Tory members: A reduction in crime should be main objective of next Conservative government

In the end-June survey of Conservative members we asked "On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is least important and 10 is most important, please rate the importance of the following objectives for the next Conservative Government."  These are the 1,470 results averaged out:

1. A reduction in crime: 8.2
2. A reduction in the burden of taxation: 8.0
3. A significant repatriation of powers from the EU: 7.7
4. Education and welfare reforms that deliver more social justice and less social breakdown: 7.7
5. Control of our borders and a large reduction in immigration: 7.7
6. A big reduction in UK borrowing: 7.6
7. A rebuilding of our armed forces: 7.6
8. A second term in office: 7.6
9. A strengthening of marriage and the family: 7.4
10. An NHS without centralised targets: 7.3
11. A fairer deal for England within the United Kingdom: 7.0
12. A settlement of the Iranian nuclear threat: 6.1
13. A cleaner environment and significant action on climate change: 5.5.

Comments

[Norm Brainer]

Some might say that it makes conservatives look environmentally unfriendly, but it does seem the most vague of the objectives and also includes the words "action on climate change" which is short hand for "make you feel guilty about going on with your daily live and tax you more"
If the option was to suggest an "increase in general efficiency and reduction in waste (in non-monitary terms) for a cleaner world" it would have scored much higher, I'd guess.

[onenationtory]

Given that the cime stats show a decline in crime rates, is there going to be an overhaul of crime stats as part of any strategy?

[Ken Stevens]

I wonder whether the Party will pay more attention to items 3 and 11, in the light of this result?

[Jake]

It doesn't surprise me that reduction in crime is at the top. It is an immediate problem for most peple as well a background worry.(Heavily linked to the drug and alcohol epidemic- drugs implicated in some 80% of all crime )

re England - its always there. The awareness of the injustice to England of the Blairite partial national devolution with(so far) England denied self government such as they are happy to approve for Scotland is quite high up -1.2 from the top!

Rigid old British staters of the sort who are reflexly anti English will try to deny this of course and might even resort to blabbing about Clarke's contorted proposals for fiddling about with the rules of the British parliament to fob the English off.

Won't work and will still leave England without any specific national representation or government. Still dominated by the British state and the Barnett Rules.

The Conservatives still have to adress the English question with proposals for an English parliament which along with their other proposals on other topics will provide them with a full set of winners when the time comes .

It is ridiculous that this one policy area is so out of date and bogged down with old thinking.

[Mark Fulford]

Individually the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran and climate change are several orders of magnitude worse than even the most exaggerated view of crime, the EU and immigration combined. This really is a set of upside down priorities.

[Ken Stevens]

Is the Iran threat so great as it is made out to be (in the context of achieving a satisfactory outcome by non-military means)?

If the Iran regime is level-headed and rational, it must be well aware that to undertake a first strike risks causing its own elimination as a functioning nation, i.e. the same rationale as during the Cold War. By the same analogy, the histrionics might be of a somewhat greater scale than the actual danger.

If the regime is irrational and unreliable, then negotiation will get nowhere and a decision would have to be made in respect of retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes, in the light of the situation at any given time.

[Alex Swanson]

Mark: I understand where you're coming from, but sometimes you have to prioritise the basics. crime, the EU and immigration combined are damaging the fabric of British society and the ability of the British people to work together to achieve, well, anything much at all. If you want a team to do something then you have to have a coherent, well-motivated, well integrated team to start off with.

[Dale]

"Individually the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran and climate change are several orders of magnitude worse than even the most exaggerated view of crime, the EU and immigration combined. This really is a set of upside down priorities."

A heathite showing contempt for the british electorate, who have shown in poll after poll to rank immigration, crime and the economy well above climate change.

Quelle surprise!

[passing leftie]

This list is Tory selfishness and little Englandism writ large. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent Labour top ten would be.

[Dale]

"This list is Tory selfishness and little Englandism writ large. I'd be interested to see what the equivalent Labour top ten would be."

Who cares, labour are out for a decade atleast. Maybe it's time you accepted that.

[johnC]

'little Englandism writ large.'

A strange comment, given that a fairer deal for England within the United Kingdom comes 11th out of 13th in the list. It just shows what a generous lot we English are.

[Alex Swanson]

This list is Tory selfishness and little Englandism writ large

Really? Top of the list is crime. It's well established that the people who suffer most from crime are the poor.

Similarly, the damage to the economy caused by over-taxation and over-regulation hits the poor most as well, and a bad educational system damages the prospects of poor people gaining the skills needed to raise their incomes.

But hey, you would have said the same thing regardless of what the list was, wouldn't you.

[doriangrape]

I'd be interested to see what the equivalent Labour top ten would be.

1.Err…Maybe, we should sort of do something.
2.But.
3.Ummm.
4.For God’s sake do something Heathcliff!
5.Och nooo think of tae risk.
6.Come on grumpy chops make a bloody decision for once in your life.
7.Och the nooo. Steady as she gooooos.
8.She’s sinking you eedjit and the rats are jumping ship.
9.I see no iceberg.
10.

[Mark Fulford]

Ken, I don’t think the danger can be understated. Iran will not give up its nuclear programme and Israel will not give up the deterrent that prevents it being driven into the sea or wiped off the map. Israel, currently secure in its nuclear capability, will undoubtedly see pre-emptive strikes as risky, but less risky than nuclear Iran. All out war is a real possibility and one we can't afford to ignore.

On the other hand, a nuclear power fighting to the death on the doorstep of the world’s oil supplies could have some ironic results for global warming.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

Even though the environment is at number 13 it still shows that most members think it is more important than unimportant; scoring above 5.

[passing leftie]

Who cares, labour are out for a decade atleast. Maybe it's time you accepted that.

Posted by: Dale | July 14, 2008 at 11:14

Not just yet. There's still a while to go.

Posted by: Alex Swanson | July 14, 2008 at 11:27
Really? Top of the list is crime. It's well established that the people who suffer most from crime are the poor.

The priority should not be tackling crime, but tackling poverty. Crime thrives where there is poverty. The crude right-wing methods simply don't work, and the media stirs up fear of crime.

The BCS, the most reliable source of crime statistics shows that crime is now at about the same level it was in 1981, after a massive climb under the Tories (remember high unemployment, anyone?) and a steady decline since about 1996. This includes violent crime. Strangely, the perception (in the same survey) is that fear of crime is about the same regardless of the level of crime, and people tend to think crime is on the rise, whether it is or not.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

[Ken Stevens]

Mark Fulford

I certainly see your point about the risks, ironic & otherwise.

However, "settlement" of Iran's nuclear threat implies negotiation with a rational administration. If they are thus, then I would anticipate much Jaw Jaw, using the nuclear bargaining chip, and a long timescale rather than some neat, done & dusted, shorter term resolution of the issue.

If they are not rational, then the non Jaw Jaw option always has to be ready for deployment.

[bluepatriot]

I am pleased to see the public services at number four.

[Jake]

"The BCS, the most reliable source of crime statistics shows ----"

Oh do me a favour. The British Crime Survey is the just about the most misleading, politician-tampered-with exercise in double counting or non counting where-it-suits-Labour in modern politics.
It is a classic exercise in selective or just plain doctored statistics on behalf of the elite within the Westminter bubble to convince themselves and anyone stupid enough to believe them that crime is all but disapearing.
Its self serving unreality is part of the reason why Labour is now so unpopular.

[Robert]

Passing leftie - Re unemployment, please note that New Labour has become a master of subterfuge/deception - it is the number of economically inactive people that is the key figure to measure the success of an economy. Currently, it is at least 10% of the working population which is not a great success, despite both 10 years of GDP growth and the government directly employing at least 700/- extra people since it got into power. Unemployment is a stat that is 'fiddled' by governments of all political persuasions via various job training schemes etc!

[Ken Stevens]

passing leftie
"little Englandism"

Why doesn't there seem to be the equivalent phrases for equivalent circumstances of "little Scotlandism" and "little Walesism" ?

[Nigel Rathbone]

A heathite showing contempt for the british electorate, who have shown in poll after poll to rank immigration, crime and the economy well above climate change.

Just because people responding to a poll say they rank immigration, crime and the economy above climate change does NOT mean that it is in fact less important.

The majority can sometimes be wrong, frankly.

That a greater number of people in this poll consider it essential to "deal with the EU problem" rather than deal with Iran speaks volumes about their skewed priorities. The EU at its worst can frustrate us all with petty bureaucracy. Nuclear war provoked by Iran could kill us all.

[Dale]

"The crude right-wing methods simply don't work"

Rudolph Guiliani? Michael Howard?

Why can't you just accept that you are wrong?

Your party has been wrong for the past 10 years, and now they will pay the price.

[Editor]

Clive,

This is slightly out-of-date but does, I hope, give you some reassurance about the monthly poll:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/05/can_you_trust_c.html

Tim

[Norm Brainer]

Nuclear war provoked by Iran could kill us all.

The consequences may be worse, but the chance of it happening less which is why it has lower priority.

[Dale]

"Just because people responding to a poll say they rank immigration, crime and the economy above climate change does NOT mean that it is in fact less important."

I didn't say it did.

"That a greater number of people in this poll consider it essential to "deal with the EU problem" rather than deal with Iran speaks volumes about their skewed priorities. The EU at its worst can frustrate us all with petty bureaucracy. Nuclear war provoked by Iran could kill us all."

Yes nuclear war with iran COULD kill us all, in the same way that Stephen Hawking COULD beat up Frank Bruno. Neither are going to happen.

If Iran is so dangerous, why have we ruled out force?

I know people may find this hard to understand, but the iranians are not stupid, they will not use nuclear weapons on israel because they know israel has more, and more importantly, better nuclear weapons. Iran couldn't even reach us and even if they could, we have the rolls royce of nuclear detterrents.

Just remember that Iran couldn't even defeat Iraq when Iraq was fighting several enemies at once.

If you want to fear a country, fear china, Not some middle east basket case.

[Nigel Rathbone]

The consequences may be worse, but the chance of it happening less which is why it has lower priority.

Eh? This makes no sense whatsoever. The chances of nuclear war are much less than what happening re the EU?

My point was, it's ludicrous to say it's more important to devote time and energy to arguing in circles about the EU than it is to give time and energy to diplomacy with Iran.

[Dale]

"Eh? This makes no sense whatsoever. The chances of nuclear war are much less than what happening re the EU?"

Presumably you would advocate a massive increase in military spending and a massive increase of our nuclear stockpiles wouldn't you?

'Don't send the foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber' and all that!

[Alex Swanson]

The priority should not be tackling crime, but tackling poverty.

But creating a peaceful and civil society is a vital prerequisite to sorting poverty

Crime thrives where there is poverty.

Poverty and crime often go together, but it is simplistic to say that poverty causes crime; in my view experience suggests rather the opposite, that high crime levels, and even more, a culture which tolerates lawlessness, promotes poverty; whereas there have been poor areas in this country (eg between the war) where crime was nevertheless low.

The crude right-wing methods simply don't work

True, and I've often said so on this forum. It is Labour which believes passionately in repression (ask any target shooter), and the Conservatives, who, though still attracted to it, are beginning to move to a more holistic view of society, witness the work of Iain Duncan Smith, which has been praised and taken on board by David Cameron.

[RichardJ]

"The priority should not be tackling crime, but tackling poverty. Crime thrives where there is poverty."

Hahahahaha, what a load of garbage. Pepople burgle and knife people because they are wicked, not because they are poor. They know it is wrong but they still do it.

The majority of people on low incomes do not go around mugging, stabbing or burgling people. We were a poorer society decades ago and suffered from severe poverty in the 1930s but crime rates were still lower. My parents were brought up in poor households but didn't commit crimes BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG.

You appear to be implying that lack of money = bad personality.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Labour members' priorities, just for passing leftie:

1) Tax the poor even more, especially on their cars

2) Get as many people as possible onto Welfare

3) 25% pay rise for all "Diversity Coordinators"

4) Make discrimination in the workplace legal (phase II, make compulsory at a later date)

5) Increase benefits for people who are bone-bloody-idle so they can be a drain on the rest of us

6) Abolish GCSE and A-level grades because they are elitist and make some children appear better than others. Successful schools foster elitism and will be shut down.

7) Give £60,000,000 to corrupt African regimes in aid.

[Mark Fulford]

Crime, the EU and immigration combined are damaging the fabric of British society...

Alex, we disagree on this.

The greatest difference between today and Britain in previous generations is increasing population, mobility and prosperity. Our political system will never allow there to be a mainstream argument for the reduction of these things.

[Nigel Rathbone]

Presumably you would advocate a massive increase in military spending and a massive increase of our nuclear stockpiles wouldn't you?

No.

I will be charitable and assume you're not all deliberately missing my point, and explain one last time.

In my view, diplomacy and negotiation is the way forward with Iran (as I believe it should have been with Iraq) and with any number of horrible regimes/unstable regions across the world.

We should be focussing our foreign policy on such negotiations (along with the UN and our allies), rather than wasting our time in pointless renegotiations with our European friends, just to satisfy a few hotheads - who won't be satisfied anyway unless we pull out of the EU entirely (and probably nuke the continent into oblivion just to show them).

[Norm Brainer]

Eh? This makes no sense whatsoever. The chances of nuclear war are much less than what happening re the EU?

Are you saying that all out nuclear war is a dead cert?
..Or that the chance of an event occouring shouldn't even be considered?

[Saltmaker]

It's interesting to see which of the highest priorities have produced no debate:

1. A reduction in the burden of taxation: 8.0

2. Education and welfare reforms that deliver more social justice and less social breakdown: 7.7

3. A big reduction in UK borrowing: 7.6

4. A rebuilding of our armed forces: 7.6

Is it that these ideas are more universally Conservative?

[Nigel Rathbone]

Are you saying that all out nuclear war is a dead cert?
..Or that the chance of an event occouring shouldn't even be considered?

No Norm, what I'm saying is: the poll ranks (a) renegotiating our position in the EU above (b) addressing the threat from Iran. I consider (b) to be far, far more important as the potential consequences could be devastating.

I hope that nuclear war - or any war - can be avoided, of course I do, and I was simply citing the worst case scenario to illustrate how silly this list of priorities is.

(b) is an issue which needs to be addressed because it threatens us all. (a) is an issue which does not need to be addressed; just because it's at the top of the eurosceptics' wishlist doesn't make it an important issue.

[Mark Fulford]

Norm, which would you rather:

1 in 100 of losing 1,000

or

1 in 1,000 of losing 1,000,000

?

[Dale]

"In my view, diplomacy and negotiation is the way forward with Iran (as I believe it should have been with Iraq) and with any number of horrible regimes/unstable regions across the world."

I will repeat 'Don't send the foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber' Nye Bevan

"We should be focussing our foreign policy on such negotiations (along with the UN and our allies)"

Their not interested, anything at the UN will be torpedoed by china and russia.

Negotiate what? What will we offer them, and in exchange for what?

Let's just remember that the soviet bloc didn't fall apart because we appeased it.

"I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table." Ronald Reagan.

[Ken Stevens]

Dale
The phrase "speak softly - but carry a big stick" comes into mind from the past.

As for the UN, it is certainly a forum for debate, but the idea that it is anything more than the sum of its imperfect parts is dangerously ludicrous. If I have to look to some external entity for my security, then that is the USA - and I believe McCain to be the better bet in this respect rather than Obama, even if the latter is an Anglophile with a half brother-in-law in Bracknell!

I'll opt for McCain's League of Democracies.

[Norm Brainer]

Norm, which would you rather:

1 in 100 of losing 1,000

or

1 in 1,000 of losing 1,000,000

I don't see this situation can be so easily compared.

I am just giving my interpretation of the stats which is that the EU are causing problems now and it's the UK government that need to sort out that for themselves.

I don't think the iran threat is exceptionally great at the moment, although that's not to say it isn't, just that I'm not as aware of it and so others will probably think the same.
The threat might cause a problem at some point but it will be a global solution.
For our government to take it upon themselves to sort it out wouldn't be right, I don't think.
It still scored over 6, so is still regarded as important.

[passing leftie]

Currently, it is at least 10% of the working population which is not a great success, despite both 10 years of GDP growth and the government directly employing at least 700/- extra people since it got into power.

Economic inactivity has declined slightly. under Labour, too.

Its self serving unreality is part of the reason why Labour is now so unpopular.

Posted by: Jake | July 14, 2008 at 12:54

It was set up in 1982 under the Tories and has continued to be released regularly, with only minor changes in the questions. It gives a reliable measure of the change in crime levels. Police statistics vary wildly. Where have got the idea that it's biased? Perhaps you find it hard to take that crime has gone down.

You appear to be implying that lack of money = bad personality.

Posted by: RichardJ | July 14, 2008 at 13:45

Oh, really. Of course people are individually responsible for their own crimes. That is what the criminal justice system is for. But, crime fluctuates because of social and economic factors. Was their more crime in the eighties because peoples' personalities got worse, or because of record joblessness? Think it through.

Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | July 14, 2008 at 13:48

Thank you for your suggestions for Labour supporters top ten. I was asking for that. You could have added "Making our glorious nation a soft touch for asylum seekers," "Opening up our NHS to diseased foreigners" "Giving our ancient freedoms to the Gnomes of Zurich for a mess of pottage".

[Nigel Rathbone]

Dale, you are still completely missing the point.

You can brand me an appeaser if you like, but you would be quite wrong. I've never said force should be off the table. I just don't think unilateral action without some measure of support from the international community was a sensible way to proceed in Iraq, and we should avoid the same mistakes over Iran. (A fairly mainstream view, I'd have thought, across the political divide.)

But all this is irrelevant. I refer you to my posts at 14.12 and 13.55 for my central point on the subject of this thread, and which you have conspicuously failed to address - i.e. we face a considerably more potent and dangerous threat from the situation in the middle east than we do from the EU, and only a foaming, swivel-eyed carpet-chewing Euroseptic fanatic would rank the latter as a more pressing foreign policy concern than the former.

[Mark Fulford]

I don't see this situation can be so easily compared.

But that's exactly what creating priorites is about.

The threat might cause a problem at some point but it will be a global solution.

Lurching from crisis to crisis leaves us at the mercy of events and reliant upon there being a quick solution. If only through self-interest, our G8 status means that we should be active rather than passive in creating global solutions. War in the Middle East isn't going to make a big dent in Zimbabwe's economy.

[Alex Swanson]

Alex, we disagree on this.

I don't have a problem with us disagreeing, what I have the problem with is your attack on people's motives. It's perfectly possible for honest people to genuinely believe (even if you personally don't) that crime, immigration, and the EU are serious issues affecting all sections of society, and abuse is not an appropriate response.

The greatest difference between today and Britain in previous generations is increasing population, mobility and prosperity.

Well, my understanding is that population increase is actually due to first and second generation immigration, since women from the indigenous culture tend to have babies at lower than replacement rates - but even if this isn't so, high immigration is certainly not going to help.

As for mobility and prosperity, I'm not sure why you mention them. The survey was about objectives. Do you think increased mobility and prosperity are problems that need solving?

[Mark Fulford]

...abuse is not an appropriate response.

If anything came across as abusive, it was misunderstood. No abuse was intended.

As for mobility and prosperity, I'm not sure why you mention them.

I mentioned them as alternative (and, IMO, more likely) explanations for the changes to society’s fabric that worry you. For example, children are now more cosseted than ever. How much of that is down to the motor car, which none of us will do without, but which pollutes, consumes, injures, anonymizes and transforms communities into through-roads? And the plastic waste that pollutes our seas, streets and hedgerows is how much the product of prosperity and how much the product of changing nature? I think the world would be unquestionably nicer without these problems but I accept them as the cost of unstoppable progress.

[Ross]

It would be nice if Cameron gave up all that pro-perv drivel that he has cultivated since he took control and restored family-friendly policies, repealing the 'queers (protection-from-criticism) act' and - just to be topical -urged Tories to boycott Mcdonalds for their latest affiliation to America's sodomite National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. I mention this last issue because no Conservatives here in the Uk have raised any protests or calls to stay away from the Golden Arches,, yet our burger meals money will subsidise the HQ deviant-friendly programmes.

[Ryan]

"Even though the environment is at number 13 it still shows that most members think it is more important than unimportant; scoring above 5." -- Posted by: Felicity Mountjoy | July 14, 2008 at 12:05

Environment scoring just above antipathy (5) at 5.5 doesn't mean most members think it is important.

It could mean that some people think it is extremely important while others don't think it at all important as a top priority for a new Conservative government. I would be interested to see the distribution of votes on this. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot in the higher and lower quartiles.

Ryan