Editorial: Me? Biased?

It's true.  I am biased and throughout today I'll be revealing my many biases (even more starkly than normal some might say!).   But they'll be biases about conservative ideas and policy direction. 

As conservativehome.com develops I want it to be somewhere where the And Theory Of Conservatism is always on full display.  By that theory I mean a combination of those core policy positions most associated with the Conservative Party of recent years (Euroscepticism, a tough approach to crime and lower taxation, for example) with a broader commitment to justice issues (like addressing domestic poverty,  human trafficking and environmental decay).  The party doesn't have to choose between its core beliefs and a more progressive agenda.  The 'And Theory' argues that we can have both if we avoid apeing our political opponents' choice of policy instruments.

On the hour - throughout today - I'll be publishing the two contenders' answers to twelve questions of Conservative belief and strategy.  Alongside every question I'll be writing a very brief editor's note and the exciting new David-O-Meter will be swinging towards DC or DD to indicate which of the contenders has given the best answer.  By the end of the day it will be fairly obvious which of the two candidates has the best policy positions (IMHO) but I will not reveal whether those positions are enough to make me vote for them.  For me beliefs are 80% of the mixture but all of us know that Michael Howard's successor also needs a variety of leadership and personal skills.

ConservativeHome remains an open forum for all Tories and if you want to write a substantial post for the Platform Blog - disagreeing with 'my biases' or proposing an entirely different area for discussion - please email me at [email protected].  And there's always the comments option at the bottom of every post for more libertarian, less hawkish Tories to take issue with my perspective!  I welcome all comments of every worldview but will delete comments that abuse other visitors, use unnecessary bad language or are racist, homophobic or are in other ways offensive.

The David-O-Meter will be swinging into action at 9am...

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Tim,

I cant wait. Are you sure your not looking to fill a certain Mr Snows shoes?

PS - You are absolutely right regarding being able to follow core polices whilst also pushing a social justice agenda.

[buxtehude]

"You are absolutely right regarding being able to follow core polices whilst also pushing a social justice agenda."

That's exactly what I like about this site.

However, your assumption that we are all at leisure to await an hour-by-hour drip of Cameron/Davis wit and wisdom is perhaps mistaken.

[Editor]

Bux: You could not be more wrong! Such is the national excitement at the prospect of the hour-by-hour release of questions and answers I expect national output to be badly dented today. Throughout Britain factories and trading floors will grind to a halt at the turn of every hour as people anxiously wait to hear what David Davis thinks about tax or what David Cameron has to say about cannabis. Britain won't have seen anything like it since Kevin Pietersen's century on the final day of the Ashes...

[buxtehude]

But why would anyone respect what Cameron has to say when he is frightened of being interviewed by Paxman on the subject?

[Guido Fawkes]

Cracking idea the David-O-Meter! Where did you get the inspiration?

[Editor]

Peter Snow?!

[Ian Sider]

Surely an hour isn't enough to contemplate the wisdom of the Editor's verdict?

[Jack Stone]

Personally I would have prefered the answers to have been given and then people asked for comments without the editor giving his obvioiusly bias opinion.

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

Bad editor, imagine having an opinion not pre-approved by Team Cameron! There'll ne none of that after the result . . .

But to say something completely different - the problem with these answers is neither your commentary nor the candidates' opinions, it's the absolute fact that these *questions* are in themselves nearlyu all totally pie-eyed.

Their biggest failign by far is that so very, very few of them actually speak to any of the isuses that voters' concerns demonstrably turn on. Darfur, right-to-die, stem-cell research and compassionate conservatism just don't register on any sensible scale of voters concerns (in Britain), still less provide the opportunity for swing issues where we, by adopting new or more vigorous policies, could detach current non-Tory voters from whoever it they back.

Compassionate conservatism is especially risible given how much earnest waffle it all is. Now I'm not (as the above prolix paragrpah shows) opposed to political waffle in principle. For a good 6 to 8 years after 1994, waffle served Tony Blair very well as a politician. This, however, is not to say that waffle, in every age and every instance, is the correct political response (and by correct I mean the one that will win elections).

To move on to Dope and Marriage is to be marginally more substantive, but not in the way addressed by your questions. 'Marriage' is like good weather - and while there can be moments when eternal sunshine isn't whats needed, few if any people actually are going to speak against marriage. In other words, it's exceedingly empty rhetoric just to talk about 'marriage,yeah or nay?' - what's needed is an uglier consideration of practicalities. And this, to be blunt, means defending marriage as presently configured. And he touchy feely Ken Livingstone of 20 years David Cameron programme ain't going to be up for that.

As for your dope question - well really. You're speaking to an outrage that isn't there. Maybe it ought to be, but it just isn't. And like all losing battles, wasting time and effort fighting, which is to say, losing it, saps you strength for the conflicts you have to win ie keeping coke both illegal *and* disapproved of.

Tax of course is a solid issue, and one we have shied away from as a party consistently since 1992. For me, a boring Thatcherite reluctantly supporting the even more boring DD, the connection between our election results after 1992 and our rejection of a tax-cutting agenda is painfully obvious.

But well done getting tame answers from the 2 campaigns - though for what it's worth, I would have admired eg Cameron if he had told you to bugger off, and I shall admire him if he ignores the presumptuousness of Newsnight too.

[Editor]

As I've said elsewhere Henry - I tried to pose questions that were unlikely to be asked elsewhere. I'm sorry if they didn't quite hit the spot for you but many of these questions (or questions like them) were sent to me by other readers. And even if they are the wrong questions you can still learn something about the candidates from the way that they have answered them.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

So then Ed - have you decided how you will vote?

[Editor]

Sorry Jonathan... Not yet! I'm going to wait until the last minute I think. DD has the better policies IMO but I think DC is a better communicator and has a better team (George Osborne, Michael Gove, in particular). I have switched from leaning towards DC to leaning towards DD, however. DC's Darfur question was a big let-down moment for me. I remain a floating voter.

[James Hellyer]

You should all wait until younhear feedback from the Exeter hustings. You know that makes sense.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Ed - In this leadership election you are the sort of voter that parties spend fortunes o during General elections - those who are prepared to be persuaded.

Its interesting that you are a "wait and see". I suspect there will be quite a few more - different to the previous view which was that everyone would vote as soon as they received their ballot papers.

[Gareth]

You don't have to be the most sophisticated psephologist in town to know that Ed is voting for DD.

He's the closest to a neo-con in this race after all.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You should all wait until younhear feedback from the Exeter hustings. You know that makes sense."

I suspect the feedback from the Newport hustings might be similar in tone to the feedback from the Exeter hustings...

[a-tracy]

There I was thinking the Ed was leaning more towards Cameron.

[Mark Fulford]

As I mentioned on the Darfur thread, I don't understand why you've given that one so conclusively to DD. I agree with you that DC is the better communicator - and that is why I back him. In the scheme of things, a leader's ability to engage voters is fundamentally important. Everything else is pointless without that ability.

Thanks for a fantastic day of blogging Tim. I hope CCO realizes the good you’re doing and the support you’re awakening by enabling ordinary members to engage in the debate.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I suspect that the report from Bolton will be thorough and objective.

[James Hellyer]

"I suspect that the report from Bolton will be thorough and objective."

You mean it will do a two bit hatchet job on DD, and hang off every twist DC makes?

[malcolm]

Very belatedly thanks from me,too,Editor.
All the best from a fellow floating voter
Malcolm