Malcolm Dunn: The Built To Last roadshow starts rolling

Malcolm Dunn, regular ConservativeHome contributor, reflects on last night's 'Built To Last' roadshow event.

Last night around 100 Conservative party workers, activists and CH bloggers gathered in a compact little venue in Hammersmith for the first of what I understand will be a number of debates around the Built To Last statement of values and principles.  David Cameron was there to both explain the reasons for BtL and take questions from the audience.

He began by explaining why he feels it is essential that the public is made aware of this statement and that the party both understands and accepts it.  He made particular reference to those points which dealt with economic competitiveness, economic stability, the need to be representative of a modern Britain and finally the environment.

Our esteemed Editor, Tim Montgomerie, was then asked to make a short presentation of the ConservativeHome poll on BtL.  He was able to tell David Cameron that according to the poll BtL will be passed by the membership with a very large majority.  He warned that the ballot had a Soviet feel to it and that turnout might be derisory if members aren't given meaningful options to amend BtL.  Tim did point out however that if members were given a choice between 'sharing the proceeds of growth' and a clearer commitment to economy-boosting tax relief interest in the process might increase.  Cameron was emphatic that this wouldn't happen and explained that people needed to be reassured that their mortgages wouldn't rise and that their current standard of living would not fall.  He was both plausible and passionate in defence of 'sharing the proceeds of growth'.

As Conservative Home was co sponsor of the event two bloggers (Oberon Houston and I) had been asked to ask probing questions about two of the BtL statements.

Mine was the statement: 'We are an open and inclusive party.  We will act to ensure that our party at every level is representative of modern Britain'.  I chose to question this saying that I believed it was image politics.  Rather than have this imposed from the centre, it would be more sensible to trust local associations to make the right choices as to who should represent the Conservative party.  David Cameron replied that having more women was essential not just for how we look to the outside world but also how we govern.  He also made the familiar refrain that we have only 5 more women MPs than we had in 1932 and that painful as it was that has to change.

I confess that whilst I expected this answer I was a little disappointed with it. The imposition of candidates from the centre was pushed through with no debate and throughout the evening there was huge criticism of the Labour Party for its attempt to micromanage everything and adopt a top down approach.  Isn't the imposition of priority lists etc exactly the same thing?  Sadly there was little opportunity for follow ups but a young Asian woman from the East end made the very interesting observation that she had been very welcome into the Conservative party and was doing fine without any positive discrimination.  Would people now think that she could only do well because of it?

Oberon was next.  He looked at the statement 'We will improve the NHS and schools for eveyone, not help a few to opt out.  But public services paid for by the state don't have to be run by the state.' Oberon asked Cameron to look at the political implications of this.  Mr Cameron explained why it was absolutely essential that the public know that we intend to raise standards for EVERYONE which was why patients passport have been abandoned as they could not help all people.  He then gave us a number of examples where providers outside the NHS could help provide better services.  He also made the welcome point that money isn't everything and there was a need to restore discipline in schools.

Sadly the meeting then went off topic and Cameron had to deal with several questions that had little to do with Built To Last including noise pollution from aircraft, building more affordable housing and how to ensure that money to education actually reached the schools. Cameron answered each question skilfully and well but with an absence of detail on what he would do.  This is understandable but as the months pass some difficult decisions may have to be made.

The meeting then drew to a close after little more than an hour. Cameron admitted that the time devoted to this had not been sufficient which was absolutely true.

At these events in future I would recommend that much more time is devoted to debate, that the events should be smaller with no TV cameras to stimulate genuine discussion and that off topic questions are banned.

Cameron came across as highly personable, extremely articulate and excellent at giving answers that relate to his personal experience.  He does need to update some of his anecdotes and some of the jokes are getting old.  I must have heard that he thinks Frank Dobson is a dinosaur quip half a dozen times now!

On a more serious point I would also hope that more thought is given to whether positive discrimination (or 'positive action' as Cameron prefers to call it) is in the best interests of the party or the country.

RELATED LINK: Francis Maude asks ConservativeHome readers for their views on Built to Last.

Comments

[Editor]

Thanks for this Malcolm.

I was very impressed with David Cameron yesterday in terms of his likeability and pitch. I'm not sure he really dealt with my concern that Built To Last is too uncontroversial to deserve being put to an expensive ballot of party members.

The event also, for me, showed the superiority of blogging. There was something very unsatisfactory about last night in only being able to put one question and not being able to have a follow up question or comment on other peoples' questions. The debate that is taking place on the thread provoked by yesterday's Francis Maude's Platform article is much superior to anything that happened last night. What would be great would be for David Cameron and Francis Maude to sit at laptops for an afternoon and debate with party members on a blog. I think it would be much more rewarding for all sides.

DC said he reads comments on this blog... If you're reading this one, Mr Cameron, please consider this an invitation to a BtL ConservativeHome debate!

[libertorian]

Does anybody have any info as to where the future roadshow events are likely to be?

[Editor]

This from CCHQ, Rich:

*Details of the roadshows are as follows:

WED 17 MAY
LONDON
THU 1 JUNE
MANCHESTER
THU 8 JUNE
EXETER
MON 12 JUNE
CAMBRIDGE
WED 21 JUNE
BIRMINGHAM
WED 28 JUNE
NOTTINGHAM
MON 3 JULY
GLASGOW
THUR 13 JULY
NEWCASTLE
MON 17 JULY
CARDIFF
WED 19 JULY
SOUTHAMPTON
FRI 21 JULY
LEEDS

*Further details regarding locations and times will be announced in due course.

[libertorian]

Cheers, Editor.

Bit disappointed they haven't found a spot for Sheffield, particularly when were always talking about winning seats in the northern cities, but I suppose it can't go everywhere.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Details are available on the Conservative Party website, Rich.

I'm thinking about signing up for the Cardiff event - are any of the other CH regulars going?

[Oberon Houston]

Yes it was a good event, and David is getting better and better at these things, which is good to see. Previously he was good a delivering speeches, but tended to get flustered when taxing (ho ho) questions were asked.

Regarding Public Services, I still think we need to be very careful over this issue - Labour will take the BtL statements and say that we intend to put them through the wringer and the Rich can go private. We need to tie out BtL statement into the "sharing the proceeds of growth" more tightly to reassure doubters that we are committed to high standards of public services.

[Ted]

I've signed up for the Southampton one - waiting confirmation but if confirmed would be pleased to meet up with any regulars (or lurkers).

[William Norton]

I think you need a mixture of public events like this and blogging; they're complementary and one is not necessarily superior to the other. Also: whatever happened to the Conservative Policy Forum? Is that still going? Throw BtL out to them for their views.

Where blogging scores over public meetings is the on-line discussion allows you to tweak a draft. Earlier in the year we went through each of the statements and suggested amendments. I've not followed the detail of this - and this may be a naive question, but here goes - can any one say to what extent if any there have been drafting revisions?

[Mark Fulford]

I am very mindful of what James Cleverly told me last night: the selection panels will be looking at the few white middle-class men on the A-list and deciding that they must be really special to be there despite the positive discrimination against them. It’s basically the law of unintended consequences in action.

However, cynical as I am, I still think the A-list is the right course of action. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to the diversity of our MPs. But that’s all pretty irrelevant to the biggest task that David Cameron faces: to change the perception of the Conservative party. To do that, our proposals have to play-out well in the TV media. Malcolm is absolutely right that this has the whiff of image politics, but that whiff is unavoidable in the game.

Clearly a Road Show infront of cameras is more about PR than actual discussion. Only a fraction of the views there could actually be expressed. The PR is necessary, but I totally agree with Tim: a good blogging session would be far more productive at revealing members' views!

[RobD]

I agree that last night was far too short and not interactive enough*. Apart from a brief mention by Tim we did not get to discuss the tax issue which I feel is the most controversial point in this document. I trust that DC is true to his word and checks out the Maude Platform discussion.

*I think the intention to be interactive was there but the cameras, audience diversions and lack of time stifled debate.

[Chad]

Tim/Malcolm,

Did you come away feeling that the membership has any chance to actually change the content of B2L before the vote?

Do you think a statement on state funding should be added to B2L to be part of the vote?

It seems bizarre that such a widely opposed policy would not be included in a vote on party direction. Or is it all just a feel-good soviet-style mandate that you fear Tim?

[johnC]

Good to see that Cameron has abandoned his lime green tie in favour of a nice soft light blue.

[Sam Coates]

I'm afraid I couldn't make it because of an exam this morning.

Will probably go to the one in Manchester, have just registered for it online. The CP website has improved markedly of late.

[Andrew Woodman]

I agree John. That tie is a shocker. Sorry if you're reading Mr Cameron but it is.

[Helen]

What must we, non-Tories but potential Tory voters, do to make it clear to the spoilt rich boys at the head of the party that we do not need them to "create excellence" or "improve health and education for all". We have had a state run education for over 130 years and a state run health system for almost 60 years and both are going from bad to worse. The best thing the state can do is to get out of it as far as that is possible. Giving as much choice to people through some voucher system together with greater encouragement for insurance schemes will be helpful to everyone not just the rich. That has been the socialist propaganda in this country for years. Never did I think that I would hear it from the Conservative leader.

[Annabel Herriott]

I signed up on line for July 21st, Leeds. Depending on where they hold it, parking is a nightmare. If very central, take the train.

[Chris Palmer]

Anyone else going to Exeter?

[Patsy Sergeant]

I will sign on for the Southampton one and try to get there.

[James Maskell]

Being stuck in Thanet, I cant make any of the roadshow events.

[frank aylesford]

spoilt rich boys is far too apt a description to be comfortable - but I'd extend it to spoilt rich boys who will do anything to get what they want including ditching conservative principles completely.

And the thing to note is this - if they are rich (and I have no idea if they are) the likes of our leader and shadow chancellor certainly haven't made it themselves.... So where's their experience of the real world?

[malcolm]

No Chad I do not think if last night was anything to go by that members can change B2L.They will have to vote for or against as it stands.
I hope you have made your comments on state funding known to Hayden Phillips' commission.Serf highlighted the website address earlier this week.

[Oberon Houston]

It is very encouraging to see people signing up for this.

I would reccommend that you go to one of these events if you can, as I was impressed by how open the questioning was. If you feel strongly about something (like the A-List for example), then it would be good to address it at one of the BtL events.

[Oberon Houston]

ps, Malcolm, that was a very good report on the event yesterday.

[Chad]

hope you have made your comments on state funding known to Hayden Phillips' commission.Serf highlighted the website address earlier this week.

Hi Malcolm
You bet I did, Serf kindly mailed me the link.

I basically proposed that despite with massive opposition, being realistic, the big 3 will inevitably push forward with these disgusting state funding plans, so the parties should be made to choose between state funding and heavily limited private donations (<£1000 pa) or waive any entitlement to state funding but donations would not be capped.

That way, the public can choose between private or state (taxpayer) funded parties.

[Hugh]

Thanks for your report Malcolm, was good to meet up with you and the others after the event. I will be linking your report to my blog's coverage of the event, the detail you have included is of great interest I am sure to those that weren't there.

[Chris Palmer]

Tim, will ConservativeHome have a presence at the other events?

[Chad]

No Chad I do not think if last night was anything to go by that members can change B2L

Tim, you dropped your conHome campaign to drop the B2L vote because you believe that members will be able to change B2L before the vote.

If members come away with the same pessimism, will you reinstate the opposition to the vote?

[malcolm]

Thanks for the kind words Oberon & Hugh.

[Chris]

A great summary of the evening Malcolm, and like everyone I believe the 1 hour that was allocated was far from enough.

Tim, Hugh, James Cleverly and everyone else who I met, thanks for all of the interesting discussion. It was brilliant to be able to fit in, despite being the youngest person present!