David Cameron gives a revealing interview to today's Yorkshire Post in which he puts social breakdown at the heart of the Conservative pitch for the next General Election:
"What's the big question? Social breakdown.
"What's the big answer? Family and community policy.
"What's the big difference to Labour? They believe in top-down state control, ID cards, top-down targets, covering the police in red tape. We believe in social responsibility.
"That's an issue, that's an answer and that's a choice."
He also repeats that the family will be the first beneficiary of any reduction in tax that the party can afford:
"The first is the family tax reductions that will be met by the green tax rises. And the second is that over time, as we share the proceeds of growth, some of the suggestions for reducing tax can be implemented."
George Osborne's office tells me that inheritance tax could be understood as a 'family tax reduction' although it was not one of the recommendations from Iain Duncan Smith's social justice report.
Mr Cameron tells the YP's Simon McGee and Tom Smithard that the Conservative Party is ready for a General Election. A manifesto document is "on the stocks", he says, "the marginal seats are selected. We've been very effective in fundraising and in clearing debts." Although he admits that the party will need to raise more money for its fighting fund.
Louise Bagshawe makes the case for voting Tory in her regular ConservativeHome column today. David Cameron chooses to highlight four policies in his interview:
"We have committed ourselves to a proper border police force. On the environment, we're the ones committed to binding targets on carbon reduction. On education, we've said we want to see setting by ability in every school and stop the closure of special schools."
No Tim. I read this as saying that inheritance tax won't be a priority. If DC really wants to boost the family he will adopt IDS' recommendations on tax rather than John Redwood's. The IDS recommendations will overcome the disincentives for couples to staty together. Abolishing inheritance tax won't have the same effect.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | August 23, 2007 at 09:38
We should be fighting it on both. It would be extraordinarily difficult to enhance social wellbeing with a failing economy.
Posted by: malcolm | August 23, 2007 at 09:43
I agree with malcolm. With the public expecting a high standard of service from things such as the NHS, education and police, we need a strong economy in order to fund it. We cannot ignore the economy. We all depend on the strength of the economy for our livelihoods. By all means bring social and other issues to a higher level, but please lets not go down the route of thinking the economy doesnt matter.
Posted by: James Maskell | August 23, 2007 at 09:58
Oh great. So the overtaxed British public have no-one to vote for. Marvellous.
Posted by: MH | August 23, 2007 at 10:15
"Tories will fight next election on social - NOT ECONOMIC - issues2
and lose.
Posted by: michael mcgough | August 23, 2007 at 10:18
He must have road tested this with a focus group and found it positive but it is so counter-intuitive that I have great difficulty in accepting it as valid.
Part of the problem is that social breakdown is impossible for the government to fix because its cultural and where the culture is government determined the policies that have caused it - easy divorce, moral equivalence, compensation and human rights, lack of child discipline (at home and at school) are so engrained in the zeitgeist that someone as addicted to the zeitgeist as DC is never going to be able to join the dots.
On the other hand I am looking at the problem with male eyes, wanting a solution that might work. With the increasing feminization of Society, the public may only want to be empathized with whilst they whinge. So we might both be right.
Posted by: jonathan | August 23, 2007 at 10:22
While a political party is entitled to pick the issues it thinks are important, on which to fight on in a general election, the electorate is also entitled to pick theirs.
In terms of Cameron's selection, I suspect there may be a mismatch.
Posted by: Richard North | August 23, 2007 at 10:23
@MH and Michael McGough
There's UKIP - flat taxes, no IHT. We only don't vote for it because it doesn't yet have critical mass.
Posted by: Opinicus | August 23, 2007 at 10:24
"In terms of Cameron's selection, I suspect there may be a mismatch."
I disagree. Just to cite one example, there is a growing resentment that couples who work and stay together are in effect being penalised in the tax/benefit system. I don't think we can dismiss just how powerful IDS's finding were, and more importantly, how it resonates with peoples experience/views.
Social issues are what people are talking about in the home and at work.
Posted by: Scotty | August 23, 2007 at 10:35
This sounds excellent stuff. Broadening our appeal in a measured manner. Using taxation to encourage social cohesion rather than discourage it (like the present tax credit shambles).
Team Cameron seem to be coming up with good policy ideas quite regularly at the mo and the whole party needs hold its nerve and back him if we really do want to get back into government again. I worry that there are many on here who would rather we lose than compromise. May be 5 years of the bogey eater will focus minds?
Posted by: ceidwadwyr | August 23, 2007 at 10:48
I like this pitch - much better.
Only thing that grates is; "We believe in social responsibility"
I hate this phrase! Doesn't mean anything and has no bite. I'd prefer it if he said we believe in people having responsibility, or we believe that normal people are the answer.. or words to that effect.
I really think Cameron can make some excellent running with this, but he needs to sharpen up his press operation, CCHQ management and tighten up on internal party discipline.
Posted by: Peter Hatchet | August 23, 2007 at 10:48
Social issues are what people are talking about in the home and at work.
Posted by: Scotty | August 23, 2007 at 10:35
Not least of which is immigration
Posted by: TomTOm | August 23, 2007 at 10:49
"Not least of which is immigration"
Economic migration.
Posted by: michael mcgough | August 23, 2007 at 10:57
"I hate this phrase! Doesn't mean anything and has no bite. I'd prefer it if he said we believe in people having responsibility, or we believe that normal people are the answer.. or words to that effect."
I agree Peter, it needs to be translated into something simpler and more punchy. We want to help *you* take back your community from those who are trying to destroy it?
Posted by: Scotty | August 23, 2007 at 10:59
Not least of which is immigration"
Economic migration.
Posted by: michael mcgough | August 23, 2007 at 10:57
So if our taxes are so high and the economy so bad, why are they all coming over here...?
Seriously though, this is a good strategy. Much as I love a low-tax economy, hardly anyone mentions this when you talk to them about this country's problems. Health, education and law & order are the big three, no matter what we might like to think. I know people will say "then we should get out there and make it an issue", which is true, but unfortunately for most people it just doesn't register. Where did the £4billion of tax cuts get us at the last election?
Posted by: powellite | August 23, 2007 at 11:01
Economic migration.
is bi-directional....it is only incoming that is causing congestion....
but if The Conservatives promise a £250,000 gratuity to any Briton prepared to emigrate and free up space they would be onto a winner
Posted by: TomTom | August 23, 2007 at 11:03
Seems to me that we are hearing an awful lot of twisted words and confused messages these past two weeks.
Just give us some clear and concise policies with some conviction!
Posted by: Curly | August 23, 2007 at 11:08
Economic migration.
is bi-directional....it is only incoming that is causing congestion....
Emigration - those are the go getters who have got enough to leave for a sunnier climate and "better" life
Immigration - those who like our benefits system.
Posted by: John Craig | August 23, 2007 at 11:18
I have written before that Cameron downplays the importance of economics. It's absurd to think that just because Britain is a rich nation economics doesn't matter anymore and the only thing which is important is mending Britain's broken society.
Rising taxes, rising interest rates, high utility bills mean absolutely nothing to him because he's from a wealthy background so he doesn't have to worry about monetary matters unlike the vast majority of ordinary families.
He says his theme is 'social responsibility'. This is meaningless. I agree with Peter Hatchett; conservatives believe in individual responsiblity not social responsibilty. I agree with Malcolm that you can't have a strong society without a strong economy. Try telling Dave Cameron that!
Posted by: Richard Woolley | August 23, 2007 at 11:35
"conservatives believe in individual responsiblity not social responsibilty."
Indeed. Just replace the word 'responsibility' in that sentence with 'ism' and ask what is closest to conservative values and then understood what Cameron is espousing.
Posted by: Think about it | August 23, 2007 at 11:41
Britain's broken society.
Rising taxes, rising interest rates, high utility bills mean absolutely nothing to him
Money plays a big role in family break-up. Time to give full tax-allowances and some tax credits for Training and Education to a set cap
Posted by: TomTom | August 23, 2007 at 11:43
Lots of good points here (especially on migration both ways) but particularly agree with Richard Woolley.
Maybe Cameron will get the economic message with recession now looming over the horizon.
We shall be back to the nuts of bolts of living - the concerns of most ordinary people - and the touchy feely stuff will be out.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | August 23, 2007 at 11:49
"...conservatives believe in individual responsiblity not social responsibilty."
Well my definition of 'social responsibility' would be that the actions of individuals have consequences beyond their own lives (something a liberal would reject). For example a liberal might argue that a brothel doesn't affect anyone except the owner and the customers; whereas a conservative might argue that in fact it would demean the neighbourhood, introduce the children that live there to the idea of prostitution, attract unsavoury characters, et cetera. Another example might be the attitude to drugs. A liberal would argue drug-taking is a matter solely for the individual; a conservative might say that in fact it affects families, friends, the individual's employer, and so on.
I think what Cameron is trying to get at it here is to foster a sense of community that seems to have vanished. It's a rather abstract idea, so the phrase itself does seem rather vacuous, but I don't believe it is: if you couple it to things like zero tolerance/broken windows policing; major devolution of power to local communities and individuals; support of families through the tax system and also creating a culture where marriage is seen as important, not easy; encouraging, financially, the work of the voluntary sector. These sorts of things would, I think, resurrect a sense of community, and give some meat to the bones of 'social responsibility'.
What I really do dispute is your assertion that conservatives are classical liberals in blue rosettes. We are not. Liberals view the world through the actions of individuals. Conservatives realise that individuals within institutions (the family, local communities, the nation, even tradition itself) are what really matters, and consequently reject some of the more extreme individualism that liberals seem to promote. Individual actions *do* affect other people; a liberal would probably say 'so what?' Conservatives shouldn't make the same mistake.
Posted by: Ash Faulkner | August 23, 2007 at 12:05
Without the economy nothing else is possible; Economics, Social Affairs, National Security and Defence are all key issues and any party plays down the importance of any of these at their peril.
The Conservative Party might decide not to campaign on economic matters, but they will be asked about it and I'm sure that UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Nationalist Parties will all campaign on it and then the Conservative Party will appear to be running away from the arguments or will end up switching to campaigning on it anyway.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | August 23, 2007 at 12:09
Whatever happened to "It's the economy, stupid!"?
Posted by: The Huntsman | August 23, 2007 at 12:12
@TomTom
but if The Conservatives promise a £250,000 gratuity to any Briton prepared to emigrate and free up space they would be onto a winner
... But only for one election
Posted by: Opinicus | August 23, 2007 at 12:39
"We have committed ourselves to a proper border police force. On the environment, we're the ones committed to binding targets on carbon reduction. On education, we've said we want to see setting by ability in every school and stop the closure of special schools."
Yawn -- if Cameron seriously thinks this is going to inspire people to throw Brown out of office in a couple of months then I fear he sadly deluded. This is exactly the same timid approach that was tried in 2005. The Tories need to come up with some more radical policies that will inspire people; e.g. school choice, proper life sentences for violent criminals, fixing the transport system (as in Redwood's report), and reducing the burden of taxation.
And I wish someone would point out to him that the distinction between "social" and "economic" issues is largely a false dichotomy (at least to the extent that government can or should influence society). For instance, the environment, the education system, healthcare, and transport are all key economic issues, as is law and order (Gary Becker, anyone?).
As for where the priority should be in terms of tax cuts, if we're proposing to finance tax cuts by "sharing the proceeds of growth", then surely the priority should be tax cuts which will increase the growth rate, such as reducing corporation tax or capital gains tax, rather than simply giving a handout to people for being married (to counterbalance the handouts which are given to some people who aren't married) which will have no effect on economic growth whatsoever (unless it's big enough to encourage more stay-at-home mums, in which case it will decrease growth and hence limit future tax cuts).
Posted by: Jonathan Powell | August 23, 2007 at 12:40
All the people agreeing to this strategy have been duly noted and will be held to account come November
Posted by: Opinicus | August 23, 2007 at 12:41
How does this strategy put an immediate stop to eleven year old boys being shot in the street.
Posted by: mark | August 23, 2007 at 12:57
Tax is a bloody social issue. If people have more money for themselves they will be able to make the right choices. Taxation takes money out of their hands and gives it to the government to piddle away on the wrong things. The people who know best how to spend their money are taxpayers not the money.
I knw plenty of intelligent, hard working and successful British men & women who are leaving the country because of high taxation both private and corporate.
Adopt Redwood's ideas or fail at the polls...simple as.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | August 23, 2007 at 13:07
At a guess, most comments posted come from smug Londoners, where wages and the standard of living are high. You are totally immune from the realities in the provinces. Suffolk and Cornwall are low wage counties where the locals are bein g swamped by enormous house prices forced on them by second home owners.
Until the average Tory who contributes to this forum starts to realise that not everyone enjoys London wages, then the party is doomed to yet another election defeat. Go out into the real world - and this comment applies equally to David Canmeron, Geroge Osborne, Ed Vaizey etc. There is life beyond the M25 - if you don't realise this, then rest assured, Gordon Brown and Labour do and they know exactly how to pitch an election winning campaign.
Posted by: Felixstowe fiddler | August 23, 2007 at 14:11
knw plenty of intelligent, hard working and successful British men & women who are leaving the country because of high taxation both private and corporate.
Really? Because I know plenty who are moving for a better quality of life, made even better because they can trade their UK home for something much more grand, but no-one has told me they’re doing it for tax reasons. Where are your people going? Presumably, if it’s disposable income they’re seeking to maximise, they’ve taken the sound decision to move to one of the top three: Saudi Arabia, UAE or Hong Kong.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | August 23, 2007 at 14:16
Back to the main issue.
Does this mean that yesterday's line (yes, only yesterday's), that the Blair-Brown duo was responsible for Britain's economic ills, has been shelved already? That Redwood has been shelved?
How many U-turns on economic policy does that make in -- well, just the last month?
Quite frankly, it needs a totally brown-nosed cynical-opportunistic Central Office stooge to stomach this endless pursuit of the ephemeral headline. What's wrong with thinking through a policy, elaborating it, articulating it succinctly and clearly, and sticking by it?
In a nut-shell, a serious Opposition has only to borrow the twin-pronged Clinton message: "Keep It Simple, Stupid" and "It's the economy, stupid!"
Posted by: Ellesmere Dragge | August 23, 2007 at 14:19
A child was shot and killed in Liverpool last evening. Gordon Brown is quick to address this matter. "We will take steps to ensure that the criminals are caught and punished" [two youths are already under arrest so that one is safe]. "If necessary we will pass legislation to stamp down on these crimes" - I had thought that gun possession was a crime - I even thought that killing someone is a crime - obviously not since new laws are required.
Against such a powerful, decisive and wise Prime Minister what chance does Cameron have?
After all, when Cameron pointed that a large number of hospitals were in danger of closure, he perhaps got one wrong. So that negates the whole argument, even if the other 30 odd are in peril. The BBC and most newspapers feel that such an error has damaged Cameron's attack. So what chance does he have with a perpetually hostile press and an all-wise, all-seeing, all-action opponent? He really is better off remaining woolly and avoiding facts.
Posted by: Victor, NW Kent | August 23, 2007 at 14:29
Social issues are important but that important? We need to headline with matters which resonate passionately with the voters but this ain't it.
Dave - we activist microbes are trying our best to "big-up" the party's chances but we really are lions led by donkeys.
Posted by: anon | August 23, 2007 at 14:52
Quangos are costing nearly £170 billion a year, more than 5 times the budget of the Ministry of Defence.
This government has presided over huge fiscal mismanagement, classic Labour tax, spend, and waste.
I suspect that a large slice of the electorate know this and are desperate for some sanity.
And we are not going focus on economics?
Tell me why again?
Posted by: Patriot | August 23, 2007 at 15:30
"And we are not going focus on economics?
Tell me why again?"
Agreed you cannot go to an election looking for office and not challenge the Government on its economic record, and there is one hell of lot to challenge Gordon Brown on.
Perhaps this is a strategy developed in order to avoid having George Osborne leading an attack, for he, in his failure to lay a glove on Brown as Chancellor, has shown himself to be out of his depth as Shadow Chancellor.
Posted by: Iain | August 23, 2007 at 16:43
Well folks I would turn the statement on its head and say that we should fight the next election on "Social-Economic issues". Think about.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 23, 2007 at 17:24
Well folks I would turn the statement on its head and say that we should fight the next election on "Social-Economic issues". Think about.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 23, 2007 at 17:24
You go ahead Matt - if it helps you here then go ahead
LAB Majority 4,586 14.04%
Pred Maj 16.16%
Posted by: TomTom | August 23, 2007 at 18:47
powellite: "So if our taxes are so high and the economy so bad, why are they all coming over here...?"
The poor economic migrants arrive. The wealthy leave.
Posted by: jorgen | August 23, 2007 at 19:49
Some of you might want to talk to real people not follow the BBC like a sheep. People from all walks of life complain all the time at taxes but no one listens. The cost of living has sky-rocketed under this government and most of it is due to taxation in one form or another.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | August 23, 2007 at 20:00
TomTom, sorry not quite sure what point you are making. I wasn't suggesting we use the term "social-economic", I was suggesting that its not a case of either social or economic,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 23, 2007 at 20:45
Without doubt, social issues need to be tackled. One way of helping low-income working families is by reducing their tax burden; now that is a vote winner.
Posted by: Mountjoy | August 23, 2007 at 20:47
Exactly, Wilted Rose. Also we can begin to help tackle social problems by rewarding certain roles that contribute to the community, with relief on council tax.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 23, 2007 at 21:10
This is one of the most stupid things "DC" has done yet. If you're family didn't buy your mortgage-free house in Notting Hill (George Osborne) and if you don't have a trust fund (both of you) this idea of economics being unimportant might apply. As for the electorate of the UK, forget about it. I mean at 250k for your education, can't you just go back to public school so you can figure this out? Loads of ministers in Mrs. Thatcher's government came from the same background and figured it out.
Posted by: Jeff | August 24, 2007 at 02:07
TomTom, sorry not quite sure what point you are making. I wasn't suggesting we use the term "social-economic", I was suggesting that its not a case of either social or economic,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 23, 2007 at 20:45
OK Matt. You have a constituency with a projected increased Labour Majority.
It is a bit academic to start saying - I'll approach this as Social or Socio-Economic
You do not control the agenda or events so start thinking about what concerns the electorate. If you trot round like a Jehovah's Witness looking for people to switch churches you will lose your deposit.
It is a matter of addressing Voter Concerns not lecturing them on what they must do to win you over.
The "Producer Interest" mentality on the blog is clear evidence as to why Opposition is such a comfortable home. You rank alongside those men who push flyers throuh the door offering to tarmac your drive because they happen to be in the area......but it is not much good if you want block-paving.
So it is better to address what the electorate wants and to be their general contractor rather than tell them if they want to vote for you they must sign up to your agenda
Posted by: TomTom | August 24, 2007 at 07:02
At a guess, most comments posted come from smug Londoners, where wages and the standard of living are high. You are totally immune from the realities in the provinces. Suffolk and Cornwall are low wage counties where the locals are bein g swamped by enormous house prices forced on them by second home owners
London has become the monster that ate England. The irony is that vast numbers of these freespending yuppies are (like their American counterparts) fully subscribed to Politically Correct leftism.
These, of course, are the self-indulgent yet sanctimonious metrosexual hypocrites that Cameron and Osborne spent months trying to woo, although that strategy now seems to be much less confident than it once was.
The so-called 'Broken Society' is also split between super-rich London residents and the rest of us, and I have a nasty feeling that their negative economic influences will result in the rise of various forms of aggressive populism.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | August 24, 2007 at 07:51
I agree with your comment, Malcolm! We should be fighting on both. However, I think it is easier and better for a Government or Government-in-Waiting to address economic issues which are, when all is said and done, their "job"! As Conservatives we do not believe it is the role of the State to determine how individuals and families live their lives. However, it is important that individual Conservatives, think-tanks and pressure groups try to influence public opinion as a way of addressing "social" issues.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 24, 2007 at 08:02
I think there's a very narrow definition of economic issues in many of these posts, as being about taxation policy. I suspect unless before the general election we see a major change in the state of the economy that issues like controlling inflation or high interest rates will not be top of the political agenda.
Taxation can be seen as both a social and an economic issue, economic because low tax economies are high growth economies, but social because lower taxes lift families out of poverty, give them independence from the state and have the benefit of reducing financial and emotional stress on family life.
Posted by: Graham D'Amiral | August 24, 2007 at 08:03
powellite: "So if our taxes are so high and the economy so bad, why are they all coming over here...?"
A Chinese girl earns 20 pence/hr in a Pearl River Delta factory and doesn't get paid for 70 days......
A Polish worker gets maybe £30/week if he can find a job
A Ukrainian has no work but can get a forged Polish passport
Life in Britain is better than in D R Congo or Nigeria....medical care is available, free English-language schools, and the hardest thing about Britain is getting in - once in you have no risk of deportation, no ID cards, lots of anti-discrimination laws to stop people asking about immigration status
Britain is the country most inviting to foreigners provided they are a) very rich b) very poor. the first group gets tax-subsidy with non-dom rules; the latter gets tax-benefit subsidy either immediately or after 12 months
Posted by: ToMTom | August 24, 2007 at 08:15
m
Posted by: TomTom | August 24, 2007 at 08:16
Thanks TomTom for your advice, I wouldn't have known what to do without it,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 24, 2007 at 08:20
Sally wrote:
"As Conservatives we do not believe it is the role of the State to determine how individuals and families live their lives"
But Cameroon PPC Matt wrote:
"Also we can begin to help tackle social problems by rewarding certain roles that contribute to the community, with relief on council tax."
Sally, the Cameroon mantra of "tax the bad" is entirely about determining how people should live their lives. *They* determine what is good and bad, then use taxation as a tool to achieve their chosen behavioural goals.
Please note how Matt is not talking about reducing tax to free people to choose how to live their lives (which could include more commnity work if they choose) but keeping the state in control and use tax as a tool to 'encourage' people to live a certain way they state prefers.
Big state social engineering. There really is no difference between Blairites and Cameroons.
Posted by: Think about it | August 24, 2007 at 08:30
Thanks TomTom for your advice, I wouldn't have known what to do without it,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | August 24, 2007 at 08:20
That was my impression too. So now you have no excuse for not winning that seat.
Posted by: TomTom | August 24, 2007 at 11:21
"@MH and Michael McGough
There's UKIP - flat taxes, no IHT. We only don't vote for it because it doesn't yet have critical mass.
Posted by: Jonathan | August 23, 2007 at 10:24"
Agreed. I like their (UKIP) policies but they are not credible or large enough. I say this as someone who spent 12 hours delivering leaflets for the tory party this weekend. Though increasingly I question why?
Posted by: anon | August 29, 2007 at 13:50