EXCLUSIVE: Iain Duncan Smith declares for David Cameron

The text below has been submitted exclusively to ConservativeHome by Iain Duncan Smith:

"This leadership race has been good for the Conservative Party.  It has been conducted with civility and humour.  That is to the enormous credit of both of the final two contenders.  The Conservative Party has been in the national eye and the public have liked what it has seen.  The party looks fresher than it has done for a long time.  It certainly appears more united than an increasingly fractious and discredited Labour Government.

The other great achievements of the last six months have been that the Conservative Party looks more democratic and that it has renewed its one nation tradition.

The battle for internal party democracy that defined much of the early months of this contest was won by the democrats.  It was essential that we won.  A party that champions localism in the public services and democracy across the world could not deny its own members a say in its most important internal decision.  The involvement of party members has certainly enriched the contest.  The leadership wasn’t decided behind the closed doors of MPs’ offices.  The leadership candidates had to appeal to party members in every part of the country – to Conservatives in seats held by the party and in regions where we have no representation.  The enfranchisement of rank-and-file members made Blackpool the most exciting conference for many years.  Imagine how it would have been if we had kept it amongst MPs?

The Conservative Party’s commitment to democracy must not stop here, however.  Still bigger strides are necessary if we are to become a truly open party.  Theresa May, as my Party Chairman, began a process of open primary selection for parliamentary seats.  We need more of that openness to the views of the people we need to win elections.

The other great advance of this leadership election has been the renewal of the party’s one nation tradition.  All of the major candidates have spoken at my Centre for Social Justice and have seasoned their platforms with commitments to Britain’s most vulnerable people.  Liam Fox championed the mentally ill and women who have been victims of domestic violence.  Ken Clarke described the impact of public service failure on the poorest families.  David Davis outlined an international justice agenda that would appeal to the wristband generation.  David Cameron launched the CSJ’s Alliance of poverty-fighting organisations and has promised support for a new era of social entrepreneurship.

Labour has failed to tackle our nation’s deepest forms of poverty.  Its indifference to the stability produced by marriage and its confused drugs policies have undermined structure in communities.  Gordon Brown’s stealth taxes and benefits maze have undermined incentives to work.  There has rarely been a greater need for one nation Conservatism. 

Throughout this process I have listened carefully to each of the candidates and consulted many of the voluntary groups that are part of the CSJ’S Alliance.  They have genuinely been encouraged by the emphasis that all of the candidates have placed on social justice.  They have enjoyed meeting them and they have felt that they have been listened to.

The whole party has made big promises to society’s poorest people.  Those poorest people have turned away from politics because they have been repeatedly failed by here today, gone tomorrow politicians and their promises.  Keeping our party’s promises to hard-pressed neighbourhoods is not just about social justice.  It’s also about restoring integrity to political life.

I have now cast my ballot after having given every candidate access to the CSJ and its network of poverty-fighters for visits and speeches.  That process of full and fair access ended last week.  I have voted for David Cameron.  It wasn’t an easy decision as I’ve been impressed by David Davis’ candidacy.  His policies on patient choice and tuition fees are, for example, close to my own.  However, I chose David Cameron after being struck by the growing belief amongst the voluntary groups working in the hardest pressed communities that he is best placed to deliver for them.

After six months of renewed unity and purpose my greatest hope is that the party won’t return to old, destructive ways once this contest is over.  The parliamentary party almost needs a year zero.  The election of David Cameron offers the party a great chance of a fresh start.  He has promised to lead a team of all talents and I hope that that will include a substantial role for David Davis.

Whoever wins, this is the moment that the parliamentary party must to a man and woman determine to give that leader their unstinting support.  Of course debate and argument are legitimate as we shape our future direction but this has to be done in the context of support for the leader.  There must be no more noises off and personal briefings that have poisoned our party for too long."

Comments

[wondering about what the future holds]

The problem here is that a lot of people don't want to face up to the mistakes we made as a party beyond the unfortunate tone we have often adopted in opposition, especially during elections. It's quite right to do something about that but people are deluding themselves if they think merely dropping the bigotry and nastiness is going to win people over to our side. All it does is bring the party up to date with the other two parties. And yet those who have been most enthusiastic about this very necessary and important change have often had the least to say about what the public really care about--even during an unprecedented six-month ling leadership election. Not very encouraging that.

[malcolm]

Just an innocent question.Why do so many people use weird pseudonyms when they post on this blog?I could understand it if they were making stupid or outrageous comments but they aren't always!

[Bruce]

Actually, Malcolm, Tony Blair's first cabinet pretty much represented what I'm advocating--a complete "new generation" of leadership. None of his top leadership team (Prescott, Brown, Cook, Straw) were members of the Callaghan cabinet, and except for Prescott all were in their 40s when given their Front Bench positions. TB deliberately excluded such (failed) former leaders as Kinnock and Foot from prominent roles in his administration.

Bill Hague et al won't disappear. They will always be available for advice, and hopefully will be listened to. Maybe even given government posts--AFTER we win the election. But TB's electoral success suggests that the Tories can also win with a team of "new" faces. This is the kind of past we SHOULD learn from.

Tony Blair's first cabinet was 18 years after Labour left office! We have been out for only eight. By 1997, Kinnock was no longer an MP. Foot was not only no longer an MP but was also 84!

In fact most successful leaders of the opposition (in the sense of defeating the incumbent government) had served in the previous government of their own party--and all won shares of the vote comparable or greater than Blair's. Blair is in fact the only post-war Prime Minister not to have served in the cabinet of a previous administration.

There is an ahistorical perspective in some of these threads. If you look at the three times the Tories have come back since the war: 1951, 1970 and 1979--each time the party had a programme that took into account their own party's failings while previously in government and took a much longer view than simply the period they have been out of office.

In 1951, the Tories had a programme shaped not just to rid Britain of the unpopular features of Labour's post-war government but also to address their own record in the 1930s. Similarly, 1970 and 1979 were about changing a lot more about Britain that merely what the previous Labour Government had done. Both Heath and Thatcher acknowledged the shortcomings of previous Tory governments and were explicit about wanting a different approach.

History didn't begin in 1997.

[Bruce]

To the anonymous poster of "There is an ahistorical perspective": I didn't take a position one way or the other on whether the Tory Party should ponder the party's past failings. In fact, I'd agree with you that it should. My posts focused not on policy but rather on the need for new leaders.

By 2009 the Tories will have been out of power 12 years; roughly comparable to the 18 year gap between Callaghan and Blair, and similar to the 13 year gap between Atlee and Wilson. In Canada, we see a 22 year gap between Bennett and Diefenbaker. In Australia we see a 25 year gap from Evatt to Whitlam. Each time, by necessity or choice, a new generation of leadership took power. Each time, an opposition led by "new" faces won election. The historical record shows that the Tories should not fear going into an election with an all new Front Bench.

History did not begin in 1997. Nor did it begin in 1951, nor is it confined to Britain.

[Rick]

No ! John Smith "won" the 1997 Election. John Smith was the credible Scot who gave voters the feeling of an avuncular bank manager - his death in May 1994 gave Blair the sympathy vote after he succeeded Margaret Beckett who was interim leader.

You cannot glide from Kinnock to Blair and delete Smith. Kinnock was not electable, Smith was. It was Kinnock who reformed the Labour Party; Smith who won over the voters; Blair who harvested what his predecssors had sown.

The New Labour Mandelson Legend has been too readily absorbed by Tories

[Beats By Dre Sale]

Air Jordan After Game