Hustings Report (6): Perth

Oberon Houston writes the latest Hustings Report...

Executive Summary of Highlights

During open questions, both candidates agreed that Devolution needs to work, and Scottish MPs should not vote on English only matters. Both also agreed that the police should not be armed as a matter of course, but should be given a bullet-proof vest. On the issue of future energy needs, both, again, agreed that nuclear power should be seriously considered, Cameron branded windmills as 'giant bird blenders' and that biofuel, on the other hand, was a good idea for both farmers and the environment. Davis will abandon tuition fees, Cameron will not.

Davis (perhaps rashly) threw in an ace on a question about the Regiments, by pledging to reinstate them to their status before Labour took power. This brought the roof down, as the local Black Watch Regiment has recently been axed; whilst serving in Iraq. David Cameron on the other hand sounded doubtful that this could be achieved but supported the aspiration.

On the question of why people hold politicians in such low esteem, David Davis said there were three reasons, 1. Mandelson 2. Byers and 3. Blunkett. He also wants to take away from the Prime Minister the power to rule on the ministerial code and instead defer power of judgement to the Privy Council. David Cameron reminded everyone that before Tony Blair came to power he was promising 'whiter than white politics', yet the reality was very different.

When the issue of transatlantic relations came up, David Davis launched an unexpectedly scathing attack on Tony Blair, saying that he was dazzled by the White House and because of this had neglected Britains national interest.

Detail and comment

The Conservative Party leadership decended on Scotland for a day. This morning both leadership candidates jetted in to woo activists north of the border, but began the day at opposite ends of the country. David Cameron was visiting 400 activists in Ayr, and David Davis was doing the same up in Aberdeen. David Cameron said two things that were particularly interesting, firstly he said he was committed to Devolution in Scotland 'heart and soul'. This has been the strongest message of support for Holyrood yet from a prospective leader of the party, and could be an important factor in the revival of the party north of the border and backs up Camerons claim to want the party to become more representative in Scotland. David David gave a similar message of support to MSPs.

David Cameron also said that, under his leadership, Scottish Conservatives would be free to produce their own manifesto without interference from London. He hoped, he said, that this would result in the Conservatives north of the border becoming more relevant to the people of Scotland. David Davis, commenting in Aberdeen this morning, was more general in his views. He repeated the comments he made at Conference, that Conservatives would need to 'win back support from areas that we have retreated from, such as the north of England and Scotland'. Both candidates did however mention the case for lower taxes. This has particular relevance to a devolved Scottish Parliament, where taxation rates can deviate from the rest of the UK by up to 3%, power not utilised to date by Holyrood.

The evening took the contenders to the Concert Hall in Perth. This proved to be a facinating evening for two reasons. Firstly the occasion was a unique opportunity for the Party to discuss some of the big issues we face north of the border. Its pretty clear that this needs airtime, and it did, in grand style. Whichever way the contest goes, one senses that our new leader is determined to revilalise the commitment to providing a centre-right alternative that all Scots can feel comfortable with. Both candidates however left the subject underlining their commitment to the Union. David Davis added in his opening speech to this by talking about the failure of Labour in Scotland, especially with the poorest. In a speech that was remarkably reminicent (I like to think) of my platform piece, 'Scotland needs Conservatives', he told the hall that the poor in Scotland, espectially in cities such as Glasgow are prisoners of a New Labour policy that traps then at the bottom of society. David Cameron repeatedly mentioned the importance of the voluntary sector in tackling social issues.

Neither contender disputed that the Party has to become more relevant to the people of Britain, but how this should be achieved quickly became contensious. The Cameron campaign slogan spells out the plan loud and clear; 'Change to Win'. Davis isn't quite so keen on that approach, and felt Cameron's changes would be more 'aping Blair' than serious policy. In recent days, Davis has delivered a more blunt assessment, pitched to appeal directly to the party faithful. It goes like this: Yes, party needs to become much better at the messsage, but the underlying fundamentals have not, and should not change. Cameron responded that three election defeats tell a different story. This area of contention still bubbles away in the background, however something else is maturing into a major battleground. Cameron has ignited intense debate by saying that he won't oppose the Goverment on areas of policy he regards as essentially lying on Conservative ground. Davis does not like this one bit, having a deep distrust of Blairite politics, wherever they appear to lie on the political spectrum. Davis says, in short, no voting with Labour under his leadership. With the Education White Paper looming before Parliament, the new leader will soon have to put conviction to the test. What Blair will do to counter either of these tacts remains uncertain. Labour backbenchers often proport to egalitarian principles, but their deep-seated hatred of the Conservative Party often drives them to incredible departures from this position to ensure the Tories do not advance even an inch. One thing leaking out of Downing Street recently is this: Whoever ends up winning this contest will shortly be on the receiving end of a massive Labour assault, a 100 day war is going to be launched to destroy the next Conservative leader before he even gets out of the starting blocks. The last eight years of a Labour Government might seem increasingly disappointing, but their ability to crush leaders of the opposition is legendary. Interesting times, with many more ahead.

In summary, this was a good performance by both candidates, those that had never seen them before were wooed by the Cameron charm. For myself, having seen both before many times, I would say that Cameron was on his usual good form, however it was the best performance I have seen Davis give. He was passionate, direct and convincing. As a result, he has gone up a notch in my book.

Finally, I have to share this: Half way through there was nearly a riot when the chair read out a question on pension reform and, looking at the audience, added that the question could have come from almost anyone in the hall. There was nearly a riot!

Comments

[Mark Fulford]

Is Davis really going to oppose building new nuclear power stations? I doubt it.

But why is Cameron describing windmills as bird blenders? Cheap laughs at the expense of an important, unresolved issue.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Cameron branded windmills as 'giant bird blenders'"

Nice to see he's taking environmental issues seriously.

[Derek]

I have no problem with the Party supporting the government, provided that the policy they support is actually going to deliver the policy objectives of the Party. If they support policies that are so watered down that they are not delivering any meaningful improvement, then that would be a betrayal of the people, and would have a negative effect on the standing of the Party.

[James Hellyer]

"Nice to see he's taking environmental issues seriously"

I agree with him on this one. Land based windfarms are a white elephant of a power source, and hugely injurious to domestic wild bird populations.

"have no problem with the Party supporting the government, provided that the policy they support is actually going to deliver the policy objectives of the Party."

And I think this is one of the key differences I have with Cameron: I don't believe Labour's legislation will deliver on policy objectives we support, and I would rather we weren't party to passing bad legislation, and therefore tainted by its failure.

[Mark Fulford]

Bird casualties through wind farms are less per MW than other energy sources -especially if you start factoring in harm done to birds and the food-chain by oil-slicks and polution. It's estimated at about 1 death per year per 100 turbines.

Is anyone suggesting supporting bad policy?

[James Hellyer]

"Bird casualties through wind farms are less per MW than other energy sources -especially if you start factoring in harm done to birds and the food-chain by oil-slicks and polution. It's estimated at about 1 death per year per 100 turbines"

Per turbine, actually. And that's an average.
Experience in the US shows that if the plants are in the wrong location that the effects can be far more devastating.

"Is anyone suggesting supporting bad policy?"

David Cameron is. Unless someone slipped good policies into the Education White Paper when I wasn't looking.

[Stuart Paterson]

To be fair, Cameron was highlighting the fact that the Government/Executive seem to think wind power is the only renewable energy source, whereas he was calling for greater use of wave power and biofuels.

[Rick]

Both also agreed that the police should not be armed as a matter of course, but should be given a bullet-proof vest.

The police officers around politicians, and the ones guarding Blair for the rest of him life are armed at all times. It is sheer hypocrisy of politicians who enjoy armed protection to make categorical statements.

The Somalis who killed an unarmed policewoman in Bradford were London-based gangsters subdued by CO19 and sub-machine guns.........if London wants to be home to Jamaican gangs, Albanian gangs, Sri Lankan gangs, Somali gangs, Kurdish gangs all seeking a profit out of drug addiction and people-smuggling.........it might be an idea to see what Toronto, or Kingston, or Tirana, or Kosovo look like before exporting London criminals to other British cities.

Frankly, politicians are just soundbite merchants and I doubt Cameron or Davis would be any different from Clarke, Blunkett or Straw - they have much more in common as politicians than they do with the long-suffering and alienated electorate.

[Oberon Houston]

To clear up the windmill comment. Both Candidates were pretty much agreed on Nuclear, Cameron added that Labour was "putting all its eggs all in one basket with wind power", and encouraged a more diverse energy policy.

On the Nuclear issue, Blair has contradicted Beckett, who said Nuclear was not a good idea - she said this on Sunday. Blair gave his pro-nuke brief on Monday. WHAT IS GOING ON? Do this Government ever meet in cabinet? I think the wheels are coming off you know. Is Blair preparing to abandon the Labour Ship?

[James Hellyer]

"WHAT IS GOING ON? Do this Government ever meet in cabinet?"

Yes, however several ministers - and a significant part of the parliamentary Labour party - are anti-nuclear. It's another issue where Tony Blair will face a rebellion.

[TC]

"Cameron branded windmills as 'giant bird blenders'"

Not only are they damaging to wildlife, they could also destroy the visual aspect of many parts of Britain's countryside.

No doubt this is irrelevant to many townies. However, do we really want to see many parts of our countryside destroyed by metropolitan planners?

[michael]

TC - I have to disagree - I think they are graceful objects which often enhance the landscape (providing there aren't forests of them).

[wasp]

More to the point because wind can only take up 20% at max of energy supply and energy efficiency is essential to fighting climate change...we don't NEED any more onshore windfarms.

[Mark Fulford]

Wasp - are you're saying that unless a source can provide 100% of our requirements it's not worthwhile?

And TC, I'm not a townie and I think windmills are beautiful.

[Michael McGowan]

I think Cameron needs to be very very wary about supporting Labour policies which he thinks have merits. The standard Blairite tactic is to trumpet proposed reforms as going further than they in fact do and achieving free market objectives which they do not in fact achieve. Tuition fees were a classic example: a large disguised tax hike coupled with increasing Government regulation of higher education which was heavily spun as creating a free market in higher education and freeing universities from the dead hand of state control. If the Conservative Party supports such measures on the basis of Blair's megaphone rhetoric, and then discovers that it has been sold a bill of goods, then Blair will waste no time in accusing Cameron of opportunism. Iraq is a good example of the Tories jumping feet first into such a trap. Cameron should know, as one of Howard's kitchen cabinet.

[Mr Eugenides]

I happen to agree that windfarms can be quite beautiful. If you fly into Copenhagen airport, for example, you will see a string of wind generators out in the bay, and a very impressive sight they are too.

However, I think I'm in a minority. It's not the sort of thing that gets "townies" like me very excited but most of the "strongholds" [sic] of Scottish Conservatism have large rural populations and this is a very real issue up here, with many people vehemently opposed.

[Interested Observer]

Until such point as we discover a mechanism for storing electricity, we could blanket the nation in wind farms, but would still need power stations of some sort as back up for (a) when the wind doesn't blow and (b) for the inevitable spikes in demand that occur in winter months.

[Rick]

And TC, I'm not a townie and I think windmills are beautiful.

Posted by: Mark Fulford | 22 November 2005 at 10:55

Then perhaps you should pay for them instead of a levy imposed on electricity bills. RWE is very disappointed with windfarms in Germany, they really screw capacity planning and actually make electricity scheduling much more inefficient.

Windmills are heritage objects for grinding wheat and barley, but a sop to technophobes in terms of energy generation.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Until such point as we discover a mechanism for storing electricity, we could blanket the nation in wind farms, but would still need power stations of some sort as back up for (a) when the wind doesn't blow and (b) for the inevitable spikes in demand that occur in winter months."

Nobody is suggesting our energy needs can be met solely by wind power. However, it can, and should, be an important part of a co-ordinated sustainable energy generation strategy.

[James Hellyer]

I'd prefer a new generation of clean coal and nuclear plants, combined with an energy conservation drive, rather than eco-vanity power sources.

[Interested Observer]

If you look at what I said carefully, Daniel, you will see that I was speaking of a hypothetical situation where the logical end-point of reliance on wind power would still require some form of power station.

I agree with Daniel that wind power has a role to play. I would question the 'importance' of that role relative to other renewable souces though. I think the sheer bulk of wind farms, and their domination of the landscape, means people over-estimate their potential contribution. Biomass, for example, has substantial potential if the science can be got right.

When I have participated in hustings with Green candidates, they have been proposing reliance solely on renewable energy (so not just wind power, as I can see your rebuttal coming already) but did not accept the need for back-up sources of electricity. Energy experts OXERA have calculated that it would cost £4.4 billion to meet emission targets by switching to nuclear, but £12 billion using windpower and other renewables.

Much of the technology for renewables is only just coming off the drawing board, and energy firms themselves doubt whether they could invest with sufficient speed to meet the energy gap of 2020.

The Government has set a target of 20% of our energy needs to be met by renewables by 2020. In 2004, it was only 3.6%. There is a long way to go, but even the planning procedures for the larger wind farms could take years. Research into tidal or wave power is still not complete, although there is now an operational wave power station on Islay. There is, also, a straw-fired power station in Cambridgeshire already operating!

Yet no renewable source entirely obviates the problems of intermittancy. We still have to power the remaining 80% of our energy needs even if the Govt's target is met, which even they hint is unlikely.

Both nuclear and wind energy have their role to play. More important, in my view, is for the public to wake up to the coming crisis when the current generation of nuclear power stations have to be decommissioned and we lose a quarter of generating capacity.

[Mark Fulford]

Rick, that's the same RWE whose subsidiary, RWE nPower says it is wrong to compare German and UK wind farms as like for like.

nPower explains: this is because many German sites are onshore, have not been built in the best locations for subsidy and planning reasons, and the UK is far windier than Germany.

In Germany they over-estimated the load factor. In the UK we estimated 30%. In fact, in England and Wales, npower's wind farms have achieved 27 per cent efficiency while in Scotland the levels so far have been in excess of 30 per cent.

[Jack Stone]

Supporting the government when there aims are the same as ours will gain this party far more respect from voters than
it would if we just oppose everything for the sake of opposing.
Personally I think it takes a bigger man with more courage to agree than it does to oppose!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Nuclear energy is laden with drawbacks though. For starters, there's the stigma attached to nuclear power like Charles Kennedy to a bar stool. There is still a great deal of concern that nuclear power is not, and never will be, safe. I would also dispute that it is clean, considering the issue of dumping nuclear waste and environmental damage caused by the excavation (for want of a better word) and transportation of uranium and other materials involved. In the long term, nuclear energy is not sustainable. And anybody that complains that wind farms are unsightly clearly hasn't seen a nuclear power station recently!

[James Hellyer]

Windscale is a more majestic tribute to human ingenuity than any windmill.