ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Look out for a five pronged affirmation of "new Toryism"

When The Times described David Cameron's Conservative team as "women-free" I called it "unfair".  CCHQ went ballistic - seeing it as a dangerous attack on the modernisation agenda.  Team Cameron believes that the Tory leader couldn't have worked much harder to promote women into the shadow cabinet, into the House of Lords, into winnable Westminster seats and into the European Parliament.  Rules for selection of MEP candidates were actually changed so that women won higher rankings on regional lists even if they secured fewer votes from grassroots members*.

David Cameron wrote for The Times yesterday, setting out the progress that he's made in increasing representation of women.

In tomorrow's Times a huge number of Tory women - led by our adopted candidates - have written a letter defending David Cameron's record on female selection.

A member of the shadow cabinet told me to look out for five things in the next few months that Team Cameron would be emphasing to show that "new Toryism" is still alive and kicking - despite the "age of austerity":

1. Further promotion of women and ethnic minority Conservatives.
2. Outreach to gay rights groups (yesterday we learnt this).
3. More emphasis on environmental policies.  At Spring Forum in Cheltenham Greg Clark MP promised to make Britain the "Saudi Arabia of renewable energy."
4. Loud trumpeting of the fact that the NHS and international development are the top two Tory spending priorities.
5. More initiatives on social justice with a greater role for Iain Duncan Smith.

Tim Montgomerie

* Most women in top MEP slots received fewer votes than male rivals

Three priorities for George Osborne's first budget

We mustn't get ahead of ourselves but...

Priority one: Repairing the public finances by focusing on reducing spending. Tax rises should not even be contemplated until possibilities for reductions in the size of the state have been exhausted.

Priority two: Defending the wealth creators. Without growth we are never going to get out of Labour's mess. We need to make it clear to every investor and entrepreneur - at home and abroad - that a Conservative government will create an economic climate that rewards risk, innovation and effort.

Priority three: Measures to advance social justice. Not the big state schemes favoured by Labour but the pro-society compassion of the Centre for Social Justice. If there is to any new or protected public expenditure it should be the budgets that build family, the voluntary sector and Michael Gove's schools revolution.

I've developed these themes in an 800 word piece for Comment is free.

Tim Montgomerie

Chris Grayling has not sounded the death knell of "hug-a-hoodie"

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling gave this speech in Doncaster yesterday in which he called for a "war on antisocial behaviour", to be based on five central principles:

1. There have to be consequences for every act of antisocial behaviour;
2. Parents must not be allowed to abdicate responsibility for their children's behaviour;
3. A tougher approach to bad behaviour in schools must teach children the difference between right and wrong;
4. Adults encouraging children to be irresponsible - by selling them drugs or alcohol for example - must be dealt with effectively; and
5. Youth engagement in society must be ensured, not least through support for the voluntary sector groups delivering that process of engagement.

Mr Grayling spoke about his desire to see "an effective punishment every time young people do step out of line" and he added that he wanted "instant community punishments for serious acts of antisocial behaviour".

The speech has been written up by the Times's Sam Coates as a repudiation of David Cameron's so-called "hug-a-hoodie" speech of three years ago:

"The speech marked a final break for the Conservatives from Mr Cameron's initial youth crime strategy, which called for greater understanding of hoodie-wearing teenagers. In July 2006, the Tory leader told the Centre for Social Justice that young people needed 'a lot more love'. Mr Cameron added: 'So, when you see a child walking down the road, hoodie up, head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement - think what has brought that child to that moment'."

But I would contest that Sam Coates' analysis is entirely wrong: "hug-a-hoodie" was never about letting youth crime go unchecked, but rather seeking to address the social problems such as family breakdown, illiteracy and unemployment which are the context for such crime taking place.

Indeed, as Chris Grayling said himself in the same speech yesterday:

"Family breakdown, addiction, benefit dependency, educational failure all play a part. Changing what we have called the broken society will be a long and difficult process."

Jonathan Isaby

The Conservative Party will not walk by on the other side

Lots of commenters were unhappy at yesterday's remarks by George Osborne about libertarianism.  Over at CentreRight Iain Murray posted an eloquent defence of libertarianism.  It was probably unfortunate that Mr Osborne chose to use the term libertarianism but he was trying to do something important.  There is a long-standing impression out there that the Conservative Party is the party that leaves people alone when they fall behind.  It's an unfair characterisation of the Conservative Party (and, for that matter, libertarianism) and David Cameron (at last year's Party Conference) and George Osborne are determined to counter it.

People need to know that the Conservative Party is not a party that walks by on the other side when people are hurting.  That's a particularly important task during tough economic times.  The Tory leadership is determined to say that the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli will rally the so-called armies of compassion to help the vulnerable.  The compassionate carers of first resort should be families and charities and friendly societies (at which most libertarians would vigorously nod) but the state where necessary (less nodding).  One of my favourite (and under-used) David Cameron expressions is a commitment to build a nation of the second chance.

Fraser Nelson addresses this issue at Coffee House, reminding us that Margaret Thatcher also took great care to distance her policies from the more extreme laissez-faire ideas.

Tim Montgomerie

Boris clamps down on fat cat pay and sets up his Mayor's Fund

Good juxtaposition of Boris stories on the London Evening Standard's website:

1. A clampdown on fat cat public sector pay that will see the pay of Transport for London chiefs frozen and their bonuses cut back:

2. The establishment of his Mayor's Fund that should see £20m going to good causes by 2013:

Tim Montgomerie

Thatcher offered a Right-to-Buy; Cameron will add a Right-to-Move

Tomorrow at 11am Grant Shapps MP, Shadow Housing Minister, will launch Stage II of his approach to housing.  Stage I included incentives for local communities to accept new housing.  Stage III will look at urban regeneration.

We'll have more in the morning on Stage II but BBC1's Six'o'clock News has just lifted the veil on plans to introduce a new Right-to-Move.  The Centre for Social Justice has already highlighted the extreme problems of some social housing 'ghettoes' and some CSJ ideas - such as equity rewards for good tenants - have found their way into tomorrow's announcement.  The work of previous Housing spokesmen, Michael Gove and John Hayes, is also coming to fruition in what has been titled 'Extending Opportuinities'.

The key proposals from Grant Shapps are:

• The piloting of a ‘Right to Move’ by half-a-dozen local authorities where good social tenants can demand that their social landlord sell their current property and use the proceeds, minus transaction costs, to buy another property of their choice – anywhere in England.  The new home will remain a state-owned property but will aid mobility.  The innovative Hammersmith & Fulham council have already expressed an interest in being part of the pilot.
• Harnessing the power of the internet there will be the reintroduction of a comprehensive national mobility scheme for tenants who wish to move but to stay in the social sector - matching people who want to move beyond local authority boundaries.
• Protection of Right to Buy discounts for tenants moving within the social sector.

Tim Montgomerie

8.30pm: It has just been drawn to my attention that The Right to Move was a Policy Exchange idea.  More here.

Government can't ignore family break up, says Cameron

David Cameron's constant recommitment to the centrality of family life is, for me, the most encouraging element of his leadership.

He recently appointed Dr Samantha Callan (pictured) as his policy adviser on family policy.  Samantha chaired the Centre for Social Justice's policy group on family life.  Along with Philippa Stroud, Jill Kirby and Maria Miller MP she is one of a quartet of women who have been critical to the Conservative Party becoming so family-friendly.

Supporting the family is not an issue of marginal importance.  UK society has been systematically discouraging good behaviour for fifty years.  In yesterday's Daily Mail, Professor Kenneth Minogue penned a devastating essay, recording how we've turned moral norms on their head.  My own list would include the way we've...

• incentivised couples on benefit to live apart;
• made exams easier and downgraded competitive sports so every child 'succeeds';
• ducked tough action against disruptive behaviour in the classroom;
• given counselling rather than punishment to persistent young offenders;
• turned a blind eye to celebrities who use hard drugs;
• penalised pensioners who put money aside for their retirement;
• given grants to extremist Muslim groups;
• given the lion's share of attention in the Northern Ireland peace process to Sinn Fein, not the moderate SDLP...

Just speaking to party activists in Wales, David Cameron has spelt out why public policymakers cannot ignore the strength of the family:

Jonathan Aitken proposes that rehabilitation should be the centrepiece of the prison system in new CSJ report

Tomorrow see the publication of a comprehensive new report on prison reform by the Centre for Social Justice, Locked Up Potential, which has been written by an 11-strong working group chaired by former Cabinet minister (and ex-prisoner) Jonathan Aitken.

ConservativeHome covered his appointment to that role in November 2007 here and the work he has conducted over the last sixteen months has clearly been very fruitful, with the report running to no fewer than 273 pages.

The thrust of the report is that rehabilitation must be the centrepiece of the prison system. The headline proposal is that those working in the prison and probation services who cut reoffending rates should be rewarded, but also that some savings made from the cuts in reoffending should be invested in schemes to treat prisoners' drug and alcohol addictions and to help them into jobs.

The following feature among the recommendations in the report:

• Replacing the National Offender Management Service with a local network of Community Prison and Rehabilitation Trusts (CPRTs) modelled on local NHS Trusts;
• Giving financial incentives to prison and probation officers who deliver reduced reoffending rates in local CPRT areas;
• Compulsory testing of all prisoners on arrival for drug addiction and alcoholism, with stricter anti-smuggling measures being introduced;
• Continuous but lower cost rehabilitation in Community Supervised Homes for Offenders (CSHOs) for certain offenders, such as some elderly, disabled, mentally disturbed and women prisoners;
• Enlisting thousands of additional volunteers to mentor prisoners and released prisoners and help them with their literacy and preparation for finding employment, housing and jobs on release;
• The full introduction of restorative justice, making criminals come face-to-face with the after-effects of their crimes.

It is a thoughtful report from a thoughtful (ex-)politician, and shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve has  indicated in The Observer that he recognises it as a "very interesting contribution"  to the debate on prison reform.

As Iain Duncan Smith writes in the Sunday Telegraph:

"It makes powerful reading and sets out a programme for change which I believe will help alter the lives of large numbers of offenders and, correspondingly, the lives of all of us."

The full report will be available to download at the Centre for Social Justice website.

Jonathan Isaby

Iain Duncan Smith raises concerns about how council house sales created ghettoes

11.45am update: Aware that only selected quotes from his interview had been released, I asked Iain Duncan Smith if he could add some context to his remarks. He has now got back to me and says:

"What the full interview should show is that I pointed out I am a supporter of the sale of council houses but that when the allocation of council houses to replace those who moved out was restricted to a ‘needs’ based criteria the estates suffered. Only the neediest, ie: broken dysfunctional families, came on to the estates and this has ghettoised such families as the good working families left.

"I made the point that the next phase for Thatcher was social reform which she admits she never completed. It is in the Centre for Social Justice's housing report published a few months ago which shows conclusively that once upon a time social housing was about mixed tenure with two parent families and families in full time work. That is no longer the case and less than a third have full time work on estates and a very small number have two parents. This style of life for the children now ensures they are more likely to repeat the behaviour of their community and grow up out of work and dependent in their turn. Most children will not see a two parent family or someone who goes out to work.
 
"The sale of council housing was never enough on its own - that is why we need to complete the social reform agenda so that we can change all this. Our housing paper points out that future sales should be set in such a context of breaking down these monolithic estates and using social housing as a support to lift people out of dependency and into work."

The CSJ's full report on Housing Poverty can be downloaded here.

---

The sale of council houses during the 1980s has generally been hailed as a flagship policy of the Thatcher Government which sought to help create a property-owning democracy.

Yet the consequences of that policy appear to be being questioned by Iain Duncan Smith.

In a yet-to-be-published interview with the Left-wing Fabian Review, the former Conservative leader and founder of the Centre for Social Justice seems to suggest that as a stand-alone policy, the sale of council houses meant that many of the country's most vulnerable families got "left behind", since further social reforms were not forthcoming.

Liam Fox fears mental health crisis inside armed forces

In a speech earlier today Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox highlighted the mental health problems facing British servicemen:

"From January 2003 to December 2006, 2,333 regulars and reservists who served in Iraq during Operation TELIC were managed by the Defence Medical Services for mental illness attributed to their deployment.  In 2007, there were 1,898 new referrals to the MoD’s Departments for Community Mental Health (DCMHs) who were diagnosed with a mental health disorder and had served in Iraq or Afghanistan or both in 2007.

I fear that, deployment after deployment and year after year, the mental health problem will become a mental health crisis. This is because our armed forces are operating at a tempo for which they are neither resourced nor manned. There are some service members who have been on multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Each deployment only makes matters potentially worse for the service member and studies have shown a nexus between the length of time on operations the possibility suffering from some form of mental health illness.

In the U.S., a recent study found that soldiers on their third or fourth deployment have significantly lower morale, more mental-health problems and more stress-related work problems.  In the UK, a report in the British Medical Journal reported that of those troops serving 13 or more months in a theatre of operations, 5.2 percent suffered from PTSD; 21.8 percent suffered from psychological distress and 23.9 percent suffered from severe alcohol problems."

Dr Fox promised to build a "land fit for heroes" and promised investment in support services for servicemen returning from duty.  Full speech here.

David Cameron's social reform agenda is even more important in these tough economic times

The Telegraph have begun a new series on their comment pages today - Getting It Right; A Conservative Future. I have written the first piece on why David Cameron's social reform agenda is more important than ever.  Regular ConHome readers will be familar with the main arguments I make in the article:

Prosperity has its roots in social structure: "If you ask a traditional Conservative to list the causes of economic wealth, they'll give you a familiar list. Low and simple taxation. Light touch regulation. Free trade. Opposition to monopolies. Property rights. Low inflation. All good answers but not, says David Cameron, the full answer. Since he became Tory leader he has been arguing that Britain's long-term health – and wealth – depend upon the strength of society, too. Families that stay together. Children who leave school with meaningful qualifications. Adults who stay free of drug and alcohol dependency. A welfare state that encourages personal industry, not dependency."

Social breakdown is even more difficult to afford in tough economic times: "Research by the Centre for Social Justice has found that family breakdown is costing the Exchequer about £24 billion a year. Underachievement at school is costing £18 billion. Reoffending by prisoners, £11 billion. Drug and alcohol abuse is costing taxpayers £39 billion. The Centre for Policy Studies has calculated that an average family will cost the taxpayer £10,000 more each year if it splits up, owing to a reduced offering in tax and a greater need for welfare benefits. Reconvicting a repeat offender takes an average of £24,000. Annual incarceration adds about £35,000. Drug treatment puts £2,000 per annum more on top of that."

Thatcher and Reagan lacked a social reform agenda: "Margaret Thatcher regretted missing the opportunity to start a programme of social renewal. Although she saved the British economy, she did not save British society. Even when economic growth was rising during her premiership too many other indicators were going in the wrong direction: rates of relationship breakdown and crime, for example. Those trends have continued during the Brown-Blair years, leaving social and economic misery in their wake... Although Thatcherism and Reaganomics were necessary, they were incomplete projects. British Conservatives need to acknowledge that inadequacy as we build a programme to sustain us through this decade's recession and for long-term national recovery."

Britain needs Conservative social policies more than ever

I'm with Iain Duncan Smith in Washington (we're off to Ottawa later today for meetings that include a call on Canadian PM Stephen Harper). The interest from American conservatives is at a level I've not known before. The combination of Republican woes and Tory strength obviously having a lot to do with it!

Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom yesterday in which he set out the importance of the social justice message to the Tory recovery.

He argued that the recession made Tory social policies MORE important rather than less so.  That has got to be right.  The next few years are going to be very tough.  The personal cost of Britain's broken society was always awful but it's now also true that the taxpayer cannot afford the cost of broken families, worklessness and adult dysfunctionality.  Policies to mend the family, reduce welfare dependency and improve education are even more important than in 'good times'.  The nurturing of self-sufficient citizens will be crucial to creating not just social justice but the kind of creative and skilled workforce that will ultimately deliver sustainable prosperity.

IDS ended, however, with these words:

"At the end of the Thatcher years Britain was transformed. Europe’s sickest economy had become its strongest. The recipe had been low taxes. Simple taxes. Effective regulation. Privatisation. Free trade. Reform of the trade union movement. Intolerance of inflation.


They were necessary things to have done and I don’t say that lightly. They saved Britain from terminal economic decline.

 But somehow they didn’t create a nation that was quite at ease with itself. Margaret Thatcher knew that herself and used her memoirs to regret that she hadn’t been able to initiate ‘Social Thatcherism’.



As we rebuild our economies from today’s tough times we are going to need simpler taxes and open markets but the lesson of the 1980s is that those things won’t be enough.



When the next period of conservative government ends I want the British people to remember us for other things too. For helping parents to stay together and to spend more time with their children. For a nation where every one has a second chance. For building schools that reinforce the values of the home. For respecting and nurturing the skill of craftsmen. For protecting woodland and other habitats of rich natural beauty. For helping a new generation to understand their country’s history.

That’s the conservatism that will help make my country strong and contented again."

I agree with every word.  Conservatism is about so much more than economics.  In many ways it is the least important component of conservatism.

Download a PDF of the full speech.

Tim Montgomerie

Should the Conservatives abandon the inheritance tax cut? Should the upgrade of Trident be scrapped? Can we afford National Citizen Service?

Big cuts in public spending are going to be necessary to restore order to Britain's public finances (and to avoid large tax increases).  It is politically essential that Cameron-Osborne show that they aren't just prepared to cut things that hurt others but that they are prepared to cut things that will be seen to be uncomfortable for Conservatives too - either personally or politically.  Three such candidates for cuts are floated below:

(1) Abandon the inheritance tax pledge
Within today's leading article critical of Tory economic policy, the FT urges David Cameron and George Osborne to abandon their 2007 commitment to abolish inheritance tax for all but millionaires:

"Their proposal to cut inheritance tax should, in particular, be abandoned. This policy was a tactical masterstroke when announced in 2007. It is also inexpensive. But slashing the duties owed by millionaires on unearned income will make it politically harder to sell the severe and unpleasant structural tightening for which – if they are a successful administration – they would be remembered."

Responding to a recent question from Jonathan Isaby the Tory leader said that he would NOT abandon the pledge.  The calculation at the top of the party is that the now cheaper pledge would be too difficult to unwind - certainly in respect of the political aggravation that it would cause.  But is cutting inheritance tax the right thing to do in such changed economic circumstances?

(2) Don't renew Trident
Michael Portillo has already made this case:

"The money that Brown intends to spend on renewal could be diverted instead to aircraft carriers, cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft, all of which have awesome destructive power and almost certainly will get used. It is to be hoped that the Conservatives are thinking the issue through. For that matter a different US administration might also believe that Britain would be a more useful ally if it spent less on Trident but could unleash more explosive and fly more missions in the next regional war than it did against Iraq."

By not renewing Trident the Conservatives could both strengthen conventional firepower and still have some change left over for reducing government debt.

(3) Scrap National Citizen Service
This is a flagship David Cameron idea but is it now affordable?  By scrapping/ delaying something so closely identified with his personal mission, the Tory leader would be signalling the seriousness of the budgetary situation.

***
I do not know conclusively what I think about each of these three suggestions for saving money but I do think that this is the sort of tough thinking that is now necessary.

Tim Montgomerie

Pauline Neville-Jones analyses the foreign policy implications of a prolonged global recession

Shadow Security Minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones is, according to the monthly ConservativeHome survey of grassroots members, the most popular female member of the shadow cabinet.  Elevated to the Lords at the same time as Sayeeda Warsi she has been working away at developing a coherent Conservative security policy – taking a tough line on domestic extremism and developing a global perspective on threats and opportunities.  Although, by many accounts, she has struggled to adapt to the political cut-and-thrust she is set to be a very authoritative minister.

Earlier this week she delivered a speech to the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta.  Key extracts are published below.

We could see a reversal of progress on international poverty: “According to the World Bank, from 1981 to 2001, the number of people living on less than $1 a day went down from 1.5 billion to 1 billion.  Improvements in global literacy went hand-in-hand with this.  This favourable trend could now go into reverse. Just one indicator of what is at stake.”

Private capital flows to emerging economies are set to collapse: “In 2007, net private capital flows to emerging economies were $898 billion… The Institute of International Finance estimates that net private capital flows to emerging and developing countries will be just $165 billion in 2009 – a decline of 82 per cent from 2007.”

Traditional values in comeback shock?

Jonathan Isaby spotted Labour MP Tom Harris' wisdom first yesterday and highlighted it on CentreRight.com:

Teenage girls shouldn’t be having underage sex...

Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career...

Parents shouldn’t teach their children that a lifetime on benefits is attractive or even acceptable...

The Daily Mail applauds Mr Harris' thinking this morning.

This reminds me of recent contributions from 'Crunchy Con' Rod Dreher and Janet Daley that we may be seeing a return to traditional values - or, in this green age, what might more sensibly be called sustainable values.  In recessionary times it's certainly true that debt-free, addiction-free, reasonably-educated and intact families are a lot more affordable than the alternatives.  At the heart of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice analysis is that poverty can be avoided if the right choices are made on family, schooling, debt and drugs.

Are there other traditional values that we need to relearn?

Don't buy a financial product you don't understand...

Always put some money aside for a rainy day...

Eat when you're hungry...

Your ideas welcome in the thread below.

Tim Montgomerie

'The Left must rescue Cameron from the Tory Right'

That's Jenni Russell's message in her column for The Guardian.  She accepts that the Conservatives are almost certain to be Britain's next government and she encourages the Left to engage with David Cameron and avoid him (a) failing or/and (b) coming under the influence of the dreadful Tory right:

"The dominance of the progressive wing of the party can't be taken for granted. It is a fragile thing, and if it is to succeed it needs constructive criticism. I asked two insiders how many people in the party were fully behind this new Toryism. "Ten," said one, "but it's an important ten." Another said grimly: "Twenty-two - the shadow cabinet." Standing behind the more socially responsible Conservatives are plenty of gin-drinking, Mail-reading Tories nostalgic for the harshness of Thatcherism. They would cheer, along with the left, if this experiment failed."

A few observations:

The Cameroons tend to be dazzled by wooing from the Left: I do worry that the Cameroons are too flattered by the Guardian and other left-wing organisations that show them interest.  It's true that the Conservative project needs to be broadly based but there's too much fascination with unsatisfactory ideas like Red Toryism and nudging.  Old fashioned ideas like Margaret Thatcher's housewife economics may not be so sexy but they are the ones that will get our country out of Labour's economic mess.

Will the Left cool on Cameron if he pursues his social agenda? The most genuine (and important) thing about Project Cameron is its interest in social renewal.  It will be interesting to see how the Left's view of a Cameron government evolves if it stays true to its poverty-fighting agenda of emphasising marriage, faith-based charities, welfare reform, school choice and harm avoidance approaches to drug addiction.

The Right lacks coherence: Jenni Russell's caricature of the Tory Right is ridiculous but the Right is now very hard to define.  There is no great unifying force behind it if it exists at all anymore.  There is certainly no accepted definition of Thatcherism.  The Tory Right is split on Europe, foreign policy and confused on economics.  It has no leader although David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Fallon, Liam Fox, John Hayes, Edward Leigh, Owen Paterson, John Redwood and John Whittingdale all represent important strands.

The ten who get it: And who are the "ten" who are fully behind the undefined "new Toryism"?  I am only sure of six...

1. David Cameron, of course.
2. George Osborne, more socially liberal and more hawkish than DC but the tactical brain of the whole project.
3. Steve Hilton, the strategic brain responsible for the decontamination project, for the emphasis on green issues and social responsibility.
4. Edward Llewellyn, Cameron's Chief of Staff, gatekeeper and hugely influential in the evolution towards 'realpolitik' in foreign policy.
5. Oliver Letwin, responsible for putting together the overall policy programme of the next government and intellectually its Gandalf.
6. Michael Gove, hugely trusted by David Cameron and responsible for the education brief that is intended to be the most radical of his government....

There are others, of course, who are hugely influential - Lord Ashcroft, Andy Coulson, Andrew MacKay are stand outs - but the above six would be my candidates for being fully behind the "new Toryism" and who are at the centre of power.

Tim Montgomerie

IDS blames "collapse of right and wrong" for the babyfather

There aren't many stories that genuinely surprise anymore but today's splash in The Sun is a real shocker.

The Sun has photographs of a baby-faced thirteen year old boy holding the child that he has fathered with a fifteen year-old girl.

David Cameron has called the news "worrying" but was cautious.  Iain Duncan Smith was more direct with this statement to the London Evening Standard's Paul Waugh:

"It exemplifies the point that we at the Centre for Social Justice have been making about broken Britain. It's not about being accusative, it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong in terms of children and relationships. There is no oppobrium any more about behaviour and quite often children witness behaviour that is aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong. I don't know about these particular families, but too many dysfunctional families in Britain today have children growing up where anything goes. It's utterly tragic."

There are things that Government can do to tackle family breakdown but IDS is largely right.  The collapse of Britain's social order is a cultural crisis.  Civilisations aren't maintained automatically but by constant efforts to discourage bad behaviours and encourage good behaviours.  Parents today face a lonely battle to teach their children about right and wrong.

Tim Montgomerie

We need 1997 capitalism plus social justice

At 6pm yesterday I posted an article by Michael Fallon MP on the banking crisis.  It's a terrific piece that points to massive errors from the banks, regulators and the government.  It's vital that Gordon Brown doesn't get away with the lie that this recession is all the fault of bankers and of America.

One paragraph from Michael's piece stood out to me:

"When Gordon Brown first set up his new system of banking supervision, the amount British banks lent out was matched by the amount that they held on deposit.  In fact, they were often in overall surplus. By the time he finished as chancellor, they were lending over £625 billion more than they held on deposit.  That’s not supervision – it was sheer recklessness.  It’s that funding gap which is the key to understanding how our banks have crumbled."

When we hear pundits call for a fundamental restructuring of our economy and when we hear that capitalism has failed we need to remember facts like that one.  Capitalism was working reasonably well at the end of the Thatcher-Major years.  It's true that there were too many people who were struggling (and that is why Iain Duncan Smith's social justice agenda is so incredibly important) but there is a huge danger that - like markets - politicians 'overshoot' and over-regulate and over-nationalise in response to current difficulties.  We must remember that businesses like Tesco, Ryanair and Sky Sports have been huge instruments of social welfare.  More importantly still we must give room for the small firm and entrepreneur to flourish without suffocating regulations and taxes.

I worry sometimes that Team Cameron is too fascinated by new ideas like 'nudging' and 'Red Toryism'.  All new ideas are worthy of study but conservatives should always prefer reforming imperfect systems to building new systems.  The most important thing is that we get back to some of the permanent truths highlighted recently by Ryan Robson:

"You can’t spend what you don’t have. We can’t afford more teachers and nurses unless a healthy private sector creates the profits to pay taxes. The family is the basic building block of our society. The state is the people’s servant not its master."

Tim Montgomerie

Notes on Conservative foreign policy

The decision by William Hague and David Lidington to speak against Israel's attempts to disarm Hamas is the latest indication of the nature of David Cameron's foreign policy.  Here are some thumbnail summaries of key components:

Europe: Opposition to Lisbon and a commitment to hold a referendum on all future transfers of power to Brussels have pleased Eurosceptics. There has also been a hardening of policy against the Euro but there has been retreat from Michael Howard's support for abolishing the Common Fisheries Policy.  David Cameron's delayed pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP was undermined by the decision to protect pro-EPP MEPs from deselection by grassroots members.

Multipolarity: David Cameron has insisted that America remains Britain's most important bilateral partner - although never "slavish" - but has also said that Britain has a special relationship with India. He and other shadow cabinet ministers have also regularly visited China.

Wider Middle East: William Hague believes that Labour has neglected relations with moderate Arab states and has invested considerable time in improving relations with these nations.  He has also called for a thawing of relations with Syria.  He has talked of "acquaintanceship".

Israel: William Hague and David Cameron have edged Britain away from the US position on Israel.  Mr Hague criticised Israel for a "disproportionate" use of force against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006 and has urged Israel to cease its current military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.

Iraq: The Conservative Party has not retreated from its initial support of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein but opposed the one decision that has probably been the most successful component of the campaign; General Petraeus' troops surge.

Afganistan: David Cameron has consistently made the case for continued engagement in Afghanistan but - with Liam Fox - has complained about a lack of clarity in the mission.

NATO: The Conservatives support NATO expansion - notably for Georgia - and a new mechanism whereby nations that do not fight contribute to the financial costs of those who do.

Defence: David Cameron backed Tony Blair's decision to renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.  Mr Cameron and Liam Fox have led public disquiet against the Government's record on the welfare and resourcing of servicemen and their families. Defence is Tory members' number one public spending priority and Liam Fox recently secured his brief as one of four Tory expenditure priorities.

International justice: George Osborne has agreed that Conservatives should honour the Government's plan to contribute 0.7% of national income to overseas development.  David Cameron recently made a big picture speech on human rights but it contained no bankable commitments.  William Hague led calls for Guantanamo Bay to be closed in 2007.

Tim Montgomerie

Tory members say Defence should be top public spending priority

From 22nd to 28th December 1,816 Tory members told us their highest and lowest priorities for twelve calls on public spending identified by ConservativeHome. The two graphics below summarise the findings (click on either to enlarge):

HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC SPENDING

LOWEST PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC SPENDING

We asked the two relevant shadow cabinet members - Liam Fox for Defence (members' highest spending priority - not for the first time) and Jeremy Hunt for Culture, Media and Sport (members' lowest priority) for their reactions:

Dr Liam Fox:

"ConservativeHome readers clearly understand what Gordon Brown's government fails to- namely that national security is the first duty of any British government. It is worth noting that while President Sarkozy was announcing a 2 billion euro boost to defence spending as part of his economic stimulus, Britain's Labour government were announcing delays to major programmes such as the carriers. Not only has Labour failed to live up to its part of the Military Covenant and failed to fully fund our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but they will leave behind a huge unfunded liability in defence procurement for future taxpayers. No one knows how catastrophic Brown's economic legacy will be but picking up the pieces in defence will be one of the most difficult challenges for the next government."

Jeremy Hunt:

"Spending at the disposal of the department of culture, media and sport amounts to less than half of one percent of all government spending. That means the potential to make a large impact on government spending as a whole is limited. That said, all government departments - big and small - need to tighten their belts in the current climate and that of course includes DCMS."

ConservativeHome comment: "The public spending priorities of Tory members are largely very sensible.  The first duty of any government is defence of the Realm and law and order at home.  There is no ambition amongst grassroots members for cuts in education and health and there is also a concern to invest in infrastructure spending.  Where members are wrong is, I think, in the low priority they attach to international development.  Maintaining international development spending is not just the morally correct course - in an age when so many are dying of treatable and preventable diseases - it is also an essential part of any national security agenda.  While trade liberalisation and private investment are more important to prevent failed states George W Bush has shown in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, that well targeted aid can save hundreds of thousands of lives.  Britain's aid budget could be better spent - and Andrew Mitchell is right to promise a diversion of aid from nations like China towards the poorest nations - but we should not trim a budget that is already worth £334m less because of the sharp decline in the pound.   

Tim Montgomerie

> Five days ago we published the views of Tory members on appropriate public sector economies.
> Stephen Crabb MP's case for maintaining development spending.

David Cameron's New Year message

Just released by CCHQ and published in full below. In his message the Conservative leader promises that he won't drop his green, social justice and international responsibility agendas but will "step up the pace" on them.  He accuses Labour of losing its moral compass and of being "corrupted by power".  Boris' message is also pasted at the end of the post.

“In my New Year message three years ago, I said that I wanted the modern Conservative Party to be a voice for change, optimism and hope.  What was true in the good times is even truer now that times are tough, and getting tougher.  People are looking to us for hope in these dark days, and we must be ready to offer it: hard-edged hope, built on a clear-sighted analysis of what has gone wrong and how we can put it right.

That provides this Party with three important tasks for 2009.  First, we must show that we have learned the lessons of Labour’s Debt Crisis and will never let it happen again.  Second, we must offer constructive and positive ideas to help keep people in work and in their homes, and make sure the recession is as short, shallow and painless as possible.  But third and perhaps most important of all, we must set out our positive vision of change: to describe the new economy and the new society that we want to build once the recession is over and the recovery underway.

Cameron's attacks on Labour excess supported by chorus of bishops

Christmas quiz time. Three of the following quotations are from an article by David Cameron in The Sunday Telegraph and three from Church of England Bishops.  Can you guess which are which?

1. “Labour made a lot of promises, but a lot of them have vanished into thin air.  We have not seen a raising of aspirations in the last 13 years, but instead there is a sense of hopelessness."
2. "If "Iraq" is the word that Tony Blair's famous "hand of history" chisels on his political tombstone, then for Gordon Brown the words "Debt Crisis" will serve as a suitable epitaph."
3. "It is not Labour's turbo‑capitalism we need, where a blind eye is turned to every corporate excess."
4. “The Government isn’t telling people who are already deep in debt to stop overextending themselves, but instead is urging us to spend more. That is morally suspect and morally feeble. It is unfair and irresponsible of the Government to put pressure on the public to spend in order to revive the economy.”
5. "If it is right to demand personal responsibility from the welfare claimant, the absent father or the career criminal then it is right to expect corporate responsibility from the chief executive, the hedge‑fund manager and the City fraudster, too."
6. "It is ironic that under a Labour government we have the poor feeling they have been betrayed and the gap is getting ever greater."

Cameron: We won't treat the richest any differently from the poorest

That's essentially the message of a speech - entitled A Day of Reckoning - that David Cameron is giving in London Docklands this morning:

"In the good times, some people working in the financial services industry paid themselves vast financial rewards - salaries and bonuses beyond the comprehension of most of us. Now when it’s all gone wrong, they have been bailed out by the taxpayer. Nurses and cleaners and teachers and many millions of others, working in every part of our economy they will foot this multi-billion pound bill. Well: on behalf of the taxpayer, on behalf of the nurse on £20,000 a year, on behalf of the cleaner on the minimum wage, on behalf of working families worrying this Christmas like never before about what next year will bring I say it is fair and reasonable that those responsible are held to account for their behaviour and that we show clearly that in this country, there is not one rule for the rich and a different rule for everybody else. Fairness also means understanding that the whole financial services industry has had its name blackened – and wrongly. Over a million people work in this industry, most of whom are honest and hard working. It’s in their interests too that we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever is involved, however high or well-connected they may be."

Mr Cameron welcomed the recent commitment from the FSA to “bring more criminal prosecutions in the future”:

"The FSA and the SFO should be following up every lead, investigating every suspect transaction. And the government should be urging them on, because we need to make it one hundred percent clear: those who break the law should face prosecution."

The Conservative Party is determined to blunt the two central Labour attacks that the Conservative Party is the do-nothing party during the recession and that it is the party of the wealthy.  I'm told to expect almost daily activity for at least the next month.

Tim Montgomerie

1pm: WATCH highlights of David Cameron's speech

IDS warns that failed asylum seekers are being forced into prostitution

In one of its most controversial reports the Centre for Social Justice will today call for failed asylum seekers to receive support or be allowed to work. 

The think tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith and directed by Philippa Stroud argues that current rules are forcing failed asylum seekers underground, including into prostitution.

Speaking on this morning's Today programme the former Tory leader said that compassion and effectiveness were not alternatives.  By treating asylum seekers badly Mr Duncan Smith said the system was failing everyone.  Only one-in-five failed asylum seekers to the UK return voluntarily to their home countries compared to four-in-five in nations like Sweden.  The cost of a forced return is £11,000; ten times greater than a voluntary return.

IDS issued this statement:

"The British government is using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily. It is a failed policy. UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty. The result is that we rely heavily on forcible return, which is both very costly and time-consuming, and engages only a small proportion of those whose claims are refused. This system gives refused asylum seekers good reason to abscond and little reason to engage with officialdom."

The report issued by the CSJ calls for comprehensive changes to Britain's asylum seekers including much more investment in early processing and appeal of cases.  It is a very persuasive read.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories prepare to 'protect' youngest single mothers from Labour

The Daily Mail calls it "a startling reversal of positions for the two main parties" but notes that the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, is "uncomfortable" about Labour's intention - announced yesterday - to force single mothers to seek work once their youngest child reaches twelve months of age.

Mr Grayling told The Mail:

"Nobody could accuse me of being soft on welfare reform but there is a real issue about the welfare of children early in life. The big problem is the availability of the right kind of childcare."

The Conservatives would rather Labour focused efforts on getting the much larger number of people on incapacity benefit into work.  In an echo of the bipartisanship that David Cameron showed towards Tony Blair's 2006 education reforms, the Conservative frontbench nonetheless promises to help Welfare Secretary James Purnell pass the vast bulk of his measures.

Janet Daley is unimpressed with Mr Purnell's package.  She believes the proposed reforms are "over-hyped" and should be more closely modelled on the USA where the work requirements on single mothers, in particular, were much tougher and "the rate of unmarried births fell like a stone".  The Mail leader-writers also protest the flimsiness of Mr Purnell's insistence that "every claimant must do 'something'." "That may only include updating a CV or 'finding out about childcare'," they complain. The Mail leader concludes:

"The timing, too, leaves a lot to be desired. What a farce that ministers did nothing when jobs were readily available, but now seek to get the long-term unemployed, including 100,000 drunks and drug addicts in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, back into the workplace at a time when there are no jobs."