David Davis presents himself as Mr Reform

David Davis won the backing of Shailesh Vara yesterday - the Tory Party's only Asian MP - (David Cameron won the support of Greg Barker) but it was his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies that won most attention.

There have been complaints that the Tory leadership race has been characterised by uncontroversial generalities. Those complaints could not be directed at last night’s David Davis speech.

Speaking to two hundred supporters of the CPS Mr Davis made an unapologetic defence of lower taxation and radical reform of schools and hospitals.

The first half of DD’s ‘Modern Conservatism’ speech was dedicated to public service reform. He said that Tony Blair had tested to destruction the idea that ‘spending without reform’ might work. He said that parental/ patient choice – exercised locally – was the only sure way to give every citizen the schooling and hospital care that they deserved.

But if DD confirmed his reputation as a slightly turgid platform speaker during the first half of his speech, it was during the second half - on tax - that the speech came alive. Last week Michael Howard had said that low tax was not a silver bullet for Tory fortunes. David Davis addressed this ‘aunt sally’ directly:

”"Some argue that low taxes aren't a silver bullet for the Conservative Party. And of course there's no single remedy to the position we're in. But accepting the high tax, high spend terms of the debate set by Gordon Brown is certainly a bullet to the heart of electoral success."

The frontrunner for the Tory leadership also was careful to pay tribute to other pretenders to the Tory crown. He paid tribute to David Cameron for supporting marriage and David Willetts for his emphasis on social renewal.

The speech went down well at The Daily Telegraph. A leading article concluded:

”Mr Davis's speech was infused with what he called a "new Conservative idealism". We heartily endorse the ideas he has set out. If the other candidates follow suit, we can be confident of the Conservatives' victory in four years' time, whoever their leader is.”

The speech is understood to have been written by Nick Herbert MP. Mr Herbert is a long-time friend of Mr Davis and was head of the Reform think tank until he succeeded Howard Flight as MP for Arundel & South Downs. DD’s speech was a confirmation that Reform’s emphasis on tax cuts and free market solutions to the public services would be central to a Davis leadership.

During questions DD said that he would be embracing compassionate conservatism during a forthcoming speech to the Centre for Social Justice. Another forthcoming speech will set out his views on foreign policy.

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

At last- a Tory leader who's got the bottle to put forward a comprehensive Conservative programme for tackling the miserable disgrace of Britain's Stalinist public services. Forget resurrecting Hattie Jacques: this is the real deal.

(Ed- sounds like at least a +4)

[buxtehude]

It was a very good speech. His delivery wasn't strong, but he seemed genuine, which is hugely important. The overall impression was that here was a man who believed in the need for reform of public services and lower tax rates (which, he argues, would actually create a bigger take) - with the chief beneficiaries of both being those who most need it. If he can tell that story (perhaps with tad more dynamism) for four years, people might believe it.

The most striking thing was that this was SOMETHING DIFFERENT. There is no chance whatever that we can win - as Cameron would have us believe - by offering exactly the same as New Labour. People will buy New Labour managerialism from Gordon Brown, never from the Notting Hill sub-brand.

We have to demonstrate our conviction that we can reform public services and create a more dynamic economy, and that we want this for everyone in the country. If we believe that, and talk about it all the time, and work through what it really means, and show we are determined to make it work, and are not frightened to engage people in this debate at every stage, then maybe the British people will believe that we mean it.

It will bring self-respect back to the party, and that is the first stage to winning back the respect of the electorate. Phoney-modernisation does the exact opposite: it makes us look silly, desperate, in a little world of our own and trying ever so hard to 'be normal'.

Interestingly, DD looked more like a 'regular guy' than ever. Perhaps now that he is finally unleashed on the open road towards leadership, he will grow in stature.

[Ray Davies]

Good result for David Davis that he got a glowing write up in the editorial of the Telegraph.

On the other hand, it should also be noted that his speech was not reported at all in murdoch press (The Times and the Sun).

[buxtehude]

The Sun did give it a good show yesterday, and Sky showed it, so wouldn't come to that conclusion.

[Ray Davies]

It was just strange that it wasn't reported at all in the Times today (and the Sun but that is not so surprising). You would have thought DD would be getting a higher profile than DC, not less.

[Wat Tyler]

Hmmm...yes.

Just as the FT and the Economist have gone statist, I'm afraid the Times has suffered Notting Hill capture.

No offence I'm sure to anyone reading this, but national journalists are part of the metro bubble, that inside world where nothing is the same as it is out here.

His outsideness is something else I like about DD.

[James Hellyer]

Very good speech. Delivery still needs work though and I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more footage of Davis's longhaired youth!

[buxtehude]

The Evening Standard editorial today is gushing. Do we know that The Times is going for Cameron?

[malcolm]

While the sentiments of the speech were admirable we are still waiting for DD and indeed all the other leadership candidates to elucidate 'how'they would achieve their ideals.Until then I ,and suspect the majority of the electorate will remain cynical.
DD used a similar line to George Bush saying that by cutting tax rates tax revenue would actually increase.Unless I'm very much mistaken that has not turned out to be true as deficits have soared in the U.S.
The only honest way we can promise significant tax cuts is if we also promise significant cuts in public spending. If so ,what?
I think we all have our own ideas about this but anything we do will be politically risky.I wonder if any of the candidates will have the courage to tell the electorate which areas of spending will have to be sacrificed.

[James Hellyer]

"DD used a similar line to George Bush saying that by cutting tax rates tax revenue would actually increase.Unless I'm very much mistaken that has not turned out to be true as deficits have soared in the U.S."

Budget deficits have soared, but tax revenues have risen * .

The deifict has grown because of those expensive wars xthe US has embarked on, not because tax revenues have shrunk.

* Although it is possible that companies and individuals fiddles their accounts to defer income until the new tax regime started. This would mean that revenues have increased in a one off fashion.

[James Hellyer]

"The only honest way we can promise significant tax cuts is if we also promise significant cuts in public spending. If so ,what?"

That's the key question. We fudged that at the last election by intending to fund our tax cuts by borrowing in the hope that efficiency savings could pay back the loans. It was like we's learnt nothing from the Lawson Boom 'n' Bust!

[Ray Davies]

"The Evening Standard editorial today is gushing. Do we know that The Times is going for Cameron? "

No, but of the Associated Media publications, the ES is going DD and the Daily Mail for DC.

[Jack Stone]

David Davis seems to be promising not reform but a more extreme right-wing platform than we have had at the last two elections.It is electoral suicide!
As for promising cuts in public expenditure. The reason the party lost last time was because a lot of voters thought the party was going to cut public spending so your not exactly going to encourage them to vote for the party by promising the self same thing that put them off before.
The party have got to promise people better public services if it is to win. I am afraid people will not believe you will be able to do that if your going to promise them big tax cuts at the same time.
Poor people are more concerned with having the security of good public services than they are in having there taxes reduced by a couple of pound a week.
David Davis is promising a failed agenda that is certain to lead the party to defeat.

[Sean Fear]

Jack, exactly how much *more* money should we be promising to spend on public services than we promised in 2001 and 2005?

[James Hellyer]

"David Davis seems to be promising not reform but a more extreme right-wing platform than we have had at the last two elections."

Jack, you're talking nonsense. Davis is specifically talking about public service reform (that's what the whole thing about the need to change "structures" was about). He's also made clear the aim of such reform - better services for the poorer members of our society who currently are trapped with failing schools and hospitals.

This is in stark contrast to the last election where although we had policies that would effect such changes in schools, we never talked about them, and as far as hospitals were concerned, we wanted to pump more money in than Labour did. Our answer to 21st century medicine was carry on matron!

There was no way this was extreme right wing politics!

"As for promising cuts in public expenditure. The reason the party lost last time was because a lot of voters thought the party was going to cut public spending"

Should the government do everything it does now? Is it the best provider of everything? Are there no efficiency savings to be made in what it should do?

Our spending plans didn't play well last time because we promised to increase spending and cut taxes. No matter what Letwin said that was never going to scan well.

However, an honest appraisal of what the government does could offer scope for savings thaty are credible. Do we really need the DTI? Or the Scottish Office? Or the Welsh Office? Etcetera.

"The party have got to promise people better public services if it is to win."

Davis was talking about "better" public services. As New Labour has shown, you cannot deliver better services by pumping money into the current structures. Have you learnt nothing from this?

"David Davis is promising a failed agenda that is certain to lead the party to defeat."

How has it failed when we haven't even tried it?

[Michael McGowan]

I find it increasingly hard to understand what the left of the Conservative Party has to offer the voters which Labour and the Lib Dems aren't already offering them. Anything which sounds remotely like imaginative thinking unfettered by Brown's target-ridden "tax and spend" straitjacket is instantly dismissed as "extreme rightwing policies": see some of the comments above on David Davis' speech. If this is what the left of the Tory Party really believes, (a) why do they think the public should ever trust them more than Labour; and (b) why don't Tories with these views just join the Labour Party anyway?

[Mark O'Brien]

I'm impressed. Of course, it always seems as though every front-runner agrees on the same things: the need for lower taxes and public service reform. All that differs are the words used. I'm glad David Davis has finally outlined clearly what he stands for. Now it's time for him to prove that he is a strong and inspiring leader, and then he'll get my support.

[A MacFadyen]

DD is the real deal for us. There are too many "he isnt a great orator" comments. Neither was Thatcher before she became leader. He is all the things a leader needs - smart, tough, ambitious etc but above all, he has, as the hacks would call it, the "common touch". He will appeal to voters who are not dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Let's face it - we will support whoever the leader is, wont we? The country will sigh and say "not again" if we dont get it absolutely right this time.
OK, so he needs a little bit of polish in presenting (i dont see it but ok), do you not think the public will like the fact that he appears human like the rest of us?
Hague was great but got the job too soon, IDS was simply out-of-his-depth as leader and MH has been great but, by his own admission, arrived too late!
In terms of DD's competition for the job; DC - good but not ready yet; Sir MR - will represent old times in the eyes of the public we are trying to attract; DW - great front bencher but lacks leader charisma; MA - next; KC - has all the right qualities but, like MH is he arriving too late? TM - hmmm, I can't quite put my finger on it but something is missing. She's good but could she make non-natural tories feel good? I have doubts; LF - hmmm, yes I can see him being a useful leader who could bring in non-tories but I think he lacks that effortless authority that DD has when speaking; AD - yes, he would be attractive to younger and non-tory voters but I think he might be simply replacing the natural tories that he would alienate.
I can honestly see DD leading us back to government and being PM and, although I will support whoever gets it, DD is the man for me.

[Selsdon Man]

"David Davis won the backing of Shailesh Vara yesterday".

Vara declared for Davis weeks ago. Surely he can do better than that.

[James Hellyer]

This thread is from July, Selsdon!

[Selsdon Man]

Thanks. Must have a been a blip or bad link on the site!