I know, I should get out more.

"There would be no talk of the economic costs of this limited progress or the fact that targets were being missed left, right and centre."

But I do talk about this. More detail I'm afraid, but important stuff. I even e-mailed you a recent Californian study showing how low carbon technology had made and could continue to make a net contribution to the economy. For some unaccountable reason this failed to make it into ConservativeHome's hot links. An administrative error, perhaps?

"The intent would be to give the detailed impression of progress but we'd all be lost in the woods of impenetrable civil service speak."

The intent would be to provide an objective comparison of Kyoto versus the APPCDC. Again, all very numbers based -- but that's the nature of the beast.

"These are the facts that no amount of fisking can hide Kyoto from:"

Well, let's see shall we?

"* If Kyoto was implemented in full it wouldn't be much more than 1/40th of what environmentalists say needs to be done. The public view of Kyoto would change rapidly if they knew that."

Britain's Kyoto target is a cut of 12.5% from 1990 levels by 2012. This is out of a total recommended cut of 60% by 2050 (again from the 1990 base year). So that about 1/5th of what needs to be done, not 1/40th. Targets for other Kyoto signatories are similar to ours.

Of course, Kyoto doesn't yet include the US, China and India -- and these mega-polluters have a duty to do their part too. This is something the public are well aware of. Most people want America to show some leadership on this issue and get the new industrial powers on board.

"* Even then - Kyoto ISN'T being implemented in full."

Neither is the WTO or the Geneva Convention shall we junk those too?

"Most of Europe and Canada are failing to meet their modest targets even though they are deindustrialising (and exporting much industrial capacity to the developing world. The two EU countries that are doing OK on Kyoto are partly doing so for unique reasons. Germany closed down the industry of the old East and Britain made a once-in-a-lifetime dash for gas from using coal."

We've been through the something-or-nothing argument enough times. On the point of exporting industrial capacity, you miss two crucial points. Firstly, that while manufacturing is declining as a percentage of western economies, it is not declining in absolute terms. For instance Britain manufactures more cars than at any time in its history. Furthermore western industry has made great strides in energy efficiency (more than any other sector) and this accounts for reduced emissions, not the export of industry. Secondly, industry is only one emitting sector -- the domestic and transport sectors are more important. Apologies, once more, for the detail.

"* Any progress that is being made by Kyoto's developed world signatories is being overwhelmed by emissions growth in India, China etc who have NO intention of signing up to the 39 new Kyoto-equivalent reductions in emmissions that (in the Kyoto fundamentalists' worldview) are necessary."

So if a post-Kyoto treaty including the mega-polluters isn't going to happen, then why is the US anti-Kyoto lobby putting such an effort into stopping it? Clearly they're worried that a deal can be done. China and India have the science base to know that climate change is a threat; their geographical vulnerability to climate change is greater than that of Europe and America; and their respective civilisations are thousands of years older than ours, these guys take the long view.

* However currently inadequate the tech-based APPCD is, it's the only show in town...

Very obviously it isn't. Even if it was I wouldn't bother going to a show where there's nothing on stage.

"...and fortunately the Great US Satan is spending at least as much as green technology as the Angelic Europeans."

Then why is their carbon intensity so much higher?

"If the rich west isn't prepared to make the modest sacrifices that Kyoto demanded of it..."

These would be the "modest" sacrifices that are supposed to wreck the economy? Clearly significant cuts are being made -- and that's even with a relatively weak environmental movement. That movement is getting stronger, conservatives who seek to conserve like David Cameron and John McCain are changing things. The battle can be won, which is why the anti-Kyoto lobby is so antsy.

"...don't expect the development-hungry developing world to make bigger sacrifices. You can argue that they should... but they won't. Period."

The poorer countries won't have to do anything for many decades to come. Indeed they'll benefit tremendously from the development of localised renewable energy technologies.

As for the middle income mega-polluters they are getting richer all the time and thus more able to switch to low carbon technologies. This is something they will need to do anyway because they don't have sufficient fossil fuel resources of their own and because local pollution from fossil fuel power plant and transport is causing dreadful problems in their growing cities.

Of course, switching to a low carbon future won't be without its costs. Those interests that currently benefit from the zero-pricing of pollution will suffer. They know this subsidy is under attack and thus are investing part of it in an attempt to influence the political system. A Kyoto-style framework makes this much harder for them. Leaving carbon mitigation to the unilateral efforts of each nation gives the polluters more opportunities to delay what will one day come to them -- if, that is, it doesn't come to all of us first.

[malcolm]

An exceptionally persuasive post Peter.Defending the Bush administration on many issues is quite difficult,defending its stance on the enviroment seems to me to be nigh on impossible.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Defending the Bush administration on many issues is quite difficult,defending its stance on the enviroment seems to me to be nigh on impossible."

Not for our Editor it would seem.

[Mark Fulford]

That post gets the biggest round of applause for the year to date. Very well argued.

[Editor]

I'm completely unpersuaded by Peter's post and I don't receive a single penny from any energy lobbyist so the normal mudthrowing can't wash. This happens to be a principled disagreement.

The bottom line is that most nations aren't meeting their Kyoto targets and any progress being made by Kyoto reductions is being overwhelmed by emmissions growth in the developing world (which is why is point about Kyoto taking us a fifth of the way to green heaven is simply wrong).

We need clean growth - not controlled growth - and that is why technology is the only show in town.

Peter's rebuttal about US tech investment is besides the point. US carbon intensity may be higher but the investment in technology presents the opportunity for greater reductions in the future.

The APPCD includes the world's biggest emitters - China, India USA, Japan. They're willing to consider a tech-based environmentalism. They're not willing to sign up to Kyoto.

[Gareth]

Just out of interest Ed., do you, like President Bush, believe in creationism?

[Andrew]

Forgive my extreme cynicism, but until the APPCD actually comes up with anything, I'll continue to view it as a worthless talking shop for heavy polluters with no intention of changing.

Kyoto may be a borderline train-wreck political compromise, but at least it's in force now.

[Editor]

The members of APPCD are coming up with stuff, Andrew. The US is, eg, outspending EU nations on green technology. What the APPCD needs to do is to find ways of encouraging sharing of technology - getting round the fact that companies that invest in environmental technologies understandably want to make money out of them.

[johnC]

"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"

If the economy is in a mess it is exactly the right time to lower taxes. It is probably in a mess because excessive taxation is starving the productive sector of the economy of the funds needed for investment and growth. Ecomonic growth and tax levels are oppositely correlated.

[Andrew]

"Ecomonic growth and tax levels are oppositely correlated."

Although I'd tend to agree with regard to the British economy, I'm curious how you explain Sweden? Highest quality of living in the world, but with 60%ish govt sector.

[Richard]

Here are some interesting links on the Sweden myth:

http://www.mises.org/story/955
http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040425-102740-9436r.htm
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2210
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji1.html

And check out this table on page 24:

http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/negativeimpact.pdf

Note where Sweden comes.

[Andrew]

Several of those articles are perfect examples of how quality of living isn't merely defined by economic statistics. They also omit to mention that Sweden and the US have exactly the same growth rate over the last 5 years.

Go to any Swedish city and you find excellent transport (their urban metro network is the best I've seen), a health service only second to France's, 100mbit home broadband in the cities (30-50 times faster than typical US/UK) with consequent tech boom, highest lifespan in Europe, low unemployment, low Gini co-eff, probably the lowest corruption levels in the developed world etc etc. Oh, and the happiest populace in Europe.

Bluntly, the reason why people get fascinated with the Swedish setup is that they seem to have escaped the rat race of many other developed countries, yet still maintain economic growth. Personally, I'm curious as to how they've managed this.

[Richard]

"Bluntly, the reason why people get fascinated with the Swedish setup is that they seem to have escaped the rat race of many other developed countries, yet still maintain economic growth. Personally, I'm curious as to how they've managed this."

Small and cohesive population perhaps? Whatever the benefits of the "Swedish model", I doubt it can be exported here. I think Sweden also has one of the world's highest suicide rates, indicative perhaps of the dull uniformity that socialism often brings. Over the past couple of decades Sweden has fallen down the rankings of GDP per head. It remains to be seen how long their happiness can last.

Personally I could not bring myself to support a political system that coerces the nation into parting with 50-60% of its wealth. I'm not philosophically a Nozickian but I sympathise with his minimal statist vision.

[Richard]

Oh, and as for low unemployment, the official level is higher than ours (about 8%) and the unofficial level, as one of those articles mentioned, is reputed to be a lot higher.

That sisn't to deny that the Swedes may still be happy, just that their happiness seems to rest on shaky foundations.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Andrew I largely agree with the point you're making but Sweden doesn't have the highest quality of life in Europe or the world.

According to the UN Human Development Index, Sweden is sixth, behind Norway (1), Iceland (2), Australia (3), Luxembourg (4) and Canada (5).

But sixth is definitely not an achievement to be sniffed at considering the overwhelming burden placed on the Swedish economy by the generous social welfare system.

[Andrew]

>Whatever the benefits of the "Swedish >model", I doubt it can be exported here.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's worthy of some study though, as the Swedes seem to be able to run public projects with vastly greater efficiency than us - for example, their public metro fibre optic kickstart funding system (google Stokab) has been a massive success, ensuring competition, very low prices and much private knock-on benefits (the first UK 24mbit adsl2+ service was started by Swedes last year, while gloriously hopeless old BT is still stuck on 2mbit). In the rest of Europe, such metro fibre networks just won't be built by private finance, because the regulators would never tolerate the long-term monopoly that results (and rightly so).

Given how thoroughly incompetent much of British public funding is, imo we can certainly learn something from the Swedes in that regard. In particular, it looks like we're committed to our pseudo-Marxist health model for the foreseeable future, somewhere where we could really use a good dose of Swedish common sense.

>I think Sweden also has one of the world's >highest suicide rates,

That's Finland, because of the lack of sunlight. Same thing happens in northern Sweden & Norway, and particularly in Russia.

[Andrew]

>Oh, and as for low unemployment, the >official level is higher than ours (about >8%) and the unofficial level, as one of >those articles mentioned, is reputed to be >a lot higher.

Well, everybody fiddles the stats :-) If you use standardised ILO figures though, Sweden is at 6ish % - it's on the upper end of their unemployment cycle though, and should settle back down to 5ish when current growth rates feed into the economy.

For comparison, Britain and the US are around 5%, the EU average is near 9% (!). It seems that just under 5% is about as low as unemployment goes these days (interesting example of globalisation how similar this is for all developed nations, even traditionally different ones like Japan).

[Matt Wright]

I think the comparisons between the CanCons, AusCons, BushCons and the UK are flawed. Canada has voted the Liberals out in a wave of corruption rather than necessarily voted eagerly for the right. Anyway I hear that the Cons in Canada have supported a form of devolution and measures to resolve the split with French Canada. This sounds less trad cons to me and is likely to have put minds at rest. This supports the Cameron approach if anything. As regards US Cons, while no expert on this, their form of Conservativism has traditionally been more broad in its appeal to different socio-economic groups and less divisive so any Bush position should be seen against this background situation. Don't know about AusCons but as I say the comparisons don't prove much.