DC@1: The Ten Reassurance Moments

In the third of a series of ten point guides to David Cameron's first year as Tory leader, ConservativeHome looks at the 'ten biggest reassurance events' of the last twelve months; the moments when the Tory leader communicated a more recognisable conservatism to the party's traditional supporters.

1. David Davis is kept in charge of home affairs and given the lead on drugs policy (although David Cameron later refused to rule out shooting galleries).
2. Ex-director of innovative think tank Nick Herbert is given the job of spearheading police reform and delights the Right with initial thinking.
3. An excellent speech to the Centre for Social Justice promised to build the nation of the second chance. The speech emphasised marriage and the family - a theme that began David Cameron's leadership bid in the summer of 2005 and was reaffirmed in his 2006 party conference speech.
4. David Cameron reaffirms Michael Howard's 'prisons works' policy.
5. The party has also been willing to take on the left-wing media.  George Osborne has targeted the BBC's tendency to crowd out competitors, Hugo Swire has cautioned against an excessive licence fee increase and Tory MPs have lined up to attack BBC profligacy and bias.  Only this week George Osborne proposed to put public sector job advertising online - a move that could be deadly for The Guardian.
   
6. A commitment to scrap the Human Rights Act (which was condemned by Ken Clarke).
7. A commitment to bring in English votes for English laws (which was recommended by Ken Clarke).
8. A re-emphasis of the party's homeland security credentials after August's airline terror scare.
9. The beefing up of the rather banal Built To Last document happened after a nationwide consultation but the beefing up did not include tax or immigration.
10. David Cameron's decision to back the renewal of Britain's Trident-based nuclear deterrent.

The first ten point guide in this series looked at The Peaks of DC's first year and the second at 'Modernising Moments'.  The next will look at The Troughs of the last year.

Comments

[James Maskell]

Some of these arent very reassuring...the Built to Last was still empty and vacuous. As for 5, arent we accepting core parts of what the left wing media says?

The balance is too far in favour of the non-reassuring aspects. The above list is pretty exhaustive...

[John Irvine]

"the beefing up did not include tax or immigration"

Says it all.

[John Irvine]

No wonder the number of Tories prepared to admit they are dissatisfied with Cameron (as opposed to those who are too frightened to say what they think) has burst through the crucial 33.33% ceiling

[John Irvine]

"The next will look at The Troughs of the last year."

Now we're talking

[Editor]

John: please do not multiple post - it produces unnecessarily long threads.

[Londoner]

It's interesting that there is nothing to reassure economic liberals on this list; and I don't find it too reassuring that the start of the link on 8 says "nothing on civil liberties here" either, although that might just have been a matter of timing on the day of the report. But maybe the list reflects the Editor's concerns.

However, I would add three more reassuring moments for me:

1. Confirmation of total opposition to ID cards (a Davis-led improvement on the Howard regime).

2. George Osborne around the time of the Party Conference confirming that tax cuts ARE our longer term aim (together with expressed concern about corporate taxation levels and strong hints that the sting in Inheritance Tax will be radically reduced, possibly in my view leading to abolition).

3. Some movement, however hesitant, to de-couple our foreign policy from US activist interventionism, which has had such disastrous results for Blair but which we have been unable to exploit (I realise this is not re-assuring for some).

What is interesting about your 3 lists so far is how much has been said and done, despite all the criticism about lack of detailed policies. But the proof of the puddings for us close observers, if not necessarily so much for the general public, will be over the next 18 months as the policy groups report and the actual policies are firmed up.

One candidate for a "trough" moment. Trying to trump Jack Straw's 50% elected Upper House with an 80% one instead of properly engaging in the issue and recognising that the great virtue of the Lords is its independence which comes precisely because it is for life and NOT elected.

[malcolm]

Tim you have forgotten the reinstatement of Roger Helmer.Although a relatively small matter it does provide us Eurosceptics with some reasssurance after the sad conclusion of the EPP decision.

[Jorgen]

Now I get Cameron's idea of a perfect society: shooting galleries with free drugs while living in a country that fightes relative poverty through redistribution of wealth. You would be crazy not to take drugs.

[Ali T]

Some great reassuring moments from DC, but the comment regarding built to last sort of sums up those who seem hell bent on criticising anything DC does. It is as if these critics do not understand the issues facing some of our communities.

If I was a cruel man I would go further explaining why their comments [the critics] and their position on a range of issues goes a long way in explaining why many of our city’s have little or no Conservative representation.

Whilst tax and immigration are important issues these are not the only policies that a government has to have, we tired that approach in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and the result was that we failed to get elected. We were not only seen as uncaring but out of touch.

It is one of my favourite sayings, which I know I have used here before, but the definition of insanity is always doing the same thing and expecting different results. I don’t want to loose again and I don’t think the country can afford for us to loose again, so the logical conclusion is that we will have to change and evolve. To reconnect with those voters who left us in the 1990s.

Evolution is nothing to be frightened of either. The Conservative Party of the 1930s was different to the one that emerged in the 1950s and that was very different to the party in the late 1970s and 1980s. So why are there those who think that we should remain firmly wedded to a set of policies that were right for the 70s and 80s but do not meet the challenges of today. Our party is changing to meet the needs of our country and that is what has always happened.

We are making progress. On the doorstep in hostile areas where once a blue rosette warranted a door in the face, those people now want to hear what you are saying. These are some of the people we lost in the 1990s, not all of them, but then it has only been 12 months.

One year on I am delighted with where the Party is going and the position it has adopted on a range of issues that those on the right either want to ignore or become agitated when discussed.

The challenge will be to continue this forward momentum, to start to flesh out the ideas into policy, but we have time to do this.

[Jorgen]

Whilst tax and immigration are important issues these are not the only policies that a government has to have

Of course not!

1. It is always best to first build a sound and wealthy society.
2. These policies are not even on Cameron's list of policies at all.

[Denis Cooper]

Ali T, the lack of Conservative representation in cities is intimately connected with that important issue of immigration, as Trevor Phillips has indirectly pointed out.

[Denis Cooper]

Londoner, a party which believes in "social justice", eradicating "relative poverty" and "redistribution of wealth" cannot possibly abolish inheritance tax. People should think themselves jolly lucky that they're permitted to inherit anything, rather than the entire estate of the deceased automatically "reverting" to the State for appropriate re-distribution. Even from my point of view as someone who believes strongly in "social cohesion" rather than in "social justice", I would only want inheritance tax reformed so that the tax was levied on the legacy actually received by each individual beneficiary, rather than on the estate - which is what the Fabian Society also wants:

http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/press_office/display.asp?cat=24&id=251

so it must be right.

[Jon Gale]

I would add George Osborne saying at the party conference:
“We will reduce public spending as a share of GDP over the economic cycle."

[Yet Another Anon]

I would only want inheritance tax reformed so that the tax was levied on the legacy actually received by each individual beneficiary, rather than on the estate
The beneficiaries though are frequently grieving relatives (unless of course they are wringing their hands with glee), so it perhaps is actually fairer to fall on the estate and be handled by the executor if there is to be some kinds of Death Duties. It would probably just be easiest just to scrap it, it doesn't raise much but it would be best to wait until the Public Accounts are brought into credit to do it.

[Denis Cooper]

But the executors are also usually grieving relatives, and sorting out inheritance tax makes it even worse for them. This would be an incidental benefit of changing the system - the executor would distribute the legacies gross, without having to pay inheritance tax, and each of the individual beneficiaries would then deal with the Inland Revenue and sort out what tax he/she owed on his/her legacy, if any.

[Londoner]

To Denis Cooper who says:

"Londoner, a party which believes in "social justice", eradicating "relative poverty" and "redistribution of wealth" cannot possibly abolish inheritance tax."

That is precisely why some of this mood music about so-called "social justice", "relative poverty" etc are worrying and why the recent Toynbee moment was the worst of Cameron's first year (the pre-spin more than the eventual actual speech). But there are still some grains of reassurance in what particularly Osborne has occasionally been saying. So far as "redistribution of wealth" is concerned, to an extent Oliver Letwin was just stating the obvious. Any tax system involving the better off paying more (even if flat rate actually), some of the poorest receiving benefits and some free-at-the-point-of-use public services is by definition "redistribution". Being an intellectual, Oliver is sufficiently precise to want to point this out.

But accepting redistributive income tax does not necessarily mean accepting Inheritance Tax. Any more than it necessarily involves continuing with stamp duty on share transactions (which there have been strong hints we may abolish).

But I accept I am looking for reassurance, and one only needs reassurance because there are doubts. "The proceeds of growth are to be divided between tax cuts and increases in public expenditure" - of course they are, they always have been. It depends on the balance.

Nonetheless I am disappointed that Denis Cooper is sufficiently taken with redistribution to want to retain inheritance tax, even if taxing the recipient may be preferable to taxing the estate. Some of us are made of sterner stuff, even if we are keener on what Cameron has achieved so far than he is.

[Philip]

All reassuring, but a commitment to scrap the Human Rights Act, a commitment to bring in English votes for English laws, and a re-emphasis of homeland security credentials are perhaps particularly so. Let’s hope DC carries through such commitments with greater determination than that to quit the EPP.

As regards the Human Rights Act, what about also withdrawing from the Convention of Human Rights, which has now moved far beyond its original purpose after the World War II to safeguard against fascism. But this might mean leaving the EU. If so, another reason better off out!

“Prison works” is also reassuring – that is because it protects the public from those who pose a danger. Too may serious crimes have been committed by people who should have been locked up. I think DC has said the criminal is the cause of crime and that poverty cannot be blamed for it. If so this is really welcome, as the idea that poverty is the cause of crime must be one of the greatest deceptions of modern times.

[Larry Green]

"If I was a cruel man I would go further explaining why their comments [the critics] and their position on a range of issues goes a long way in explaining why many of our city’s have little or no Conservative representation."

Is that so, Councillor Thompson? Well maybe you'd like to explain why despite your claimed expertise the Tories have languished in oppostion in Portsmouth for years.

A little bird also tells me that you have been trumpeting your opinion that you should be Conservative candidate for Portsmouth South.

A poor reward for Portsmouth South's excellent and hard-working candidate Caroline Dinenage that she should be challenged by you, I would say.

[James Maskell]

Londoners points are interesting and I accept 3. 1 however ignores the fact we agreed a compromise instead of fighting it to the end... 2 is a wierd one since for our tax policy to be successful it would have to mean a substantial increase in taxation levels. Lets not forget the response to the Forsyth Report.

[steve]

"The definition of insanity is always doing the same thing and expecting different results".

It's not insane to stick to your principles and common sense and wait for the electorate to catch on that they are being fooled by the New Labour project.
The electorate has now belatedly realised what has happened over the last ten years and are ready to avail themselves of an antidote to the socialist poison. Just as this occurs the tory party decide to become Blue Labour.

[matt wright]

Agree with most of what Ali T says. We had to change and we must change to even been in touch with the real world. Like Ali T, I have found that many people now want to talk and listen to us in areas that before you might be lucky to come out alive from! The continued negative posts from some on this site do not reflect the important improvements that we are making as a party. I think the Simon Heffer article today in the DT was typical of this nonsense. Frankly his dislike of DC has reached such a degree that it completely clouds rational comment on the party and how we are doing.

Matt

[Ted]

Matt W
Reading the comments on Heffers piece was like revisting CHome on a bad weekend - all those familiar names (some now barred or asked to leave).

[Tory Loyalist]

Is that a definition of insanity?

I would have thought "Hug a Hoodie" was a more obvious example of sheer raving lunacy.

[Esbonio]

I am so glad for those on this thread who are
getting a positive reaction to Cameron. Where I live just about everyone (correction, everyone from yong to old)is despairing of this givernment and thinks, I am sorry to say, that the Tories lead by Cameron are a complete joke and waste of time.

[Richard Carey]

I would have thought "Hug a Hoodie" was a more obvious example of sheer raving lunacy.

But not as obvious perhaps as parroting your Labour opponents' spin for them on what was actually a thoughtful set of ideas...

As for today's routine outpouring from the Heffersaurus, I'm genuinely finding it difficult to care now. He's an opposition supporter, and a pretty bile-filled one for reasons best known to himself, so I'd add the required pinch of salt.

[Esbonio]

excuse typos

[James Maskell]

Continued negative posts is a sign of disillusionment. Many despair of the continually positive posts by some posters here, so lets not start moaning about negative posters as if the Cameroons dont moan constantly about critics. They have just cause.

[Esbonio]

Well said James Maskell.

[Tory Loyalist]

Well excuse me Richard but I think "Hug a Hoodie" is an excellent paraphrase of Cameron's ramblings about showing love to these young thugs.

What these scum could do with is a taste of corporal punishment.

And for the worst of them - assuming that this country is now so lily-livered that there is no chance of bringing back the rope for murder - life should mean life.

Cameron is the worst type of socialist do-gooder - the type who sympathises more with the criminal than the victim.

As for Simon Heffer, it's good to see that the Telegraph is now crowded with other journalists who take a jaundiced view of the Boy Wonder.

Heffer first encountered Cameron when he was bag-carrier to Norman Lamont. He despised him then and despises him still.

It;s a sentiment that's growing.

[Richard Carey]

TL, I think as usual that whatever I say we're not going to agree on this, but some of your misrepresentations are worth correcting. I swear, if you didn't exist, Labour would have to invent you!

DC has been consistent in saying that those who commit crimes should be punished and should expect tough sentences. I can't agree with you that we should bring back the death penalty (one for another thread, I think!), for moral and process reasons, but wouldn't accept being branded "lily-livered" by a guy who hasn't the courage to put his name to his views.

(Btw, are you the token hanger and flogger who used to stand up at Conference every year? Just wondering...)

Sympathising with the criminal rather than the victim? Not in the least. But if you can act to prevent people from becoming a criminal in the first place, isn't that the best way to protect the public in the long term?

A rebuilding of civil society, responsible parenting, good education, opportunity - and yes, of course a tough and fair criminal justice system. All these things have their place in helping solve the problem of crime in our country. But to neglect the more sophisticated components is the kind of failure New Labour's been guilty of for too long.

Far too long a post I'm afraid, but an important issue.

[Josh]

I have to agree to a degree with those defending DC's rightist credentials. He's no Thatcherite, that's for sure, but he's more right wing than people give him credit for.

The thing is that the media love playing up the Leftist angle because it makes them look intelligent (as if!). Think about it. On the one hand, we have Winston Churchill, the greatest war leader their ever was and arguably the best Prime Minister we ever had (I know Thatcher is high on the list, but she was also divisive). On the other hand, we have a Lefitst, pompous journalist, whose ego exceeds the size of this already bloated State. Now the media sell a story that the Tories have abandoned the hero and gone in favour of their chattering class darling. If I was a chattering class moron, I'd feel very good about myself.

Check this out from ASI on the Cameroonian strategy.

The country voted right wing in 1997. They got centre-left in 2006. The country may vote centrist in 2009, but they will get centre-right afterwards.

[Richard Carey]

The country may vote centrist in 2009, but they will get centre-right afterwards.

I think it's dangerous, Josh, to suggest to the electorate that what they see is not what they will get - the "Howard Flight" brand of disingenuity, so to speak.

Practical circumstances always affect what can be delivered in governement, but even discounting the political cynicism of the age, people will not stand for that kind of deception.

Vote centrist, get centrist. Or even Vote Blue to go Green... I'm interested as to where you think an additional agenda might come from. What on earth would be the motivation?

[Josh]

They're standing for it now.

It's all in the ASI post and Diane Abbott has said something along those lines as well.

[Richard Carey]

Diane Abbott has said something along those lines as well.

Ah, well, if a Labour MP accuses us of duplicity then it must be true, Josh.

Don't know what that bear I came across in the woods the other day was doing, but he looked a bit embarassed...

[Josh]

Actually, what she said was that the Labour party promised not to raise taxes in 1997 and now the Conservatives are promising not to cut them. She pointed out what a turnaround it was and then Andrew Neill pointed out that since Labour lied to us, it would naturally follow the Conservatives would.

[Richard Carey]

Andrew Neil pointed out that...

He didn't point it out, that would require it to be fact, he opined - and as an excellent journalist he's (rightly) trying to provoke a controversial response from somewhere.

Thus feeding in to the cynicism surrounding politics, I suppose - "you all lie, so we don't trust any of you - we may as well stick with the ones we've got...".

The Conservatives have, in fact (genuine, reported fact, not oppo speculation) pledged to shift the burden of taxation away from the good (families, hard work, enterprise) and towards the bad (pollution, carbon emissions etc). Which part of that do you disagree with?

What's your electoral perspective on this, Josh? You report this on here not as reports of reports, but as the intention of the Party leadership. Are you looking forward to a Labour victory as well?

[Richard Carey]

Andrew Neil pointed out that...

He didn't point it out, that would require it to be fact, he opined - and as an excellent journalist he's (rightly) trying to provoke a controversial response from somewhere.

Thus feeding in to the cynicism surrounding politics, I suppose - "you all lie, so we don't trust any of you - we may as well stick with the ones we've got...".

The Conservatives have, in fact (genuine, reported fact, not oppo speculation) pledged to shift the burden of taxation away from the good (families, hard work, enterprise) and towards the bad (pollution, carbon emissions etc). Which part of that do you disagree with?

What's your electoral perspective on this, Josh? You report this on here not as reports of reports, but as the intention of the Party leadership. Are you looking forward to a Labour victory as well?

[Josh]

Which part of that do you disagree with?

I'll have you know I just made that very same point on airliners.net regarding Brown's passenger duty hikes. The problem is not the Pingu taxes on passengers, but the lack of cuts elsewhere. It's a revenue grab to through down the Big Black Hole of the NuLab public sector.

If Osborne is serious about matching Pingu taxes with tax cuts where it counts, then great (though I think he's ignoring supply side economics to much).

Are you looking forward to a Labour victory as well?

If DC would show the same support to nuclear power stations as he does to nuclear weapons, then the answer would be an unequivocal no.

[John Irvine]

Richard Carey's endless bleatings in favour of Cameron bear the clear stamp of CCHQ interference.

Such slavish "loyalty" is deeply suspect.

[steve]

"If you can act to prevent people from becoming a criminal in the first place, isn't that the best way to protect the public in the long term?"

In the long term (20 to 30 Years) possibly, but we are not living in normal times and we have not got the luxury of that sort of time span. We need a hardline message to go out now to the thugs who have never experienced any form of discipline in their lives.
A soft approach to violent crime would be the the equivalent to Winston Churchill advocating an anger management course for Hitler in the 1930's.
The hard pressed people of this country need protecting now, not a promise of results at some time in the future.
Believe me this attitude would be a vote winner, I know from my own experience of my 20 to 30 year old children and their friends that they are crying out for this as much if not more than their elders. Forget appeasing the Guardianistas they are not as numerous as DC & co imagine.

[Denis Cooper]

Agreed, Steve. There are social problems which have built up over decades, and the root causes can't easily be removed in a few years. So while we're waiting for the long term solutions to work we have to contain the immediate consequences.

[Richard Carey]

Richard Carey's endless bleatings in favour of Cameron bear the clear stamp of CCHQ interference. Such slavish "loyalty" is deeply suspect.

John, calm down. I know that was an early morning post, but perhaps you should find a good brand of decaff, the early-morning coffee is doing funny things to you.

Being branded deeply suspect is a good move for me - the other week someone called me an enemy of free speech before breakfast, so I'm obviously going up in the world!

I know I'm off-topic, but thought I should clarify my status for the conspiracy theorists here.

For the record, I am not and have never been a paid employee of the Conservative Party. I do not work at CCHQ, I have been a voluntary activist in the field since mid-2001. I have been completely open here about my involvements with the Party.

John, if you doubt my credentials you are more than welcome to contact my colleagues at South Holland & The Deepings Conservative Association for confirmation, but I hope you'll agree with me that they should have better things to do!

[matt wright]

Richard, don't worry, as soon as you say something positive about the party and our lead in the polls some people on here accuse you of working in CCHQ!

I see that Tory Loyalists posts are getting ever more personal and aggressive.

Matt