Five years ago the Conservative Party enjoyed a very good conference in Bournemouth. The party had just inched ahead in the opinion polls because of the fuel protestors' strike and William Hague had given his most 'one nation' speech with biographical messages about his Yorkshire upbringing. That good conference was wrecked by a combination of the Portillistas and the Mail on Sunday. They combined to torpedo Ann Widdecombe's tough new policy on cannabis with revelations of the pot-smoking pasts of seven shadow cabinet ministers.
Half-a-decade later the Mail on Sunday is having another go at wrecking a conference honeymoon. Mr Cameron is their target this time round. An editorial in today's newspaper (not available online) argues that it is reasonable for Mr Cameron to be asked about his exposure to illegal drugs. "When politicians consider changes in the law," the MoS writes, "they are bound to be influenced by their own experience." The newspaper urges him to be honest. It also urges Mr Cameron to express regret at his past support for the "weakening" of the cannabis laws.
Andrew Marr also pressed David Cameron on this very subject on this morning's Sunday AM programme. Mr Cameron again refused to give a direct answer; offering only: "I did lots of things before I entered politics that I shouldn't have done." This formulation is an echo of George W Bush's 'When I was and young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible'. Mr Cameron preferred (rightly) to talk about his policy position on drugs. He emphasised the need for the Tories to have a long-term strategic approach to the issue of drugs and emphasised rehabilitation of drug users. At the last election the Tories promised a ten-fold increase in drug rehab places.
Mr Cameron's views on drugs may emerge as his achilles heel. When he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee he expressed support for the idea that the UN should consider legalising drugs with hard-core addicts provided with 'shooting galleries' and state-prescribed heroin.
The drugs issue is always contentious. The main town in the constituency I fought was Worksop which rose to national fame due to the number of heroin addicts it has. One strong message which I was able to put to the sitting MP was why had his party moved to downgrade cannabis when they were making the claim to be tough on drugs. It has been suggested that credit would actually be given to Cameron if he would be prepared to admit he got it wrong on the drugs issue (of course that's if he thinks he got it wrong).
Personally I think the MoS should focus its attention on this Government's failure to make any in-roads on this huge social issue.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 09 October 2005 at 12:44
David Cameron's a fool if he thinks prescribing heroin is the answer to the drugs problem. Where such programmes have been tried, all hope of weaning users of drugs have quickly faded.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong in wanting the state to keep its citizens drugged up. It's hardly compassionate!
And his views on legalisation would undo all the work of re-hab clinics. Liberalisation sends out the message that drug use is acceptable. The effect of policies like these in the Netherlands, was that drug use soared.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 12:53
I love these debates, especially the fact that James Hellyer absolutely loathes David Cameron and uses every opportunity to criticise our future prime minister.
Posted by: Steven Patrick | 09 October 2005 at 12:58
I love these debates, especially the fact that James Hellyer absolutely loathes David Cameron and uses every opportunity to criticise our future prime minister.
What? You think I should suddenly depart from long held and well publicised views in order to promote David Cameron?!?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 13:03
I think Cameron needs to spell out what exactly he would do, and why exactly he believes that would work..If that involves keeping Cannabis downgraded and looking at other radical and contraversial ideas then so be it, but we should at least hear some cogent and coherent reasoning...
Posted by: James Burdett | 09 October 2005 at 13:42
I understand Cameron refusing to answer the question about personal use. If you confirm/deny one question about dubious activities it inevitably leads to more until the press corner you into whichever one you won't confirm as confirmation you did it.
But at the same time because there is doubt about his drugs position I think he should spell it out in detail. Quite frankly his position from now on is far more value then what he did in the past. On Sunday AM he said he didn't have a manifesto for the general election which is fair, but when an issue like this comes up I think it'd be worth him clearly stating his position.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 09 October 2005 at 14:02
I think we can all draw our own conclusions from Cameron's continued evasivness on thi matter, can't we?
A lot of well heeled people in and around Notting Hill are often coke-heads. Perhaps these are the young, urban, metropolitan professionals who he appeals to....?
Intersting that Cameron has revealed his socially liberally colours for all to see. Does he not realise that drugs destroy lives, families and have contributed to the lawless society we have today? Obviously not.
I only pray that his campaign implodes and his utter vacuousness is exposed before it's too late.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 09 October 2005 at 14:31
I think we should be careful and look carefully at the causes of drug taking and real solutions to the issue. Nobody will gain if any of the candidates imply that there is an obvious answer, there isn't. In fact the causes of drug taking depends on who is doing the taking. Whereas one list that can be drawn up is poverty, family and social breakdown etc. We should also look at 'recreational' drug taking where the causes are entirely different and can centre around thrill seeking. This is a complex issue that needs a considered approach.
Posted by: James Burdett | 09 October 2005 at 14:46
I don't think the somewhat hysterical reaction to any new thinking on drug policy does us any favour. I think the Bow Group's "Go Zones" paper provided some thought-provoking proposals on inner-city drugs policy.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 09 October 2005 at 15:15
What "new" thinking? Cameron's statements don't contain any.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 15:17
I was making a general point. None of the candidates have said anything substantial about drug policy. The MoS is just being scurrilous, this really isn't an issue at all...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 09 October 2005 at 15:24
Hi, I'm new to this blog - it's very good!
I am friends with a Westminster secretary and she reckons cornerstone will vote in the 2nd round for the candidate most likely to push Cameron into 3rd place, EVEN if that candidate is Ken Clarke. I know these things are often inaccurate but it would make sense.
Cameron is a horrible candidate - I also think he is a quite nasty man - does anyone remember the way he snapped at Andrew Neil on the Politics Show during the Election?
If we cherish our party we should all do our utmost to keep this man from Central Office.
Posted by: David Taylor | 09 October 2005 at 15:57
Hi, I'm new to this blog - it's very good!
I am friends with a Westminster secretary and she reckons cornerstone will vote in the 2nd round for the candidate most likely to push Cameron into 3rd place, EVEN if that candidate is Ken Clarke. I know these things are often inaccurate but it would make sense.
Cameron is a horrible candidate - I also think he is a quite nasty man - does anyone remember the way he snapped at Andrew Neil on the Politics Show during the Election?
If we cherish our party we should all do our utmost to keep this man from Central Office.
Posted by: David Taylor | 09 October 2005 at 15:57
The Conservative Party is divided between those who realise that Cameron's response on drugs actually brings the Party closer to the real world than its been in 15 years and those who do not.
If some senior police officers are arguing there is a case for changing our approach to drugs, it must be a debate worthy of consideration at least.
Posted by: Cameronisoursaviour | 09 October 2005 at 15:59
We have a right to know the views of the candidates. Any evasiveness on this will not do, and we draw our own conclusions. When Blair was asked if son Leo had had an MMR injection he refused to say, leading us to assume he had not.
Posted by: Derek | 09 October 2005 at 16:01
The Conservative Party is divided between those who realise that Cameron's response on drugs actually brings the Party closer to the real world than its been in 15 years and those who do not.
Oh look, a false dichotomy. And from a Cameron fan too! What a surprise.
Cameron is a horrible candidate - I also think he is a quite nasty man - does anyone remember the way he snapped at Andrew Neil on the Politics Show during the Election?
Yes. And I've noticed the way he uses his disabled child to score political points.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 16:08
Interesting info there, David. Thanks for sharing it!
Cameron's quickly-let's-dodge-any-issue-that-I'm-being-asked-about approach reminds me too much of Blair. He really needs to come out and take a stance on this, otherwise the critics will get ever louder.
I personally think Cornerstone will vote for the most attractive candidate to further their own interests, whoever that may be in a certain round. I'm personally of the opinion that there'll be some form of tactical voting in Round 3. Whether that's to keep Cameron off the ballot, I can't say.
However, I think both Davis supporters and Cornerstone probably realise that their best chance of installing a "right-wing" candidate is to get Clarke into the final round.
Posted by: Elena | 09 October 2005 at 16:10
Elena, I think the problem is that most of Cornerstone aren't very enamoured with Davis. He's certainly taken to roughing them up to the press in recent weeks.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 16:17
And I've noticed the way he uses his disabled child to score political points.
James, I think you really should withdraw that comment as you discredit both yourself and the cause you stand for. Today I saw an interview with Liam Fox, and I was so heartened by the positive approach he took, and at how he even defended other candidates against unfair criticism. Your comments fly in the face of his generosity of spirit. If you truly stand by what you have said about Cameron's son, then you will have lost the respect for your opinions that I at least had before. David Cameron's son could die in the next year, and it would have to be an entirely evil person to make political capital out of this. Do you really see Cameron as such a person? When Cameron talks about special schools, is it really so hard to regard his pain and passion as genuine? I trust that when you made this comment it was on the spur of the moment, and you were not thinking straight. If this is not the case, then I sincerely regret the fact that the debate has degraded to such a sickening level.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 09 October 2005 at 16:54
"Yes. And I've noticed the way he uses his disabled child to score political points"
What the hell is this James? Has your anti-Cameron really reached this disgusting level.
Go back to your little hole - for a start it does Dr Fox little help when his supporters make such unpleasant remarks.
So it is fine to knock Cameron's priviledged background, then when there is a distinctly non-priviledged turn in his life it is fair game to attack because he 'exploits' it?
Your comment is the lowest thing I've read on this site. I withdraw the compliment I paid you for your political knowledge a couple of days ago and I take some pleasure that while i may have to share a political party with you I can rest assured that your attitude will be enough to ensure you never have a hope of being elected.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 09 October 2005 at 16:56
"Cameronisoursaviour" must be DD plant. He can't really think that we should copy self-destructive tendencies in order to bring us 'closer' to self-destructive people?
Not that I think that to have taken drugs in any way disqualifies someone from being Prime Minister. But to be unable to give a straight answer does.
I think it's a mistake for Cameron to be clever about this. Why be evasive? Either he dabbled in drugs or he didn't. Either he wants liberalisation or he doesn't.
Either he wants to be an honest, approachable politician, or he's just pretending.
I was interested in Portillo's line in today's Sunday Times: "Maybe Cameron is, despite appearances, the least nice". An intriguing hint. And maybe Cameron is also, "despite appearances", not as honest as he appears.
This may be unfair - which is why he now needs proper testing. He mustn't be allowed to duck that.
Posted by: buxtehude | 09 October 2005 at 17:20
Of course you could have illustrated this story thus: http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/pictures/eclectic/sayr-fig138.gif
Posted by: Marcus Muholland | 09 October 2005 at 17:22
This is hilarious. Great site by the way. I am amazed at the bile coming out of James. You need to get a life old chap. For the vast majority of people in this country David Cameron represents somebody who like Tony Blair understands that Britain has changed. He understands that right and left is consigned to the dustbin and that everybody needs to come together and aim for a better Britain. This is what Tony Blair has been with varying degrees of success doing since he became PM. I mean Zac Goldsmith - tory MP who would have thought?! David is not only a very genuine bloke, he is also exceptionally intelligent as well as being emotionally in touch enough to actually want to break free from the crappy name calling that has so mired politics over the last thirty years and has turned people like me off it. Since Dave has arrived on the scene I have found his stated aim of reconnecting politics with the people genuinely reassuring and fills me with hope. I might actually vote for your party as a result. As for the drugs debate, if you hadnt realised, 1 million people smoke pot every weekend and the fact that Cameron may well have done will only endear him to me and thousands of others. Rock on Dave for not lying about it and being normal. He is in touch with thousands of people that few other Conservatives are, and to be quite frank a true conservative would never make drugs illegal, he would just never have banned them in the first place and they wouldnt have the cache that they now have and that makes so many people want to take them.
Anyway well done for a great site, I just wish that a 28 year old like yourself James were more in touch with people of your own generation and if it is true that you are seriously thinking of standing for parliament make sure you do it in a retirement town as you certainly wont be representative of anybody under the age of 60, but then they wont elect you because you are a nasty little sod...
Posted by: Tom Geast | 09 October 2005 at 17:24
No, i think Jamesshould be defended. I know what he means when he observes that Cameron seems to bring up his childs' disability quite a lot. As soon as he brings up his child in a debate with a political opponent how can the opponenet possibily win. I do find this quite distasteful. Cameron is good looking (or so Im told !), but his performance was ridiculously oversold.
I think he is a nasty man, a horrendously ambitious man and one who would harm the Tory party. We have Ken Clarke who would offer the public something different. Politics would be interesting with Brown Vs. Clarke, politics would be one sided with Brown Vs. Cameron. It would be embarrassing at PMQ's- Blair must be absolutely delighted. I don't think he will win though, watch the sneaky Fox - he has a game plan.
Posted by: David Taylor | 09 October 2005 at 17:25
Do you really see Cameron as such a person?
No, I don't think David Cameron is "evil". I really think you are overreacting to what was a very poorly phrased, off the cuff point. For that I apologise.
I don't mean that David Cameron uses his child in the way that, say, John Gummer did when fed his daughter burgers in front of the press, at the heights of the BSE crisis. What did make me a little uncomfortable though was a recent interview on the BBC - after his conference speech in fact - where the interviewer asked if he'd prove he wasn't privileged by sending his child to a state school. Rather than saying his child was at a state school and his youngest would go to one (if true) or that that like all parents he'd want to send them to a good school, Cameron concentrated on his child being disabled and used that as a platform to talk about special schools. To me the way that was done seemed a little too much like an attmept to get sympathy and shift the discussion's focus to something more favourable.
While I accept that David Cameron does have a real and personal interest interest in special schools, I think he - like all politicians - needs to be careful about how they involve their families in debate, because it can look like they are using them. That can appear distasteful.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 09 October 2005 at 17:29