Back to the 'And theory' folks

I have written for The Telegraph this morning about the aftermath of the grammar schools row.  The article's messages will not be new to regular readers of this site but I'd like to quickly emphasise three themes:

David Cameron does have many policies that should energise more traditional Conservative voters.

1. Top of my own personal list would be his support for marriage and his whole emphasis on social responsibility.
2. Eurosceptics should look forward to the formation of a new grouping within the European Parliament - outside of the federalist EPP.  Yes, the pledge has been disappointingly delayed but alongside opposition to the social charter and the EU Constitution there's enough worth having.
3. Police reform.  Nick Herbert's reform agenda should make a big difference to the nation's ability to fight crime.
4. Within the home affairs brief there's also the promise to scrap ID cards, build more prisons, institute a dedicated borders security police force and appoint a minister dedicated to homeland security.
5. I share many activists' opposition to the grammar schools policy but the emphasis on 'grammar streams' in every school, more independence for City Academies and new freedoms for start-up schools are all very welcome.
6. Much greater independence for NHS professionals.
7. Some sort of English votes for English laws.
8. Tax simplification.
9. An opportunity to repeal the ban on hunting.
10. And my single favourite policy of all (within a not exhaustive list): the establishment of a website that would take much public sector job advertising away from The Guardian and put it online.  Sorry Mr Rusbridger.

I'm sure you can all think of other policies.

These policies do not have to conflict with the greener, gentler message of Project Cameron.

The site's core belief is the And theory of Conservatism.   It's perfectly possible to combine a belief in controlled immigration with a generous and passionate commitment to the third world.  Support for traditional marriage as a way to stronger communities and respect for gay couples to enjoy fairness in matters of property, inheritance and tax affairs are perfectly compatible.  'And theory Conservatives' can argue for higher defence spending and an end to arms sales to despotic regimes.

But these policies do have to be sold.

David Cameron is doing a fantastic job at selling the kinder, gentler Conservatism to centre ground voters.  That's why we did so well in winning LibDem council seats on 3rd May.  But he needs help in keeping the base happy.  He needs David Davis and Liam Fox to do on the right what William Whitelaw did for Margaret Thatcher on the left.  Davis and Fox need to be charged with keeping the base energised and the centre right newspapers on side.

Comments

[Comstock]

"And my single favourite policy of all.... the establishment of a website that would take much public sector job advertising away from The Guardian and put it online."

Would you still be advocating this policy if it was currently in the Telegraph or the Times? If so, fair enuff but otherwise a bit pathetic.

You do realise IDS writes for the Granuiad don't you? They have quite a spectrum of opinions in fact, plus it is run by a not for profit trust.

[Traditional Tory]

Excellent article, Tim. I've just been reading it over breakfast.

The power within the party is certainly shifting from the timeservers and windbags to the 'doers' which of course include top bloggers such as yourself.

The development of the internet will be a key factor in the opening up of the truly democratic Conservative Party which awaits us in the post-Cameron era.

[Bill]

Re your comment on Cameron "But he needs help in keeping the base happy." Whilst this may qualify as the understatement of the fortnight, it is not adequate. Cameron needs to stop his arrogant and antagonistic attitude towards many natural conservatives. He needs to modify some of his views and his language.

[TomTom]

plus it is run by a not for profit trust.

Posted by: Comstock | May 23, 2007 at 08:13

and pays Tessa Jowell's friend Alan Rusbridger £600.000 pa......but The Guardian makes its money from classified advertising selling motor cars - Auto Trader I believe....without that publication The Scott Trust would be in Carey Street

[Donal Blaney]

If the leadership spent more time listening to Tim - himself a former CCO advisor under IDS - than many of Cameron's other advisors (some of whom are Johnny Come Latelys to the Party) we would be in a far healthier state as a Party with far more energised activists and a larger poll lead.

[Comstock]

"and pays Tessa Jowell's friend Alan Rusbridger £600.000 pa "

600k- thats disgusting!

So that's why it costs 70 bleedin' pence! No wonder we proles have to be content with the Daily Mirror :D

[HF]

Threatening to take away the Guardian's lifeline is just plain stupid.

It is the in house paper of the BBC and we should say nothing and act later when in office as it is not a policy that is going to win or lose votes. Further antagonising the liberal media has no merit and that will lose votes.

[chips of brookfield]

"And my single favourite policy of all.... the establishment of a website that would take much public sector job advertising away from The Guardian and put it online."

Well done Tim - you would also close down Mr Murdoch's TES as all teacher jobs would also be on the website. Will you let him know or should I?

[Pisaboy]

You make it sound like such a bad thing Chips.

[malcolm]

My too favourite policies. Commit to a decently ecquipped up to strength Armed Forces. Recognise the reality and pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as practically possible.

[William MacDougall]

What support for marriage other than words? The way the adoption issue was handled does not suggest any special support for marriage.

Why should we believe him on the EPP? He has already broken the promise once. The same arguments for breaking the promise are likely to apply.

What independence for City Academies? They will be prohibited from selecting by ability. They will be required to stream and to use phonics.

The only obvious significant difference with Labour is that the Party is more extremist on the environment.

I'm not convinced.

[Graham Checker]

Comstock - I *think* Tim might have meant that "tongue in cheek" ?!

*Graham checks Comstocks brain - notices full frontal lobotomy of the humour section*

[JimJam]

The editorial on here seems to have forgotten we lost the last 3 elections with this sort of rubbish.

[Comstock]

As a policy I don't think it is a bad one. But I suspect Tim's enthusiasm for it has more to do with the Guardian's editorial stance than its potential for efficiency savings.

[Edward]

But don't websites such as this, if they want to help the Tory cause, have a duty to make these benefits quite clear? Often I fear we lose focus and just attack what the leadership does rather than, also, congratulating it for sensible moves.

[HF]

Two of the top 5 issues Mori surveys find that people are concerned about are Defence and Immigration.

So apart from border police, our stance is....

We need to focus on the issue of concern to the voters not issues of concern to us.

Grammar schools were of little concern to the public and concern over education has declined in past 10 years but Willetts still stirred up the grammar school issue.

[Richard Calhoun]

I read your article and agree the Grammar school issue is resolved with the streaming within existing schools to improve the quality.
However I do not agree with " Some sort of English vote for English laws"

If we want localism we need to sort out the National Assemblies, and other layers of government so that power can be genuinely passed down to the local level and I would propose the fairest way would be as follows:

UK Union

The current position of the UK Union is divisive and has started its breakup with the current Assemblies in Scotland and Wales and is being further undermined with the current position of the SNP

The English, a massive majority of the electorate, 52 million to only around 8 million in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have their position totally compromised by the West Lothian question.

The politicians have created a complete shambles and it is time the electorate were given the opportunity to unscramble the current unacceptable position. It cannot be left to Cameron, Blair or Brown to fix because we know they will compromise and settle for what's best for the political establishment, and not the majority.

It's time for a Referendum for all voters in the Union to sort this out to the satisfaction of the majority and the questions that must be addressed are as follows:-

Option 1

The UK parliament and national assemblies to continue under the present arrangement with England being given its own independent parliament, this would mean the break up of the Union as we know it.

Option 2

a/ The number of MP's to be halved and be subject to population criteria.

b/ Parliament to be moved from the South East, the North East would be ideal.

c/ No national assemblies outside this arrangement.

d/ Regional powers of real substance, including taxation, to be transferred to the County Councils.

e/Each of the 4 countries votes would be judged on an individual country basis, and to prevail a majority must mean 60%.

In the event of option 2 winning the majority of votes, then that vote would prevail and we would have re created a strong Union once again.

If the English voted for option 2 then clearly they would proceed, only with those countries that also voted with them.

In the event that any of the other 3 countries voted for option 1 they would be given their independence and would be outside the United Kingdom.

I think faced with these realistic alternatives we should not be surprised if the voters who have Assemblies outside Westminster vote for Option 2.

However I do not believe our politicians have the courage to give the Voters this opportunity. They will simply fudge the issue as usual and wonder why they have an electorate and a Union that is divided and dissatisfied.

[Denis Cooper]

Why would Option 1 "mean the break-up of the Union as we know it"?

[Teesbridge]

Donal's "Johnny-Come-Lately" tag makes me feel REALLY welcome as a new member of the Party. Thanks a bunch.

[Rachel Joyce]

I absolutely agree with Tim. I don't know if DC is deliberately picking a (non)argument with the more traditional grass roots, but that would be a shame in a way (I don't think we need a clause 4 - the cohesion at the party conference was amazing to see).
What we do need is an absolutely top notch professional media campaingn to get the messages that Tim was outlining out. They are the views of the majority of people on the doorstep - but the public don't always know that they are Conservative views.

[Jennifer Wells]

Why do we have to come to ConservativeHome to read a list of ten things like that? What is wrong with conservatives.com and CCO?

[Richard Calhoun]

Denis Cooper
Option 1 would mean the end of the Union as we know it as only English constituencies could vote for an English parliament as in the other 3 countries of the Union currently.
Westminster as we know it would not represent Scotland et al, nor would it pass laws for those countries.

[Jack Stone]

We need to listen to the Editor because he worked for Iain Duncan Smith when he was leader.Oh Please! IDS was a disaster as leader and those who worked for him must take some of the blame for that. If Mr Montgomery had any input in todays leadership we wouldn`t be picking up nine hundred gains in the local elections or be consistently in the lead in the polls we would be constantly racked by divisions and crisis and the Lib/Dems would be competiting again about who is going to be the official opposition.
Lets start recognising the successs we are having today and remember the disasters we had in the past.

[Donal Blaney]

Teesbridge: my use of the phrase Johnny-Come-Lately was directed at some of the leadership's advisors, a handful of whom seem to lack any understanding of what conservatism is and why millions of people vote for the Party. Tim's analysis - the need for the And Theory - is spot on. We can have policies that appeal to traditionalist Tory voters while also embracing the policies that appeal to non-traditional Tories such as you, Teesbridge.

[Richard]

"We need to listen to the Editor because he worked for Iain Duncan Smith when he was leader."

Why on Earth should we listen to you?

[Editor]

JimJam: "The editorial on here seems to have forgotten we lost the last 3 elections with this sort of rubbish."

That's a pretty inadequate argument, JimJam. Here are three immediate responses:

(1) Most of those policies are very popular according to opinion polls and David Cameron is arguably more able to sell them than previous leaders;
(2) We lost the last three elections for many reasons - including the fact that voters were (decreasingly) willing to give Labour the benefit of the doubt;
(3) ConservativeHome does not recommend that those are the only policies we put to the electorate. The And Theory argues for a much more balanced conservatism with strong social justice and environmental policies, too.

I hope this helps!

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

What arrant and arrogant nonsense both this post and your Telegraph artcle are, Mr Montgomerie. How dare you think that you and your website represent the mass of the LOYAL grassroots, or mainstream opinion whatsoever?

The idea that Fox and Davis (popular with certain sections of the membership, those who frequent this website, sure, but not with the general public: just as Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard were) should be more prominent would be absolutely awful. If they must do anything, give them deputy chairmenships and let them schmooze the activists at rubber chicken dinners.

[Johnny Cash]

No offence but your "And Theory" isnt a theory. To call it a 'theory' is a bit pompous, no?

[Editor]

Possibly Johnny, very possibly! Perhaps I'm better just calling it 'the politics of and'. An ugly title but less pompous perhaps.

[welberry]

Its triangulation by another name - first used by Bill Clinton.

Triangulation is often confused with being the third way but in its true sense it is taking policies from the left and right.

[simon]

My worry on 'policy' is that Letwin et al are involved. What we've had at the moment is pseudo-abstract waffle. Hard nosed policies are required on housing, immigration, defence, and a myriad of other areas. We don't want a manifesto worded in PC Pseudo-Talk. Thank you. Oh, i think Cambo has decided to 'ignore' the right wing which in the long run means disaster. Has he met with the 'cornerstone' grouping? In-fact, Cambo cannot afford to alienate Fox or Davis. Their respective votes in the leadership makes that clear- with Fox in the stronger position ( Davis has effectively lost- twice).

[John Reeks]

The 'And Theory' was a nice idea once, but it belongs to a previous generation I think. Its hopelessly out of date, so why it keeps getting thrust into the limelight on this site is interesting...

[Matt Davis]

I really would like to see the likes of Jack (Labour Troll) Stone justify this claim that the only reason we picked up local council seats was because of Cameron's LibDems in drag approach to politics. The truly insulting thing about this claim is that it completely disregards the many years of hard work and local effort on the part of our activist base and Councillors which was the real reason that we did so well. Local elections are principally decided on local issues, there is a wealth of empirical evidence to support that fact, and so it is to our local teams that the credit for most of our local council gains must go. After all our increase in both votes and seats is a trend that has been occurring since well before the current leadership came to power and that trend is a result of local action, not national spin doctoring.

[Andrew Woodman]

What's out of date about having a balanced set of policies John?

[Bradford]

I really would like to see the likes of Jack (Labour Troll) Stone justify this claim that the only reason we picked up local council seats was because of Cameron's LibDems in drag approach to politics.

The leader of the largest political group on Bradford Council has turned down the chance to run City Hall because he will not work with the Conservatives.

Councillor Ian Greenwood was offered the deal by the Tories and Liberal Democrats - in return for an all-party executive and a shared policy agenda.

But Labour refused and now remains frozen out of any power-sharing agreement.
advertisement

It follows a deal brokered between the Conservative group leader Councillor Kris Hopkins and Liberal Democrat group leader Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, which saw both parties yesterday voting to keep Coun Hopkins as leader of the Council.

Coun Greenwood said: "We will not enter into an all-party executive.

"We would have been prepared to do a deal with the Liberal Democrats but they chose the Conservatives. These are the people who have made an absolute mess of the district - why would we want to answer for those that have ruined it in the first place."

Coun Sunderland said: "Labour is the largest party, but does not have the largest number of votes. We were very clear with Coun Greenwood - lead an all-party executive, and we will support you, as long as there is an agreed programme of work."

In a joint statement Coun Hopkins and Coun Sunderland pledged to work together for the good of the district.

It said: "We believe the outcome of the Council's annual meeting has the potential to bring about a new era of mature politics for Bradford district.

"Since the local elections on May 3, we have endeavoured to find common agreement with each other and with the Labour and Green parties on forming an all-party executive with a shared policy agenda for the betterment of all residents in the district.

"Regrettably, such an agreement proved impossible because of the Labour Party's inability to accept the rights and views of other groups on the Council. They have refused to participate in an all-party executive or an agreed programme of work."

The programme, agreed in principle, includes: - money from the sale of Leeds Bradford Airport earmarked to bridge the funding gap in the special schools programme; - a complete review of the contract with Education Bradford - the private company which runs the district's schools; - redoubling efforts to see an early start and successful completion of the new Broadway shopping centre and project to reintroduce the Bradford Canal; - a target of 75 per cent of employment, training and trading opportunities in regeneration schemes to go to local people; - increased delegation of budgets and responsibility to area committees, including £100,000 per ward to fund small investment projects "We believe this is a good day for Bradford Council and, as a result of our agreement, feel strongly that a platform now exists for the district and its citizens to make significant progress towards a more confident and prosperous future," the joint statement added.

[Daniel VA]

"My use of the phrase Johnny-Come-Lately was directed at some of the leadership's advisors, a handful of whom seem to lack any understanding of what conservatism is and why millions of people vote for the Party."

With respect Donal, that's an absurd assertion that flies in the face of all the evidence of the past year and a half.

Those same advisors whom you believe to lack understanding of why millions of people vote Conservative have helped David Cameron deliver two successive years of outstanding local election results and arguably the best opinion poll ratings in a generation.

We have waited and waited for this much-vaunted impending exodus of disaffected traditionalists from the party, but despite the petulant sabre-rattling, dummy-spitting efforts of Simon Heffer and others in the Jurassic Park set, it just hasn't happened.

[Adam]

"my use of the phrase Johnny-Come-Lately was directed at some of the leadership's advisors, a handful of whom seem to lack any understanding of what conservatism is and why millions of people vote for the Party"

because everyone knows real Conservatives lose elections rather than win them?

There is a real danger with the And Theory - that it makes the newer policies look like trojan horse gimicks that we don't really believe in. The problem we've had for the last ten years was that your average Tory MP muttered bland platitudes about the environment, health, education, pensions, jobs, poverty etc., whilst Lib Dems and Labour spoke with a passion and a sparkle in their eye that Tories reserved for Europe and tax cuts. No-one believed we cared about education and health because they saw that we really cared about tax and Europe. If we're not careful the And Theory risks repeating the mistake again.

["A" Lister]

I'm a great fan of the And Theory: Kensington and Chelsea.

[Alan S]

I certainly agree that we need to see more of Liam Fox and David Davis. They would keep the right much happier. I think the grassroots also deserve a Chairman who they have confidence in.

[James Maskell]

I'd like to see the Conservative leadership discussing policy with the Patry members more. The CPF is very much a small group and it would be a better set up with a wider group. Instead of restricting the website to a single person per constituency, why not allow Members throughout the country to particpate in the discussions. This can be easily solved by having a single site with a moderated forum where Members can register and as long as their constituency agrees they are a Member, they should be free to debate issues they wish to bring up.

(Yes basically Im saying a Members only version of CH, but its an idea).

Coupled with that is the selection of less controversial issues in the CPF briefs, which I find somewhat strange. Whilst International Aid is an important issue in tackling global poverty, the issues of healthcare, education and the economy have not appeared in the CPF briefs since Camerons election some 18 months ago.

[Denis Cooper]

Richard Calhoun @ 10:30 -

"Option 1 would mean the end of the Union as we know it as ..."

"... only English constituencies could vote for an English parliament as in the other 3 countries of the Union currently."

Agreed, only voters in England would elect the Parliament of England.

"Westminster as we know it would not represent Scotland et al, nor would it
pass laws for those countries."

But as I understood your Option 1 was:

"The UK parliament and national assemblies to continue under the present arrangement with England being given its own independent parliament"

That English Parliament would not be the same body as the UK Parliament at Westminster, which would continue to have MPs from all of the UK and would continue to make laws for all of the UK on reserved matters.

In fact that English Parliament shouldn't even be located in London - it should
be taken well away, to somewhere near the geographical centre of England.

[Traditional Tory]

I really would like to see the likes of Jack (Labour Troll) Stone justify this claim

I don't think Mr Stone has responded to the point I made yesterday, namely that two local activists in Southend tell me they've never heard of him.

Lucky them.

[YHN]

Blair obviously understood it by appointing Prescott as deputy to steady the old guard whilst he wooed new audiences and we know his reward.

Cameron clearly needs to do the same, but instead he decides to insult his traditional supporters.

That will prove to be the critical difference.

[TomTom]

Blair obviously understood it by appointing Prescott as deputy to steady the old guard

Blair did NOT appoint Prescott - the Labour Party ELECTS its Deputy Leader......and it had more to do with a Speech Prescott made on OMOV when John Smith was Leader in 1993.

THe Leadership Election following Smith's death in May 1994 made Blair the winner and Prescott runner-up....and lest we forget Blair was elected Leader of the Labour Party on the votes of 15% membership

[Editor]

Ben Brogan of the Daily Mail wrote this about my piece:

"Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome has a fascinating piece in the Telegraph packed full of menace for the Tory leader. It may be far-fetched to suggest that 164 grammar schools are "turbo-charging the education of children from disadvantaged backgrounds", but he points out the real damage done by this episode: the party unity that has been Mr Cameron's signal achievement is now in question. For the first time under his leadership we are writing about Shadow Cabinet mutterings. This is ominous. Tim says David Davis and Liam Fox should be central to the task of rebuilding unity, which translates as: they are cross and need soothing. The fact is that David Davis, until now a model of loyalty, has put himself on the Cameroon watch-list of troublemaking suspects, joining Liam Fox who has been on it since the beginning. Does Mr Cameron really want this confrontation now? Let's see what the next poll says about how he is doing against Gordon Brown."

And here is Matt d'Ancona's take:

"Tim Montgomerie has a piece in today’s Daily Telegraph which should cause anxiety in Conservative Party HQ. Tim – reasonable and eloquent as ever – explains why the grammar school row was not the triumph of party management we are assured it was by the Cameroons. A warning to be noted."

[Occasional Visitor]

"In fact that English Parliament shouldn't even be located in London - it should
be taken well away, to somewhere near the geographical centre of England.
Denis Cooper May 23, 17:07 "

No, the small UK federal parliament should relocate more geographically central in UK. Why should the English Parliament abandon its traditional home in the capital of England?

[Simon Denis]

I'm sorry but no ammount of flattering surface compromise will reconcile me to Cameron. His ready recourse to insults and his cynical view of politics in which convictions are jettisoned for the sake of "image" mean that I shall probably abstain from voting at all. Do you want Gordon, then? The Tory leadership screams. No - but I don't want to endorse the false democracy which offers more of the same however you vote; which corrals you into almost identical "big tents" and connives at the gradual but relentless narrowing of debate. I note that the narrowing is essentially in favour of the left and against the right. It remains acceptable to support Castro but beyond the pale even to apologise for Pinochet. It is permitted to excuse various black African dictators but beyond the pale to justify Mrs Thatcher's refusal to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa. And now Cameron. How infinitely depressing.