ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Where is David Cameron?

As today's homepage demonstrates it is not only Tony Blair - through his Middle East policy - who is causing unhappiness in his party.  A number of leading Tories are also unhappy with the Conservative leadership's willingness to criticise Israel.  The critics of the Tory leadership feel that the world comnmunity has failed Israel over the last six years by doing next to nothing to dismantle the Hezbollah terrorist network in southern Lebanon.

In an article for today's Times the Shadow Foreign Secretary acknowledges that "the origins of the current conflict lie in Hezbollah’s aggression" but he repeats his recent criticism of Israel:

"Ministers were wrong to be so slow and reluctant to warn Israel of the dangers and injustice of attacks on purely civil infrastructure and other areas of Lebanon. The Government should have been able to say clearly two weeks ago that elements of the Israeli response were disproportionate, risking unnecessary loss of civilian life and an increase in popular support for Hezbollah."

The two principal weaknesses of Mr Hague's article are (1) his failure to face up to the role of Iran in this current conflict and (2) his faith in the United Nations.  Mr Hague does make passing reference to the support and encouragement that Iran and Syria give to Hezbollah but there is nothing in his article that points to any understanding that Tehran's hatred of Israel is the most menacing fact in this whole equation.  The world community is dithering over how to respond to Iran's nuclear weapons programme and its desire to wipe Israel from the face of the planet.  Israel understands that, in fighting Hezbollah, it is fighting Iran, too.

Current UN plans to insert international troops into Lebanon do not impress Frank J Gaffney.  In The Wall Street Journal the President of the US Center for Security Policy writes:

"The make-up of this force may compound the problem. Under discussion are troop contributions from places like Turkey, Indonesia and France--nations that are not likely to prove unfriendly to Hezbollah and that are, to varying degrees, hostile to Israel. In short, this will be just another anti-Israel U.N. mission, providing protection to the Free World's terrorist foes and doing little if anything to keep them from readying new attacks on freedom-loving peoples."

I never expected to write this but Michael Portillo has contributed a lot more wisdom to the national debate than William Hague.  Hague's article could have been written by the Foreign Office.  A recent Portillo article was much richer in its observations and much more understanding of Israel's besieged status.  This is what the former Defence Secretary wrote for The Sunday Times of 23rd July:

"Critics of Israel point out that bombing Lebanon provides fresh grievances for Palestinians and other Muslims. That is undoubtedly so, and it is exactly what Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran would wish. Israel is forced to choose between looking feeble (which will increase its vulnerability) or playing into its enemies’ hands through “disproportionate” action. Before we criticise Israel we should at least understand that dilemma and be aware that if we stoke up anti-Israeli feeling we dance to a devilish tune."

It is an interesting fact that Michael Portillo, Francis Maude and other modernisers have changed in many often bewildering ways in recent years but they have not lost their conservative internationalism.

As this crisis continues what is urgently needed is a strong intervention from David Cameron.  He gave very impressive answers to a Q&A with Conservative Friends of Israel during the leadership election.  His absence from the public square during this time of international crisis is deeply unhelpful.  He needs to lead his party on this subject and contrast his own command of his party with the chasm between Tony Blair's rhetoric and the instincts of 95% of Labour MPs.  The current hesitancy is repeating the EPP experience.  Different sides of a contentious debate are digging into entrenched positions whilst the leader delays.  The party needs David Cameron to speak his mind and demand that the party follows his lead.

Desmond Swayne's very good advice

A second set of emails to David Cameron - from his key parliamentary aide, Desmond Swayne MP - have leaked.  The first were leaked to The Sunday Times and this morning's Guardian has the second.  Mr Swayne's judgment in committing his thoughts to email has to be questioned but I am struck by the wisdom of the overall advice.   Take the latest advice...

1. Mr Swayne warns the leader about policy being made "on the hoof" - a problem ConservativeHome highlighted a few weeks ago.  Too many decisions are being taken by Mr Cameron's small, inner circle - there's not enough delegation to shadow cabinet ministers - and "my concern," writes Swayne, "is that you might if you keep your foot quite so hard on the accelerator be in danger of being completely frazzled."
2. Mr Swayne reports "concern about you being deflected from the pledge to leave the European Peoples Party."  The EPP issue has become the biggest headache of David Cameron's leadership so far.  71% of Tory members think the leader's trustworthiness could be damaged if he fails to deliver on his exit pledge.  Desmond Swayne was right to warn the leader about the danger of failing to focus on this issue.   
3. Another email states: "A number of colleagues have expressed surprise John Hayes is still on the frontbench, given the language he used in a press release attacking the Conservative headquarters proposals on candidate selection."  Mr Hayes had attacked the A-list as the "product of the bizarre theory of people who spend too much time with the pseuds and poseurs of London's chichi set and not enough time in normal Britain".  "It may have been an opportunity to give a salutary warning, but I think on balance it would have been a mistake to sack him," Mr Swayne concluded.  That, too, was wise advice.  John Hayes was wrong to say what he did but Desmond Swayne knew that he was representing a sizeable proportion of backbench opinion.  He also knows that John Hayes has triumphed in each of the portfolios he has held and the frontbench would be a lot poorer without him.

Tough on the causes of hoodies

The leader-writers at The Daily Telegraph sound very unhappy with David Cameron's 'hoodie' speech (due to be given later today at the Centre for Social Justice):

"How much more can we take? Barely a week goes by without David Cameron distancing himself from some elemental Tory belief. He is against grammar schools and tax cuts and big business; in favour of the state sector and immigration. Now he says that young toughs need understanding, not condemnation."

The rest of The Telegraph leader is more of a harrumph than an argument and The Daily Mail is rightly more positive and constructive.  The Mail believes that the Tory leader is "right to say these young people [hoodies] are suffering from neglect and the absence of love" and that society must tackle the causes of anti-social behaviour that put young people on, what Oliver Letwin once called, the conveyor belt to crime.  What the Mail urges, however, is that the Tories look at the main driver of anti-social behaviour - family breakdown:

"Britain has Europe's worst rate of family breakdown, the highest number of teenage pregnancies, the highest incidence of fatherless children and, as a result, the highest rate of child poverty.  But not a mention of this appears in the advance copy of Mr Cameron's speech today."

Whatever Michael Portillo recommends it is usually wise to do the opposite

Michael Portillo's columns in The Sunday Times.  What is to be said about them?  This 'wisdom' appears in today's column:

"By and large, Cameron’s policy of daily saying the opposite of what you expect a Conservative to say is working well and the opinion polls reflect his success."

It is, of course, possible to see where Mr Portillo is coming from but his reading of Project Cameron is somewhat superficial.  On a range of issues - including the Human Rights Act, prisons policy, strengthening the family, police reform, free trade and secure borders - Mr Cameron is ploughing a traditionalist furrow.

Doing the opposite of what Mr Portillo recommends is actually a pretty good rule of thumb for any sensible Tory strategist.  Mr Cameron has already (wisely) spurned Mr Portillo's blood-on-the-carpet advice, his suggestion that Trident not be replaced and his recommendation that the party would be better off without "throwbacks" like John Redwood, IDS and Ken Clarke.  Mr Cameron also appears determined to reject today's recommendation - from the man who, in this arch sceptical days, told party conference that 'Europe isn't working' - that the Tory leader abandon his commitment to take Britain out of the EPP.  Mr Cameron's "foolish" commitment to leave the EPP "calls to mind Cameron’s description of the UK Independence party as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”."

Within Michael Portillo's writing there is often a very personal, even bitter edge.  That's on display again in the way he concludes today's piece.  I don't think Michael Portillo has ever forgiven William Hague for winning the Tory leadership after the 1997 election - a leadership which Mr Portillo expected to inherit and probably would have done so if the voters of Enfield Southgate had not been so neglected by him.  Appearing not to understand that it is William Hague who is most cautious about the EPP pledge, Mr Portillo urges Mr Cameron to break his EPP pledge and so "shatter Hague’s credibility and force him to resign".  Mr Portillo describes the Shadow Foreign Secretary as "a Eurosceptic without the mitigation of also being a moderniser".  Mr Portillo is a rejected politician without the mitigation of possessing any humility. 

Tories in a muddle on tax

Yesterday's speech by George Osborne (still not on conservatives.com at the time of posting) was meant to produce clarity on tax.  It failed to do so.

The Daily Mail has complained about the muddled briefing of the speech (see graphic on right) but still thinks that the Tories are committed to reductions in the tax burden (hence the headline above).  The Daily Telegraph, meanwhile, has published a leader that is heavily critical of the Tory reluctance to be more specific about its intentions on tax:

"Mr Osborne pointed out that tax freedom day - the day when people stop working for the taxman and start working for themselves - this year falls tomorrow. Two years ago, it fell a week earlier. Such a shift of resources to the unproductive sectors of our economy will strangle growth.  The Tories seem happy to avoid the tax cuts that would help avert that catastrophe, because they wish to avoid the spending cuts demanded by prudence and fiscal responsibility."

The thing that is causing frustration at The Telegraph is that, again and again, George Osborne is correctly diagnosing the problem.  He understands that Britain has the highest tax burden in its history and that the "economic arteries are furring up".  "The Conservatives have identified the problem," concedes The Telegraph but appear afraid to enact the tax incentives that are necessary for Britain to compete in the global economy.  George Osborne thinks that tax simplification will help Britain compete and he is surely right but will it be enough?

Mr Osborne is reluctant to offer tax reductions because he doesn't think that the electorate will believe such promises.  He criticised those who "think the key to winning general elections is to make up-front promises of tax cuts" and stated "we have fought the last three [elections] on that promise and lost all three of them".  Both those two statements are misleading.  Few advocates of tax relief believe that they are the "key" to winning an election but those of us who are concerned about the declining competitiveness of the British economy, believe that tax relief can be sold to voters as part of a package of measures to protect growth and employment.  The second statement is more annoying.   We did not lose any of the last three elections because of our policy on tax.  The primary reasons Labour have won parliamentary majorities were Tory exhaustion and sleaze (1997), voters giving Labour the benefit of the doubt (2001) and Tories offering an unbalanced all-core-vote message (2005).

Goeorge Osborne has now boxed himself into a corner on tax and we cannot expect him to now offer the radical programme of tax relief that the British economy needs.  It is for the wider conservative movement - campaigning organisations such as The Taxpayers' Alliance and thoughtleaders like Reform - to build long-term public support for a smaller, less wasteful state.  The only thing we could ask of George Osborne is to drop the economic illiteracy that tax relief and stability are somehow in opposition.  There are certain circumstances when tax cuts might unsettle the markets but if David Cameron inherits a sluggish economy from a Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a lower tax burden - particularly on the country's wealth creating sectors - will be essential for economic health and stability.

The Tories must learn the right lessons from Thursday

Reflecting on yesterday's results a leader in today's FT concludes that "Voting Conservative is becoming again a respectable choice."  It welcomes "the ditching of alarmist messages on crime and immigration in favour of soothing words on the environment and help for the disadvantaged".   "Allies" of Mr Cameron told The Times that yesterday's 40% share “totally vindicated” Project Cameron and should "silence critics on the Right" who had criticised a "lightweight" campaign.  The Independent - always green when it suits the newspaper - rushed to interpret David Cameron's electoral progress as victory for his emphasis on environmental issues.  That Norwegian glacier photo opportunity was "fully justified," it has decided.

Are these the right conclusions to be drawn from Thursday's results?

Other observers think this was about the government losing popularity, rather than David Cameron winning it.  The Sun has declared David Cameron "the real winner on Thursday... But," it continues, "there is no doubt that he was swept along by a tide of anti-Labour votes".  Britain's best-selling newspaper warns Mr Cameron not to rest on his laurels: "He has been silent too long on the big issues — tax, public spending, crime and illegal immigration."  A leader in The Telegraph argues that "only in a handful of councils - notably Hammersmith, where some very impressive young Tories stood on the basis of radical tax cuts - can the result definitively be said to have been pro-Cameron rather than anti-Blair."

The public interest in private vices

The BBC may have many faults but its 'on demand' web services are world-beating.  I've just caught up with this week's 'Any Questions?' programme.  Francis Maude was in the Tory slot and his answers to two questions got me thinking:

• Early in the programme (about 12 minutes in) the Tory chairman was asked if a national politician's private life and conduct has any bearing on his ability and credibility to fulfil his public role.  The questioner was clearly thinking of John Prescott's adultery.  "No, I don't think so," was FM's reply.  Politicians don't stand for office as Popes but as legislators, he continued.
• Later on the panellists were asked - by a vicar - what they did in their own lives to combat global warming.  Not one panellist complained about the question.  None of the politicians on the panel said what I do in my own life is my own business - judge me on the laws I propose to pass.  They all answered the questions with different degrees of success.  Francis Maude (about 39 minutes into the programme) told listeners "not enough".  He promised to buy a greener car when he replaced his current family car and we also learnt that he urinates on his compost heap to accelerate the decomposition process.

Michael Ancram: Troops out now

Michael Ancram, Iain Duncan Smith’s Shadow Foreign Secretary at the time the Tories supported the Iraq war, has called for British troops to leave the troubled nation.  The nation has descended into civil war, he writes in the vociferously and consistently anti-war Daily Mail, and British forces should get out of the firing line.

Mr Ancram is right to use his article to say that post-war reconstruction plans were inadequate.  He criticises the decision to dismantle Iraq’s own security forces and the creation of a “vacuum into which the insurgents, the terrorists and the fundamentalists swiftly poured”.  But his own ‘troops out now’ plea will create at least as serious a vacuum now.  His article offers no reassurance that Iraq will be more secure if British troops leave.  He offers no plan of action – only a message of despair.  The likelihood is that the situation will only deteriorate if his recommendations were to be accepted.  Iraqi troops remain insufficient in number and training to either contain or counter the insurgency.  Without British or American troops in Iraq the risk of Syria or Iran becoming involved can only grow.  The terrorists will have won a mighty victory against us and won’t use the opportunity of British withdrawal to begin a peaceful retirement.  Even though most Tory members now think the Iraq war was a mistake a majority don’t support precipitate troop withdrawals.  They know that it would be wrong – morally and practically - to ‘cut and run’.

The Spectator: Iran is our biggest test since the Cold War

On today's YourPlatform Peter Hitchens has catalogued the way successive British and other governments have appeased terrorists:`

"The best defence against terrorism is the knowledge - in the head of the potential terrorist - that his actions will fail to change the policy of the government against whom he fights, and that it will all be for nothing. Terrorism is the force that it is because, in contrast to their rhetoric about "evil killers", the leaders of the law-governed nations have been all too ready to treat with terrorists and their sponsors, and to encourage them to believe that outrages lead eventually to concessions. In which case, of course, the concessions will lead to outrages, as they do. The IRA's motto was always 'Our day will come'. And it did, at Easter 1998 to the shame and disgrace of all who supported the Belfast agreement."

The quotation is spot on.  What I cannot get from Peter Hitchens' analysis, however, is any insight into how he would deal with a terrorist state like Iran.  The leader in this week's Spectator notes the ways in which Iran sponsors terrorism across the globe:

"Iran, the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism, is the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It is a fact that the regime is the paymaster of — among many others — the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped to found in the 1980s), the Palestinian terrorist group and now government, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and many of the barbaric terrorists who are murdering innocent Muslims every day in Iraq in an effort to destroy its first glimpse of freedom. The spectre of nuclear-armed terrorists is not one that bears contemplating."

The Spectator speculates about Iran's ambitions:

"Not content with financing and encouraging the world’s worst terrorists, and doing its best to destabilise Iraq, the Iranian regime is also developing an intercontinental missile, the Shahab-3, with an 800-mile range that could hit Israel — all at a time when rabid anti-Semitism is being encouraged in the Iranian media and Holocaust denial is propagated by the Iranian government. Armed with nuclear weapons, Iran would also be much more likely to try to grab control of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial trading route for oil and gas."

What is the west going to do about Iran?  Jack Straw - whose regular visits to Tehran over recent years have achieved nothing - wants the military option off the table.  Liam Fox and 60% of Tory members disagree and think that military action must remain an option.  Much of Britain's liberal-left establishment invest much more of their energies in worrying about George W Bush than about the prospect of the Iranian president getting hold of the nuclear weapons with which he could "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".  Including Israel within NATO seems the least that Europe and North America could do.

Mr Straw's faith in the UN is not reassuring.  Ask the people of Rwanda and Darfur and Srebrenica and the Congo about the failures of this ultimate institution-of-political-convenience.  The only hope for diplomacy is if it is backed up by the threat of military action - "whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war".   It is urgent that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that we are serious about stopping him from holding the world to ransom with nuclear weapons.  The Robb-Silberman report informed us that US intelligence in Iran is wholly inadequate.  Whilst the diplomacy goes on our governments urgently need to improve intelligence about the location of Iranian nuclear sites.

David Cameron is worried about the long-term threat to our planet posed by alleged global warming.   The much more imminent threat from Iran should really be keeping him awake at night.

Ten reasons for supporting Project Cameron

David Cameron's change agenda has entered its most testing period.  The opinion polls have not budged as much as his modernising followers had hoped.  Andrew Rawnsley described the problem in yesterday's Observer:

"David Cameron is a pilot who can't get his undercarriage up. His leadership of the Tory party left the runway with impressive speed, considerable élan and a strong following wind from a friendly media. But now he is struggling to gain any altitude."

David Cameron's great problem is that he is struggling to substantiate his change message.  He talks about his passion for the environment but, with the reports of the policy groups still more than twelve months away, he cannot offer any bold policy changes that substantiate his commitment.  There is no great environmentally-friendly tax reform or a big push towards a new, cleaner way of meeting Britain's energy needs.  On social justice there is no equivalent of Mrs Thatcher's sale of council homes.  On international development there is policy silence.

In order to bridge the gap between now and policy announcements we are presented with gesture politics.  There's Mr Cameron's forthcoming factfinding trip to Norway and there was Saturday's well-meant but cringe-making 'be the change' leaflet.  Mr Rawnsley thinks that Mr Cameron is vulnerable to a right-wing storming of the pilot's cabin.  Given the Tory parliamentary party's Messiah Complex you can never rule out an attempted putsch but Mr Cameron faces no credible threat to his leadership.  There are many good reasons for Tory activists to keep faith with the leader who won such an overwhelming mandate only four months ago.

I am disappointed with David Cameron's failure to consistently combine core Tory beliefs with his new priorities (through the 'politics of and') but listed below are ten reasons why the Tory leader continues to enjoy the confidence of ConservativeHome.com:

1. Police reform: The police remain one of the Britain's most unreformed public services.  There is a 'Nixon in China' element to why the Tories are best placed to shake up the police in the same way that Labour are best placed to undertake welfare reform.  David Cameron's appointment of Nick Herbert MP to the shadow police reform post suggests a seriousness of intent in this policy area.
2. Prisons: As noted only yesterday, on prisons Mr Cameron is following the 'politics of and'.  He is combining Michael Howard's 'prison works' policy - which was so successful in reducing crime in the 1990s - with a compassionate and prudent investment in offender rehabilitation.
3. Social justice: Anyone who was in Manchester and witnessed Friday's panel on social entrepreneurs would have been impressed with Mr Cameron's personal commitment to this subject.  The most encouraging aspect of the commitment is that it is authentically conservative.  Under IDS the social justice policy group is not looking to further fatten the dependency-inducing welfare state but to emphasise economic independence, stronger families and a freer, more innovative voluntary sector.
4. Support for marriage: As part of 'getting nasty' with the Tory Party, Michael Portillo wants David Cameron to drop his pro-marriage commitment but you can't deliver social justice if you don't strengthen the family.  The family provides more welfare in more holistic ways than the state could ever hope to. ConservativeHomers enjoyed a good discussion of marriage a couple of weeks ago and gravitated towards some practical ways of supporting society's most important institution of liberty.
5. No to ID cards: Saturday's Manchester speech made it clear that David Cameron is determined to abolish Labour's "plastic poll tax".  Many Conservatives who have no principled objections to ID cards have been converted to opposition by doubts over the cards' likely cost and efficacy.
6. Standing up to big business: Conservatives should be on the side of competitive markets - not a corporate state where big businesses collude with the government to create barriers to entry through regulations.  Eurosceptic Conservatives should remember that before the transformational work of Business for Sterling, FTSE-100 companies led the charge towards eurozone membership.  Small firms - and big firms with devolved internal structures - are the engine of the economy.
7. Tax cuts for enterprise: Last week George Osborne noted that business deserved tax relief if Britain plc is to stay competitive in the world economy.
8. EPP exit: A swifter exit would have prevented the Clarke-Jackson-Beazleyites digging into the pro-EPP trenches but this leadership contest pledge is a pointer towards Mr Cameron's Euroscepticism.
9. An open primary election for London Mayor: Done properly (not rushed) this open primary election could revitalise interest in the London party and be a model for a party that regularly invites the British people to help shape the Conservative agenda.  A medium-term aim of Francis Maude should be to harness the internet revolution and deliver a scale of public participation in the Conservative Party that will make it become the true political arm of the British people.
10. National security: This certainly won't please the more multilateral ConservativeHome readers but in William Hague and Liam Fox, David Cameron has appointed hawks to the vital international portfolios.  Liam Fox has rightly said that the military option must be kept open with regard to Iran.  William Hague's faith in a UN solution to the problems of Darfur is worrying but we must hope that this faith will quickly pass with a more sobre analysis of the ties that bind certain Security Council members to Khartoum's odious regime.

Some forms of state funding are better than others

There has been almost universal opposition to state funding of political parties from visitors to this blog.  Some object to any state funding in principle and must, therefore, object to the current funding of the policy work of political parties through Short Money (worth c£4m pa to the Conservatives). 

I have no 'in principle' objection to state funding if it can be leveraged to overcome the present gap between the rulers and the ruled.  The current Tory proposal - devised by Andrew Tyrie MP - to allocate state funding on the basis of the votes received at a previous General Election will do nothing to encourage a reconnection with voters.  It will be a powerful reinforcement of incumbency and, as argued by William Rees-Mogg in today's Times, it will increase the power of the centralised bureaucracy of political parties and reduce the influence of members.  State subsidy of this sort, as Fraser Nelson suggested in yesterday's The Business, could only "reward parties' failure to connect with the public".

But state funding could be used to reward reconnection with the public.  A political party could receive state funding in proportion to its success in raising money from small donors.    Dependence on big money or Tyrie-style state funding both serve to isolate political leaders from the general voting population.  If political parties have to fund themselves from diverse sources this will encourage them to listen more attentively to what the public wants and come up with policies that appeal beyond the Westminster village.

David Cameron's appropach to climate change could, for example, become more of a campaign than a policy.  It would have a lively, interactive website where visitors would develop the policy and would suggest and fund ways of making more people buy into it.  This form of fundraising would also produce better value for money campaigning.  It is unlikely that grassroots campaigns will tolerate their money being spent on expensive billboard ads.  If Britain went down this road the political parties would evolve into broad coalitions made up of campaigning groups.

It is, of course, possible to go down this road towards grassroots and netroots funding without that funding being topped up by taxpayer pounds.  But we must be practical and it may take some time for a more democratic funding base to develop.  State funding could, for a transitory phase at minimum, be used until this funding base is broad enough to meet all of a political party's financial needs.

Blair is still right on Iraq

Everyone is turning against Tony Blair at the moment.  It's not just the usual suspects at the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Guantanamo-obsessed Today programme.  It's not just Clare Short and Gordon Brown.  The Guardian, The Economist and Jack Dromey have now got the knives out for Labour's longest-serving leader.

At the root of Tony Blair's troubles isn't, of course, the loans-for-peerages scandal although it hasn't helped.  It's not the debt crisis in the NHS or the missed child poverty targets.  At the root of his troubles is the war in Iraq - which began three years ago yesterday.

Given all of this - and the fact that 54% of ConservativeHome Panel Members think the war on Iraq was a mistake - I hesitate to post this entry but I've just read the best speech I've come across in some time... and it was given by our Prime Minister.

The handling of the liberation of Iraq has, of course, left much to be desired but I still believe that it was the right thing to do.  In thinking that I part company with many Conservatives I otherwise respect but I'm happy to be in the company of many humanitarian leftists who know that the troubles and insecurities of the world are also our own in the post 9/11 world.

Here are two extracts from the PM's speech (which is really worth reading in full):

"This is not a clash between civilisations.  It is a clash about civilisation.  It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other.  And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain.  We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us.  Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy.  It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong..."

"Reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq.  Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious.  For sure, errors were made on our side.  It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces.  Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.  But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security.  The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence.  Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through sabotage.  People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam. These were not random acts.  They were and are a strategy.  When that strategy failed to push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.  They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow.  Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.  That to me is the painful irony of what is happening.  They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake.  They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.  Every act of carnage adds to the death toll.  But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it.  For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now."

Tony Blair is at his best when he is strategic.  His strategic political insights devastated Toryism for more than a decade.  His strategic understanding that 9/11 changed the world was also spot-on.  Tony Blair cannot, of course, manage anything.  He can't manage Britain's NHS or even relations with his Downing Street neighbour.  Katrina revealed the weaknesses of George W Bush's own management skills.  Bush and Blair have made winning the war in Iraq very difficult but they know that we could not wait for more 9/11s to happen.  Tomorrow's threats - because they are potentially so devastating in scale - have to pre-empted.  That is what is happening - bloodily and sometimes ineptly - in Iraq today and everyday.  Another left-winger - Christopher Hitchens uses a column in today's WSJ - 'Iraq is no "distraction" from al Qaeda' - to remind us of the absolute need for the forces of democracy and moderate Islam to prevail in Iraq.

Whether we supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq we cannot retreat now.  The Conservative Party leadership has a duty to help the public understand that, too.

Huhne - the poseur multilateralist

A survey in this morning's Guardian suggests a win for Chris Huhne in the LibDem leadership race... although many party members are undecided and may yet swing it for Sir Ming.  A much smaller Independent straw poll (of the same meeting of LibDem activists) gives the contest to Menzies Campbell.

Mr Huhne has (almost) won over The Independent's leader-writers:

"Chris Huhne, relatively unknown outside Parliament and his constituency before, has undoubtedly been the greatest beneficiary of the contest. He has thrived under the spotlight, making up for a shortage of charisma with an air of calm competence... Rallying the party, propagating its ideas, and steering it through the parliamentary rough and tumble are jobs for a younger man with fresh ideas. Because of his showing through the campaign, we now lean towards Chris Huhne."

I listened to Chris Huhne on last night's Any Questions? programme.  At one point I wanted to shout at the radio.  He was on his high horse about the Iraq war.  The war had been illegal, he insisted, because the UN hadn't approved it.

The United Nations is the ultimate institution-of-convenience for poseur multilateralists.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with the Iraq war but the Iraq war didn't become unacceptable because China, Russia and France wouldn't declare it a just war.      

The oil-for-food scandal and the Volcker report exposed the compromised nature of the French government and its dealings with Iraq.  Russia didn't emerge much better from Volcker and the increasingly rapid retreat from democracy by the blanket-bombers of Grozny doesn't really make Moscow a great moral authority.  The third UN Security Council member with a veto is, of course, China.  What moral authority does that country have from what it did in Tiananmen Square?  In Tibet?  With internet censorship?

The UN didn't act in Rwanda.  It didn't act in Kosovo.  It isn't acting in Darfur - partly because of Russian and Chinese economic interests in Khartoum.  It would not have acted in Iraq because of France's promise to veto any action.

Some of the world's least savoury regimes sit on the UN's discredited human rights group.  In the UN’s topsy-turvy world democratic America was expelled from the human rights commission chaired by… wait for it… Libya.

Many of the UN’s African “peacekeepers” are being investigated for child molestation and rape – the ‘children-for-sex’ scandal.

For many nations an ineffective UN acts as a blood-stained institution-of-convenience, which they can hide behind. ‘Yes, of course, we must act but we must act with UN approval,’ democratic leaders can tell their people. They tell their people in the full knowledge that the UN will probably never act. A common EU foreign policy would give EU member states the same excuse for inaction. Giving the UN responsibility for world peace is a bit like surrendering our compassionate responsibilities to the poor to the feed-and-forget welfare state. In both cases, our consciences are partially salved but do we really think that world peace or the end of poverty are any nearer?

We do need an international body like the UN to bring nations together but without fundamental reform the UN itself does not deserve the admiration that it receives from the likes of Mr Huhne and the clapping Any Questions? audience.

Postscript: Mr Huhne's support for the UN is, of course, all part of his deep-seated multilateralism.  This former MEP is the most Europhile of the three leadership contenders.

It's time for Cameron to stand up to big donors

Stuart Wheeler, the multi-millionaire spread-betting tycoon, is in the news again.  Mr Wheeler has been consistently prominent in Tory affairs over recent years...

• He gave William Hague's Tories £5m before the 2001 General Election, partly because he liked the Keep The Pound campaign;
• His Today programme intervention in October 2003 - 'IDS has to go' - helped precipitate the fall of the last but one Conservative leader;
• And, today, he's criticising David Cameron's education and environment policies.  Is Mr Wheeler the donor who has 'recalled' a £250,000 gift to the Conservative Party?

All this makes me very uncomfortable.  I admire Mr Wheeler's Euroscepticism and agree with his reservations about current Tory policies on academic selection and Kyoto but I do worry about his influence.  In last year's leadership election campaign the views of big party donors were constantly sought by the media.

Not so long ago Lord Ashcroft argued that political parties should be able to "accept financial support — cash, benefits in kind and credit — from whomsoever they choose and without financial limit".  His only significant condition was openness.  Lord Ashcroft is a generous man who helped save the Conservative Party from financial disaster when he was William Hague's treasurer - the party should be grateful to him - but this is poor advice.

Big money has spoilt American politics.  Individuals like Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, and Jon Corzine, Governor of New Jersey, invested their substantial personal fortunes in buying office for themselves.   Members of America's House of Representatives start fundraising for their campaigns as soon as they are re-elected.  The Abramoff affair is now rocking the Republican Party establishment.

At the moment there is nothing to stop a UK citizen or other permissible donor making unlimited donations to political parties.  Imagine if the late James Goldsmith hadn't just funded the Referendum Party for the 1997 General Election but had set up a £200m endowment that would have allowed it to campaign in perpetuity?  That would have been perfectly legal under existing rules.

David Cameron has said that he wants to stand up to big business.  This site - not uncritical of him - has welcomed that commitment.  Conservatives should be the friends of free and competitive markets.  That doesn't mean befriending big businesses who can, Adam Smith warned us, conspire against smaller firms and the wider public interest.

I don't suggest that the Conservatives should immediately declare that they will not accept any big donations - that would be the equivalent of unilateral financial disarmament in a world where Labour would still be receiving millions from the likes of Lord Drayson, Bernie Ecclestone and Lord Sainsbury.  I do think, however, that Conservatives should support a more diverse basis for party funding.  I'm not sure what the maximum donation should be but £100,000 would seem enough.  What do you think?

In place of relying on big money from big business Britain's political parties would have to seek money from private citizens.  That would be more democratic.  The internet provides political parties with enormous new opportunities to raise new monies.  At the same that a cap was introduced on big money donations I would favour tax relief on small donations of, say, up to £100.  Giving to political parties is a comnmunity-minded thing and it is better for public money to match the preferences of lots of individuals than being allocated by politicians in private dialogue with one another in Westminster.

The Right Change

This hasn't been a good week for the Cameron project.  Although Thursday's by-election was a disappointment the more worrying thing was PMQs on Wednesday.  Tony Blair's attack on David Cameron as lacking political identity worked because it appeared true enough to a lot of people.  Since he became leader David Cameron has ditched many traditional Tory policies on...

...Grammar schools...
...Tax cuts...
...Tuition fees...
...Patients passport...
...Asylum...

Another policy was ditched again this week when George Osborne appeared to abandon the Tory commitment to prioritise protection of the greenbelt.  Justifications can be offered for each individual policy change but taken as a whole the changes have made Cameron's Conservatives vulnerable to the accusation that they are more politically ambitious than they are principled.

This wouldn't have happened if we had pursued "the politics of and" - blending core policies with new policies.  Our aim should have been to have appeared (and been) faithful to our core beliefs on immigration, Europe and crime (which are all very popular, after all) - but also ambitious to conquer new political territory.  I don't argue that we should have kept all old policies within this formulation.  I'm particularly glad that we've dumped the cap on asylum seekers, for example, but too many voters are getting the impression that the Conservative Party is becoming a bit Blairite.  This is happening at a time when voters probably want more authenticity from their politicians.

Some of David Cameron's changes to the Conservative Party have appeared much more authentic than others.  His embrace of a more compassionate conservatism has been particularly impressive, for example.  It's been impressive because it has been consistent with authentic conservatism.  His recent speech to the CSJ was itself a model of the 'and' theory.  There was the very familar conservative emphasis on succeeding at school, stable family life, hard work and freedom from addiction.  But there was also the commitment to build the nation of the second chance where no-one is ever written off but where voluntary, faith-based and other government-empowered groups help people to get back on to their feet.

In today's Telegraph Charles Moore welcomed David Cameron's compassionate conservatism.  In it he finds authentic passion and authentic method:

"This is that it is central to the belief system of the conservative-minded person (especially if he is a Christian) to want to relieve poverty wherever he can. Such a person has a powerful sense of the obligation of each human being to another, especially of the strong to the weak. Unlike someone on the Left, he will not think that obligation discharged by government alone."

David Cameron should press on with his commitment to change the Conservative Party but a little more rootedness in conservative methods and a little less downgrading of popular core policies would be welcome.

What kind of centrist are you, Mr Cameron?

Last week David Cameron warned that the “alternative to fighting for the centre ground" was "irrelevance, defeat and failure”.  This week's Economist noted Norman Tebbit's criticisms of David Cameron's move to the centre and then set out to then parody them.

The Economist posited that...

"Lord Tebbit (along with other Thatcherite diehards") believes it is possible for the Conservatives to win an election by stirring up the Tory base. He reckons that there are 4m “disgruntled Tory abstainers” who can be wooed back with vigorously right-wing policies. Mr Cameron believes that is precisely the way to repel the groups the Tories must appeal to if they are to win—young, middle-class professionals and women."

That is a very partial reading of Lord Tebbit's analysis.  The Economist is guilty of sloppy, cookie-cutter journalism.  I'm unconvinced that a core vote strategy or an appeal to the metropolitan tastes of what John O'Sullivan has called Curtisland are really opposites.  And what does David Cameron mean by "the centre ground"?  I suggest that there are three ways of thinking of "the centre ground"...

1. The midpoint centre;
2. The embracing centre;
3. The perfect centre.

The midpoint centre

A politician gets to the midpoint centre by triangulating.  Clinton and Blair are masters of triangulation.

A midpoint centrist would avoid the 'extremes' of both right and left.  The right's emphasis on controlled immigration and Euroscepticism would be shunned or, at least, diluted.  The left's stealthy taxation and support for the EU Constitution would also be disowned by a midpoint centrist.

Midpoint centrism is essentially managerial.  It is largely in tune with the steady-as-you-go voices of Britain's establishments.  Such voices include the public sector unions who oppose radical reform of schools and hospitals and the foreign office establishment which favours multilateralism and stability over pre-emption and regime change.

The embracing centre

The embracing centre represents a much more ambitious politics.  It is essentially the "politics of and" and has not been attempted in modern British politics.  Tony Blair's "economic prosperity and social justice" rhetoric once promised to do so but New Labour has failed because its policies on the economy and poverty were very much of the establishment/ midpoint variety.

The embracing centre enthusiastically pursues many of the traditional concerns of left and right.  Equal passion is given to...

• controlling immigration and tackling world poverty...
• increasing economic dynamism and helping the most broken members of society find their feet...
• faster, longer imprisonment of serious offenders and more help for young people to escape the conveyor belt to crime...

If midpoint centrism is neither right nor left, embracing centrism is of the right and left.  Some of the concerns of the traditional left and right are, of course, contradictory but not all of them - as the above examples suggest.

My guess is that the British people have "right-wing" interests in immigration, Europe and crime but a "left-wing" concern for the poor, for example, although they'd never see their interests in left-right terms.  The embracing centre is, in this respect, about the common ground of politics.

The embracing centre rightly keeps faith with core conservative positions on Europe, immigration and crime - none of which (in themselves) have been shown to be unpopular.

The perfect centre

The perfect centre is a more conservative version of the embracing centre.  A perfect centrist will, for example, embrace the concerns of the left but will address them in an authentically conservative manner.  David Cameron has been an embracing centrist on the environment - taking an issue associated with the left and largely adopting the leftist green policies of Kyoto.  The Tory leader has been more of a perfect centrist on social justice.  He has driven his political tank on to Labour's welfare turf but is determined to be distinctively conservative when it comes to finding solutions to poverty.  Hence his emphasis on stronger families and social enterprise.

***

I think it's too early to be sure what kind of centrist Mr Cameron is...

• There have been a lot of mixed signals with boldness on police reform and poverty-fighting but a midpoint/ consensual approach to the public services and tax...
• A lot of what Mr Cameron is doing appears to be motivated by very successful attempts to destabilise the LibDems and seperate Tony Blair from the left of his party.  It is difficult to disentangle the tactics from fundamental beliefs...

We'll know a lot more in a year or so when the policy groups start reporting...

Reform offers George Osborne an economics lesson

The think tank Reform (founded to promote "radical public sector and economic reform") yesterday published an excellent briefing on tax.

In its latest Bulletin Reform took issue with George Osborne's suggestion that stability and lower taxation were, in some way, at odds:

"In fact the key determinant of stability is monetary policy.  The last episode of major economic instability, in the early 1990s, was caused by the manipulation of monetary policy to keep sterling within the Exchange Rate Mechanism.  The solution was the steps towards Bank of England independence begun in 1993 and completed in 1997."

In line with classical economic thinking Reform argues that monetary policy should be used to provide a stable macroeconomic background whilst tax and other supply-side policies should be used to restore UK productivity and international competitiveness.  Reductions in tax benefit productivity in two main ways, Reform argues:

1. The incentive effect: They reduce disincentive effects to save, invest, innovate and work longer hours.
2. The resource effect: Resources are moved from the public sector - where productivity performance is weak - and into the private sector - where productivity is rising.

Reform accepts George Osborne's argument that economic policy must be much bigger than tax policy but it also insists that tax must underpin the kind of "growthist" agenda that has spurred the US economy in recent years.  It notes that the tax competitiveness enjoyed by Britain at the end of the Tory years is being eroded:

"In 2000, there were only nine OECD countries with lower corporate tax rates than Britain.  By 2005, the number had increased to 13. Similarly, in 2000, there were only two OECD countries with a lower top rate of income tax than the UK.  By 2004 there were seven."

The Business recently showed how UK levels were rising above those in Germany.

The One London Party - formed out of the UKIP-to-Veritas train wreck - is trying to position itself as the champion of London's taxpayers.  London Assembly member Damian Hockney - a former Eurovision song contest winner - has attacked the Tory idea that tax cuts and stability are somewhere in conflict:

"We were horrified when the Tory leadership came up with this economically illiterate nonsense.  They appear to neither understand wealth creation nor the world in which we live... The One London Party believes that Britain should be moving in the opposite direction: towards a single rate of tax of 22% that will be paid by the better off half of the working population. Flatter tax will release people at the lower end of the economic scale from the tax/welfare trap; it will reduce evasion at the upper end, create wealth and jobs and reduce administrative costs.

We would raise the tax threshold for a single person to £12,000 a year and make personal tax allowances fully transferable to spouse or partner.  Unlike the Tories, who are turning into a kind of New Labour Lite, we believe that people should be in charge of their income, that government waste should be eliminated, and that more should be taken out of the government's hands and returned to the control of the people.

Our tax policy is in line with our view on small government and individual freedom. We are first and foremost a party for London, one of the most successful cities in the world. It would be even more successful with lower taxation and lighter regulation governing the lives of people who live and work here. It is not impossible to make London a separate tax zone with a flat tax being introduced along the lines suggested above."

UKIP are also reported to be trying to take advantage of the Tories' consensual approach to tax.

John Redwood is now head of David Cameron's competitiveness policy group.  Mr Redwood, who once said that the Conservative Party was a party of tax cuts or it was nothing, must find ways of persuading the top Tory team that its cautious approach to tax is bad politics and bad economics.

This blog would like to distance itself from today's FT

Today's newslinks give a taste of the doomed nature of Charles Kennedy's leadership.

Discussing the future of the Liberal Democrats a leader in today's FT says the following:

"There is a gap to be filled in British politics. A party is needed that is strong on individual liberty, distrustful of big government and in favour of local democracy. It should be low tax and pro-market - using market mechanisms to curb public spending while promoting welfare.  The Tories could adopt such a platform, but their coalition includes cultural conservatives uncomfortable with such unbridled liberalism."

There are good reasons why 'cultural' or social conservatives are unhappy with "unbridled liberalism".   Many of Britain's biggest social problems are the result of family breakdown, drug abuse and indulgent approches to so-called minor crimes.  A recent Centre for Policy Studies analysis found that a lone parent family costs the taxpayer about £100,000 in extra social support.  Children with addiction problems underperform at school.  Crime kills community cohesion and breeds the lonely, frightened neighbourhoods that disfigure modern Britain.

Strong societies are essential for capitalism.  Strong families are not a big burden on the welfare state and they help to produce more educated, socially constructive young citizens.  They look after the elderly.  They knit communities together.

Family life is at the heart of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group and David Cameron has promised to support families - including through the tax system.

Last Sunday The Sunday Times carried an article about 'Crunchy Conservatism'.  It argued that the uber-liberalism of the past was no longer speaking to voter anxieties about the environment and society.  The article's author Rod Dreher is much closer to voters' concerns than the FT.  The LibDems are welcome to take the FT's advice but I hope that cultural/ crunchy conservatives continue to prosper in David Cameron's Conservative Party.

(This - by the way - will be the last of my 'This blog would like to distance itself...' editorials!).

This blog would like to distance itself from today's Times

Today's Times is unhappy about Mr Cameron's remarks about W H Smith's promotion of chocolate at its checkouts:

"If the Tories want to condemn Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, for her “nanny state” tendencies, as they should, their leader must avoid really trite sentences such as: “As Britain faces an obesity crisis, why does WH Smith’s promote half-price Chocolate Oranges at its checkouts instead of real oranges?” The oranges line is nannyish in the extreme. This is a matter for the company and its customers, not for an aspiring prime minister."

I think Mr Cameron was right to say what he did.  Many parents hate the way retailers stack chocolate and sweets at checkouts - within easy reach of children's hands.  Just before Christmas I watched an unhappy parent have to repeatedly stop his toddler son from snatching at sweet packets at a M&S till.

Mr Cameron didn't speak so much as a legislator yesterday, but as a father.  Unlike many Tory politicians Mr Cameron has been comfortable relating his family life to his public role and he also appears willing to use the 'bully pulpit' - as used very effectively by American politicians.

By the bully pulpit Americans are referring to a public figure's ability to command public attention for his or her pronouncements.  George W Bush has used his office to encourage American citizens to more active forms of civic responsibility.  Senator Hillary Clinton has used her profile to draw attention to violence in the media (as 'candidate Cameron' did).  The Times' criticism of Mr Cameron may have been motivated by a suspicion that he wanted to pass regulations that would limit W H Smith's ability to promote chocolate oranges or toblerones to their customers.  That would obviously be a step too far but there is nothing wrong with a politician identifying with other parents across the country who resent retailers' marketing methods.

Mr Cameron's willingness to talk about his family was on full show yesterday - during his remarks about the NHS:

"I have a child who's not too well, so I've seen a lot of the NHS from the inside.  In fact, in the last three years, I've probably spent more time in NHS hospitals than any politician apart from the few doctors in the House of Commons.  I've spent the night in A&E departments and slept at my child's bedside. I've got to know the people who dedicate their lives to helping others.  I've met so many miracle workers who are the real jewels in the NHS crown. Not just consultants, doctors and nurses but all the unsung heroes, too.  Porters, cleaners, and the army of voluntary workers who give their time and energy so unselfishly. I've spent this morning with two people who work in the national health service.  Jack and Doreen. They drive an ambulance, taking severely disabled children to school. They're not just drivers, they're carers, helpers and friends to all those whose lives they make easier."

I used to work for IDS when he was Tory leader and he was scrupulous about keeping his four children out of the limelight and I have huge respect for that principled position.  There is no doubt, however, that Mr Cameron's willingness to talk about his home life is very engaging for voters.

Today's Mail - which knows a thing or two about the way its largely female readership thinks - gives David Cameron's NHS speech a two page splash but it doesn't focus on the policy detail.  'The Son behind my NHS crusade: A radical Tory shift on health inspired by disabled boy of 3' is the chosen headline.

Nominations are still open for ConservativeHome's 'Who is the biggest influence on David Cameron?' vote but Frank Young's suggestion that his wife and children are a very big influence on the new Tory leader is particularly worthy of consideration.

Mr Cameron's Tory leadership isn't just changing Tory policy positions.  His willingness to talk about his family and venture into virgin territory (like the marketing techniques of big business retailers) are almost as significant.

This blog would like to distance itself from today's Telegraph

In a recent editorial this blog expressed some concern at the way the Cameron leadership has been backing away from traditional Tory commitments on, for example, school choice and tax relief.  In that respect The Telegraph's leader on yesterday's Tory ad strikes a chord with us.  The leader noted that there there will be "dismay" on the right "at the abandonment of the "patient's passport", and at the ominous silence on the subject of tax cuts".  ConservativeHome also shares The Telegraph's enthusiasm for David Cameron's commitment to police reform.

But there is another section of today's Telegraph leader which we completely reject.  The Telegraph (which might still be suffering from some of its editorial staff being on Christmas leave) writes:

"The traditionalists will also be hoping that all this talk of tackling poverty and standing up to big business amounts to no more than a few cuddly platitudes designed to win back the middle ground."

The Telegraph is wrong and out-of-touch in those sentiments.  This blog hopes and believes that David Cameron is 100% serious about those aspirations on poverty and big business.

Poverty is very real in Britain today and a snooty indifference to 21st century hardship has caused much of the middle class flight from the blue corner.  David Cameron's decision to give Iain Duncan Smith oversight of the social justice policy group suggests that he is open to IDS' emphasis on small 'c' conservative remedies to social exclusion.  These include measures to strengthen the family, reduce drug addiction and help young people escape the conveyor belt to crime.  All thoroughly conservative and compassionate measures.

Standing up to big business should also be an integral part of conservatism.  Big business often conspires with big government and big media to crowd out competition and diversity.  Perhaps the best recent definition of the Conservative Party's ideal purpose came from Michael Howard in the early days of his own leadership.  He said:

"No one should be over-powerful. Not trade unions. Not corporations. Not the government. Not the European Union. Wherever we see bullying by the over-mighty, we will oppose it, and stand up for people's rights and freedoms."

The dangers of big business conservatism are set out in this definition.

Some readers will be getting bored with references to this blog's 'And Theory' but it really does capture the conservatism that motivates this site's existence: a conservatism that is...

...as committed to fighting global poverty as it is to keeping Britain's borders secure...

...committed to actively support the married family and to fair pension and inheritance arrangements for gay adults…

...supportive of a bigger budget for the armed forces and an end to the sale of arms to despotic regimes…

...supportive of faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders and more care for the vulnerable children of prisoners...

You get the idea, I hope, even if The Telegraph doesn't.

Let's get back to The And Theory, Mr Cameron

Since becoming leader David Cameron has championed one progressive cause after another...

• Social justice;
• Climate change;
• More Tory parliamentary candidates who are women, disabled or are from ethnic minority groups;
• Civil liberties in his 'Come And Join Us LibDems' speech;
• An 'open-hearted' policy towards asylum seekers;
• Devolution to Scotland;
• Redistribution;
• Global poverty...

And today the new Tory leader turns to equal opportunities for women.  Speaking on the thirtieth anniversary of the Equal Pay Act Mr Cameron issued the following statement:

“After thirty years of the Equal Pay Act, women’s pay is still nearly a fifth lower than men’s – and for women working part-time, the pay gap is around 40%.  This persistent injustice makes child poverty worse, prevents women in our society from reaching their full potential, and contributes to poverty in old age for many women who have worked hard all their lives.
 
“It is totally unacceptable in a modern, civilised society for there to be a pay gap between men and women doing equivalent work.  It is morally wrong, quite apart from the practical problems it creates.  There has been far too much complacency over this issue: the battle for equal pay still has to be won.
 
“One of the most powerful weapons in the battle for equal pay is transparency.  If all employers were to be more open about what they pay their employees, there would be fewer hiding places for discrimination – whether intended or accidental.
 
“That’s why we are today releasing a note that reviews the issue and sets out the case for transparency, with employers playing a leading role. I am delighted that Francis Maude is going to consider ways of how best to address this issue in his ongoing review of the Conservative Party’s organisation.
 
“We’re all in this together: we will never tackle the scandal of unequal pay by leaving it to legislation and regulation.  Employers can show leadership, and we as a society can change our cultural attitudes to pay by being much more open about this crucial issue that affects so many individuals and families.”

This approach is winning rave reviews amongst Britain's new establishment and is undoubtedly contributing to the opinion poll leads that the Tories are starting to enjoy.

Mr Cameron has yet to give much attention to more traditional Tory issues, however - like the tax burden, early prison release programmes (the danger of which was shown up by the Monckton case), localism and family values.  A leader in The Telegraph calls on Mr Cameron to remain faithful to his EPP pledge after a growing number of Old Europeans on the Tory benches have organised to torpedo it.

It is unfortunate that Mr Cameron's very necessary and correct commitment to progressive or justice causes is not being seen to be anchored in the And Theory Of Conservatism.  The And Theory (which he used throughout his leadership bid) can act as an important discipline on the Tory party - anchoring modernisers in traditional Tory beliefs and encouraging core vote Tories into broader, more progressive policy areas.   The danger of not consistently linking Euroscepticism to global poverty relief, for example, or the empowerment of the poor with targeted tax relief is that the media establishment will cry foul when (hopefully) the party does give these issues fair emphasis in the future.

Mr Cameron needs to make it clear that he is a 'total conservative'.  A conservative who believes in lower taxes, Euroscepticism and a tough approach to crime as well as in fighting global poverty and saving the environment.  Much of the media do not understand that these sets of belief are perfectly compatible but Mr Cameron has not yet given a big speech which explains that they are.  That speech - and a supportive strategy - needs to come soon.

In the meantime it is left to other groups to champion 'core vote' concerns.  The excellent Taxpayers' Alliance receives coverage in this morning's Mail, Express and Sun for its report on government non-jobs.  The report written by Peter Cuthbertson is welcomed in a Sun leader.  Andrew Green of Migration Watch UK was on Today this morning, pointing out failures in Labour's immigration policies.

The Taxpayers' Alliance and Migration Watch are rare examples of effective campaigning groups that could loosely be described as small 'c' conservative or right-of-centre.   The American conservative infrastructure is many times better organised and more powerful.  It can defeat the Republican Party when it betrays its values as President Bush appeared to do with his aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.  Britain's conservative infrastructure is currently weak and it must become much stronger.  It must become stronger in two complementary ways:

1. It must help David Cameron to embed progressive causes like poverty relief within the Conservative Party.  Groups like the Centre for Social Justice and New Ground are examples here.
2. It must also develop more effective groups that campaign for the more traditional conservative beliefs - like small government, decentralisation and family values.

Editorial: Is David Cameron a 9/11 person?

Brendan Simms of the Henry Jackson Society has written an interesting article about David Cameron's neoconservative credentials - a UK version of which appears on the Social Affairs Unit's blog and a US-tailored version on the website of the left-liberal New Republic magazine.

Mr Simms makes bold claims for Mr Cameron and there is some good evidence for thinking that the new Tory leader does have neocon credentials:

• He gave an excellent speech on Iraq during his leadership bid.  In that speech, as Mr Simms reminds us, he argued that the challenge of extremist Islamist terror is "at root ideological".  He also warned that appeasing Middle Eastern states amounted to appeasement.

• He has appointed supporters of the Iraq war to the top positions in his shadow cabinet.  William Hague as Shadow Foreign Secretary and Liam Fox at Defence are the most relevant appointments but George Osborne and David Davis are also hawkish in the war on terror.  Perhaps as significant is the fact that Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a vociferous opponent of the liberation of Iraq and author of the Major government's lamentable policy in Bosnia, is on the backbenches after being refused the job he wanted.

But there are also reasons for believing that Mr Cameron may not have fully adjusted to the realities of the 9/11 world:

• Last week he suggested that the LibDems and Conservatives that "we're on the same side now" over the Iraq situation: "We want to see the same things happen as quickly as possible: democracy established… security guaranteed… and our troops coming home, as quickly as possible."  In last Sunday's The Business, Fraser Nelson reported the reaction of Tory MPs who heard Cameron declare they “are on the same side now” as the Lib Dems on the Iraq war: "There remains a large chunk of the party for whom this is the deepest of insults.  Cameron’s enemies hope their young leader is making a naïve mistake and hope to explain to him the irreconcilable differences between the Lib Dem and Conservatives on the war on terror."  The LibDems and the Tories should not be on the same page as the Liberal Democrats on Iraq.   Brendan Simms suggests that John McCain is probably the "closest match with Cameron".  I am not (yet) persuaded by that.  As reported in a recent Ten Point Briefing John McCain knows that success in Iraq probably needs more troops.  The LibDems wouldn't support that and David Cameron hasn't hinted at such boldness.

• The Afghan and Iraq chapters are only the beginning of the war on terror.  What are we going to do about Iran and other rogue nations?   Military action may not be the best option on Iran but is David Cameron capable of the boldness that the post-9/11 world demands?  It is an impossible question to answer but his hesitant initial support for the war on Iraq is one concerning indicator.

Neoconservatism isn't just about Iraq, however.  Neoconservatism is also about foreign policy idealism.  Two more of David Cameron's positions worry me in this regard:

• He made a great deal - during his leadership bid - about Darfur: "When the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can't just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.  We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer."  But when it came to explaining what he would do for the people of Darfur he only offered to explore the poseur multilateralism of a UN-based solution.   A real neocon would be looking beyond the UN and towards the sort of ideas put forward by Ruth Wedgewood of the US Center for Security Policy.   Professor Wedgwood has called for the UN's mismanagement and ineffectiveness to be challenged by what she called "competitive  multilateralism".  New and existing coalitions of the willing - from NATO to the Economic Community of West African States - could be employed to undertake security and humaniarian actions that the likes of China, Russia and France will always veto.

• Yesterday Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth gave a warm welcome to another big arms sale to Saudi Arabia.  I have big reservations about selling arms to a regime that is so unloved by its people and is guilty of so many human rights abuses.  Selling arms to the House of Saud is, I fear, short-sighted.  Read this if you want to know more about one of the world's ugliest regimes.

Another big difference between Cameron and America's conservatives is their approach to homeland security.  David Cameron is constantly emphasising civil liberties whilst George W Bush emphasises the Patriot Act.  The right balance may lie somewhere between the two.  During shadow cabinet discussions on the recent 90-days-without-trial legislation David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Liam Fox were tilting towards the most civil libertarian position.  David Willetts, George Osborne and Andrew Lansley were urging greater sensitivity towards public opinion on civil liberties.  David Cameron would do well to listen to those around him who urge a more pre-emptive approach to protecting the public from domestic threats.