Today has been a good day for David Davis. He was very confident on Radio 4 this morning and has shifted the debate (at least for one day) onto substance. He'll never win on style against David Cameron but he can show that his ideas are clearer and, er... potentially more conservative.
Mr Cameron issued a statement this morning in response to Mr Davis' intervention:
"David Cameron has consistently argued that the proceeds of economic growth should be shared between tax cuts and investment in public services and that a dynamic economy needs competitive tax rates. It is encouraging to see that David Davis has now confirmed he supports that approach and that there is a lot of common ground between them on this issue.''
This statement only muddies the position. On last Friday's Today programme Mr Cameron distanced himself from the 'growth rule' upon which Mr Davis' tax policy is based. The rule states public spending growth should not exceed growth in the economy so that there is room for tax relief.
Mr Cameron's formulation has been dismissed as pretty indistinguishable from Gordon Brown's approach. Carl Emmerson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies told last Saturday's FT:
"The Cameron statement doesn't really rule out very much. It encompasses a wide range of possibilities. On its own, it doesn't tell us very much at all. He could mean increasing public spending more quickly or less quickly... It's not clear they differentiate him from what David Davis said or the situation under Gordon Brown, where incomes after taxes are higher now in real terms than when he became chancellor despite the tax burden being higher."
Oliver Letwin, an early backer of Mr Cameron, has said that he'd prefer for the Tories not to promise any tax cuts at the next election. Another Cameron supporter, Stephen Dorrell, has just told Radio 4's World at One that he doesn't think tax cuts should be promised until the public services have been reformed. If Mr Dorrell's advice was followed we could fail to address Britain's competitive tax disadvantage for a decade or more.
This vagueness on tax is all part of the policy weakness at the heart of David Cameron's otherwise impressive leadership bid.
I remain unconvinced by his drugs policy (and almost as disappointed at David Davis' self-imposed silence on this subject).
I'm also very unclear about what David Cameron intends to do about party democracy. Will he protect the rights of members to elect the next leader or not? Up until now he has been silent on this vital issue.
I've have also learnt that David Cameron favours the introduction of a 'gold list' of candidates for the top 100 or so target seats. The list would include a large number of women and people from ethnic minorities. Conservative Associations in those target seats would only be allowed to choose from this list - which is based on the Lansley-May model but without a fixed 50/50 split between men and women. The adoption of such a list - which would partly be filled by headhunting and mentored hi-fliers (see within this interview) - would give the compiler of the list enormous power to reshape the next parliamentary party. The forthcoming hustings would be a good time to clarify Mr Cameron's intentions on this 'gold list'. Will Associations be able to choose from the whole list or only from three or four names on that list? How does this idea fit in with Theresa May's enthusiasm for open primary selections (also advocated earlier this week by Daniel Hannan MEP)?
Postscript: Before the most enthusiastic Cameroons fill the thread below with accusations of bias I should state that I am a floating voter in this contest and my only wish is for some questions to be answered. It would be great if this blog would focus on the serious policy issues at stake here...
Why not have the Gold List swear an Oath of Undying Personal Loyalty to The Leader ?
There is a great dearth of Ethnic-Chinese MPs and I think the Tories should have lots of Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Kurd, Albanian, and Nigerian candidates in safe seats in Southern England to bring home the rich cultural diversity to those benighted souls stranded in their Midsomer villages in Oxfordshire etc. In fact what the Tory Party needs is fewer candidates like David Cameron and more like Bernie Grant
This should be a real winning combination
Posted by: Rick | 28 October 2005 at 14:24
Editor, I agree with your unbiased stance. But I thought I'd like to address the issues you raised.
1. Taxes - Whilst I agree, lower taxes are needed to stimulate economic growth and in order to compete with the growing economies of the world, how can a potential leader of a political party promise such remarks? Do we know what the economy is going to be like in 4 years? Do we know the level of taxation? Do we know the extent of public service reforms which will have been done under Labour? Do we know what will be really needed - surely not! Also picking up your criticism of Mr Dorrell, would people not agree reform is needed as a precursor to tax cuts so that we do not create holes in the welfare state. We need to create a reformed welfare state before taking resources away from the current one, thereby afflicting harm to those who would suffer most, the poorest in society.
2. Drugs: What problems do you have with DC's policies? Are education and rehabilitation the cornerstones of drug policies. For anyone who wants to know more see http://www.cameroncampaign.org/downloads/articles/DCameron_DM.pdf, where DC sets out his views in the Daily Mail.
Posted by: Dominic Llewellyn | 28 October 2005 at 14:55
Why should we get excited?
a) Cameron is going to win
b) He's going to win without offering clear policy positions on anything important
c) He and his people are going to run the party like Blair-Mandleson-Campbell, or at least their fantasy version
d) They actually haven't got anyone as good as Blair or Mandelson or Campbell (although I admit they are more talented than most of the party)
e) The country will soon be sick to death of Blair-Mandelson-Campbell-type politics (just as the Tories get round to trying it out)
f) The Tories will look worse than ever
g) There will be new splits, in-fighting, decline
h) OR
i) I might be wrong. Gove and Osborne are pretty smart after all
j) We all live happily ever after.
The one thing that is NOT going to happen is DD winning. So let's just resign ourselves and learn to love the boy.
Posted by: buxtehude | 28 October 2005 at 15:05
Let's get excited!
a) Cameron is going to win
j) We all live happily ever after.
Posted by: | 28 October 2005 at 15:08
Lets please get real! Firstly who does or does not win the next election is not going to be decided on the party`s drugs policy or on who does or does not elect the party leader.
Secondly Mr Davis tax policy of offering big tax cuts at the same time as promising no cuts in public spending as failed in the last two elections.As something changed since May? Why does anyone think that come 2009 they will suddenly turn out to be a vote winner.
At the end of the day the thing that should decide this election is who of the two candiadates stands the best chance of winning the next election.
Personally I can only see one answer to that question.David Cameron!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 28 October 2005 at 15:17
We need more candidates like Labour's Bernie Grant? Over my dead body!
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | 28 October 2005 at 15:22
I've got no problems with reducing the size of the list and encouraging more women and ethnic minority candidates onto it.
BUT AND ITS A HUGE BUT
David Davis just the other day pointed out that the most important part of winning seats is having a LOCAL candidate. This is really important we won't win target seats with people that are parachuted in from London.
Posted by: wasp | 28 October 2005 at 15:44
What has changed is that Davis is setting out a credible tax and spend program and intends to spend over 3 years trying to sell it. We will look consistant and credible instead of oppurtunistic. Our great failings in the last two parliaments has been the lack of a consistant approach.
Posted by: Richard Allen | 28 October 2005 at 15:45
David Cameron has said we must be consistent Conservatives. One of the main reasons I will vote for him.
Posted by: michael | 28 October 2005 at 15:52
This narrow-minded discussion misses the point.
David Cameron has always been very clear where he stands on taxation. He is pro-tax AND anti-tax - thus demonstrating his ability to reach out and gain the support of all sections of the community.
Posted by: Hugh Jarce | 28 October 2005 at 15:54
"David Davis just the other day pointed out that the most important part of winning seats is having a LOCAL candidate"
So very true !
The Londonistas have become so self-absorbed they have forgotten it is not a List system but a Constituency system and not a popularity contest for some TV character who thinks he is party leader.
Now that the Council is emasculated it is the MP who has to do the work of the Councillor since Planning, Council Tax, Education are all controlled from London
Posted by: Rick | 28 October 2005 at 16:19
The Cameron campaign's response to the Davis tax proposals yet again fails to supply any clue about how the Tories will position themselves if Cameron wins. It also steps on their earlier message.
An election-winning conservative, Ronald Reagan, once said "specificity is the soul of credibility." David Cameron's failure so far in this campaign to be clear about the broad policy priorities that will inform the choices that will inevitably confront the next Tory leader are causing me to doubt his otherwise impressive candidacy.
Many of us in this election are looking for a strong communicator, which Cameron undoubtedly is. But we also want to know he has a strong message that supplies coherent and compelling answers to the problems Britain faces. His coyness shrouds that in secrecy.
"Trust me I'm a Conservative" is not currently a good slogan with which to impress the British electorate. It would be better if the party were able to judge his approach now than potentially be sorry later.
Posted by: loyal_tory | 28 October 2005 at 16:25
I praise the editor highly for publishing the Finkelstein versus Montgomerie article. I think it shows quite clearly the differences between the Davis and Cameron approach to tax. Cameron has stated, and most economic thinkers would seem to agree, that putting specific tax policies in terms of figures at this stage is irresponsible and careless, and shows a lack of regard to the constantly changing economic climate. Camerons decision to outline policy directions rather than specifics at this stage shows a real grasp of the issue. Davis is just grabbing headlines. Failure to see this headline grabbing for what it is, is surely bias, all be it on a subconscious level. Being cautious on Economics surely makes more sense. Also the 'gold list' sounds an excellent idea to me, as long as the constituent assemblies can still choose 'local' candidates.
Posted by: kris | 28 October 2005 at 16:26
Just come back from DD's lunchtime presentation.
Again he's made some clear points on long-term strategy both for the country and for the party, continuing to lead on policy and direction, key areas for leadership. His emphasis was on tax cuts to help the poorest in society and to maintain the stability of society and families.
DD went hard on the point that the Conservatives have allowed Labour to shape the debate and arguments over recent years, and to some extent wrongly accepting those arguments. The Conservatives need to win the argument on tax, by challenging Labour's view that tax-rate cuts must mean a drop in public services, and argue that low tax countries are high-growth, that low tax rates tend to raise more, not less, tax.
DD sensibly took the view that tax-cuts might not be
immediately electorally popular but because we know that our arguments are right, and because he will stick to them that over 4 years we should win the debate - and that we have to do it over 4 years, not as in 2005 a few months before the election.
DD mentioned that the primary focus fo the tax cuts would be on looking at transferable allowances, income tax and restoring the pension tax credits Labour removed in 1997, so necessary to restore faith in pensions. He referred to stamp duty as an example of a tax that was often unnecessary but not in the 'first division' of things to reform. He promised more details on tax in the next few weeks.
DD was best on answering questions, the challenge of going off-script seems to energise him.
His team need to think ahead more and do some planning. What do some of them actually do? The chairs were laid out lecture-style, where a doughtnut effect would have worked really well. There was no-one going around trying to sign-up DD supporters for action, the lighting made the place look gloomy, so was wrong for an upbeat message, and Andrew Mitchell as warm-up man, c'mon.
Posted by: Cutting taxes win elections | 28 October 2005 at 16:31
"What has changed is that Davis is setting out a credible tax and spend program and intends to spend over 3 years trying to sell it. We will look consistant and credible instead of oppurtunistic. Our great failings in the last two parliaments has been the lack of a consistant approach."
And what happens when 3 years down the line when the economy starts shrinking? Perhaps tax cuts would still be the answer, but he couldn't possibly implement his scheme as he has set it out now. DD must be a clairvoyant or something to be able to know what the economy will be like in 2014. His policy direction is in fact the same as Cameron's - the proceeds of growth are shared between more spending (just at a slower rate than the growth rate) and tax cuts which will be worth £1200 in 2014. These figures are based on the growth forecasts of 2.5% - forecasts will change dramatically over the next few years, they are not in any way concrete. I think we can see the contrast between a sensible approach to outline the direction of economic policy, and an approach promising something which will almost certainly be defunct by the time of the next election. I think anyone who actually believes these proposals could be fulfilled is being naive. It isn't even a radical proposal - 40% is still a great increase of GDP spent by government since 1997.
"Postscript: Before the most enthusiastic Cameroons fill the thread below with accusations of bias..."
Who on earth could you be referring to, Editor?! I for one would not deny you freedom of thought. And I entirely agree about the 'A-list' - candidates should be local, not imposed by the London HQ.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 28 October 2005 at 16:32
Given the difficulties Davis faces in his campaign, I think he does need to take greater risks, such as his stance on taxation, which I personally don’t think was wise, but many on this blog do, so there you are.
So far he has shown considerable restrained, however is he primed to launch a right-wing offensive though? It will become more tempting if things don’t start to swing his way in the next week or so.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | 28 October 2005 at 16:45
With regards to local candidates whilst it is preferable to have a candidate with a local connection, if you limit yourself to only picking local candidates then you are going to rub out automatically a sizeable chunk of potential candidates who would by dint of whatever have to go for seats that he/she is not local to. The crucial thing is to get candidates who can have traction in a particular area and that is why it is essential that local associations retain control over selection as they know what type of candidate will fit their area.
Posted by: James Burdett | 28 October 2005 at 16:47
I prefer local candidates found to campaign in areas which they have a more intimate knowledge of the area than a "gold list".
Posted by: James Maskell | 28 October 2005 at 16:48
DD can talk tax all he wants, the more he does, the further he places himself away from becoming Prime Minister of this country. He simply doesn't have the media support, the chrisma or the communication skills for people to adopt these ideas.
DC will not make any direct promises, in case they are received poorly, he wants to strengthen his position as leader of the party without looking foolishly conservatively right-wing. Cameron could adopt a tax relief policy and might be able to pull it off better than DD.
Posted by: Jaz | 28 October 2005 at 17:11
On DDs tax declaration of sorts, Ive just seen something that would make it easier for me to understand what he is proposing. Ill let everyone know what I think of his declaration come Sunday.
Normally Id know straight away what I think but this is the economy and economics doesnt come naturally to me...
Posted by: James Maskell | 28 October 2005 at 18:01
From Jack Stone, and later from Jaz, we have it clearly: our primary purpose as political activists is to elect someone who can get to Number 10, NOT to get a leader into number 10 who is good for the country.
Here's what JS said: "Lets please get real! Firstly who does or does not win the next election is not going to be decided on the party`s drugs policy... At the end of the day the thing that should decide this election is who of the two candiadates stands the best chance of winning the next election."
There are 2 problems with this:
1) I don't want to get someone into Number 10 who has a drug policy, or any other policy, that I believe adds to the sum of human misery, even if it is popular and carries the label 'Conservative'.
2) It's very hard to know who really will be electable after 3 or 4 proper years of testing, campaigning, changing environment, changing public opinion, etc. It's not easy to guess on the basis of a couple of good performances.
It's safer to go with what you believe rather than with what you predict others will believe in the future!
Posted by: buxtehude | 28 October 2005 at 20:42
David Cameron is not proposing anything that anyone but the most dogmatic right-winger would descibe as being anything but Conservative.
What he is trying to do is be pragmatic and try to put together a programme that stands a chance of being accepted by the electorate.
What would you rather have a government lead by David Cameron or a government lead by Gordon Brown, you will only have those two alternatives at the next election.
If you would prefer a Brown government I hope you will refrain from voting in the leadership election and go and join your pals in New Labour!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 28 October 2005 at 22:11
I thought that a criticism of recent general election campaigns was that the Conservative leadership had lost nerve, and slipped back into a "core vote strategy". Here, it seems, Davis is already adopting a "core vote strategy" and he isn't even leader yet, let alone involved in a general election campaign. There are millions of people out there who don't give a toss about tax reductions, because they themselves pay little or none. In the Greater Glasgow area, for example, over 50% of the population have no earned income at all. And before someone says that these people are all parasitical layabouts who wouldn't vote Tory anyway, let me point out that these figures will include a very large number of pensioners, plus some disabled etc, none of whom are necessarily willing laybouts or anti-Tories. Cameron knows this; that's why he's being more circumspect in his remarks. Davis is making a mistake.
Posted by: Deckchair of despair | 28 October 2005 at 22:26
Sorry, Jack Stone, but I don't accept your premise that either I learn to love David Cameron or I'd better be off. Might as well close down this blog in that case.
In fact I'm not unhappy with David Cameron IF he proves to be a genuine fighter for Conservative principles. Great politicians win on a great agenda. Mediocre politicians don't necessarily win on apologist agendas. My paltry effort is to be part of an effort to persuade DC or anyone else to fight for something worth having. As I've said on some other thread, who would be a Mandelson? It looked nice at the start, and end up as a very exemplum of all that is pitiful in politics. A winner? Yes, in that he has a 'top job'. But universally reviled.
And no, Deckchair, I don't like a 'core vote strategy'. I hated Michael Howard's campaign (designed, let us not forget, by Cameron, Vaizey, Gove!) My vision of a low tax economy is about a thriving economy, not a bloated German one; about innovation in public services, not pandering to producer interest. That's not a core vote strategy.
Posted by: buxtehude | 29 October 2005 at 08:52
The best way to descibe your stragedy is probably not core vote stragedy but vote loser stragedy.
We have to fight the next election on Labour`s ground and that will have to mean no tax cuts until you have convinced the public that you are committed to improving public services.
I just can`t see the point in the party keep repeating over and over again the mistakes that have meant it losing the last three elections.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 29 October 2005 at 09:13