Hustings Report (7): Cambridge

Gary Weller authors the seventh Hustings Report. Gary, a Cameron supporter, is a 22 year old recent graduate from Sheffield University.  Tomorrow we'll have reports from the Frimley and London Hustings.  ConservativeHome's reporters will be on special look-out for DC's 'civil partnership' joke.  Is it used more often than the 'sharing the proceeds of growth' soundbite?  Surely not...

The Conservative hustings in Cambridge was held at Chilford Hall in Linton, an enchanting but very remote venue. It was a cold and fresh evening, but not cold enough to freeze out fresh speeches and encouraging performances from Messrs Cameron and Davis.

Davis was first to speak, and used his speech to confirm his intentions to reduce taxes and “attack” Blair, should he become leader. A staggering £38 billion in tax cuts were promised by Davis, which went down quite well with the audience, but perhaps not as well as one might have expected given the nature of the audience. This perhaps suggests that even the party faithful are beginning to become wary of such promises.

A large portion of Davis’ speech was focused on the apparent need to attack Blair, and he used his speech to boast how he had helped to remove both David Blunkett and Beverly Hughes from office.

Davis concluded by explaining that the country can choose to blindly follow Blair, or choose the “battle hardened experience” of the Conservatives.

Cameron was next up and his speech had a somewhat lighter and more moderate tone than Davis’. He started the speech with a number of quick-fire jokes and one-liners, including a proposal of a civil partnership with David Davis and a mention of the Paxman interview saying: “I like to think I really had Paxman”.

Cameron went on to attack the government in terms of its record on pensions and education amongst other issues. The overwhelming portion of Cameron’s speech however, focused on the need for the Conservative party to be a voice for hope, optimism and change. It is noticeable that Cameron seems to make a conscious effort to mention these three words in many of his responses to questions. One feels that this is the sort of language that Cameron believes will attract more young and female voters.

After the speeches followed a number of pre-selected questions from the audience. On many of the questions, there was a not a considerable amount of difference in opinion between the two Davids, indeed they often applauded one another on their respective responses.

One key area of difference between the two Davids is that Davis is in favour of promising specific tax cuts years away from the general election. Davis lambasted the government for spending more than the country earns and argued that tax cuts, rather than increased borrowing should be used to finance extra spending. This assumes that the decrease in tax revenue will be outweighed by the increase in consumer expenditure that the tax decreases generate (known as the multiplier effect).

Cameron argued that it is simply not wise to offer specific tax cuts so far in advance seeing as we have no idea what the state of the economy will be in five years time. Davis responds to this by claiming that tax cutting is crucial if a country is to climb out of a recession. At the moment there is an air of concern around how credible Davis’ proposed tax cuts sound and Davis still has a fair way to go before alleviating these.

Cameron’s message on tax was that he would share the proceeds of growth between lower taxes and increased public spending. He acknowledged that the Labour government has ploughed a lot of money into the public sector without much success, but did not really explain how he could spend this money more effectively.

On the topic of immigration both candidates agreed that the current system is shambolic and is in need of a severe shake-up in the form of border police and twenty-four hour security. Davis was particularly annoyed at how the Conservative party often gets accused of political incorrectness or even racism, at the mere mention of the word immigration. Both candidates were keen to express the enormous added value that controlled immigration gives to the country.

One other main area of difference between the two Davids was the issue of a patient’s passport. Davis is in favour of this claiming that rather than viewing it as taking money out of the NHS, it should be viewed as taking pressure off the NHS. Cameron disagreed, claiming that the idea of a patient’s passport sends out a signal to voters that the Conservative Party favours the privileged few. It is this stigma that so many non-Tory voters attach to the Conservatives, that Cameron is keen to expel. 

In the light of the recent tragic events in Bradford, the issue of the death penalty was also discussed. Both candidates are against the death penalty for the specific case in Bradford. Davis made the pertinent point that it is also not a good idea to make judgements surrounding this in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. The only difference between the candidates was that Davis is in favour of the death penalty for serial murderers, where he claims that there would be no doubt about the question of the murderer’s guilt.

Both candidates gave closing speeches with Davis once again focusing on the need to “take apart” the Labour government and resist the inevitable attack that Labour will make on the Conservatives once the new leader is in place. It is almost as if Davis views the current situation as a war against Labour, which is in stark contrast to how Cameron comes across.

Cameron has argued that rather than to continuously attack the government the Conservatives should seek to make the government go further on issues on which both parties agree upon. Cameron wants an end to the “Punch and Judy” style politics which so many young people despise in favour of a new, more moderate and consensual style.

Unity was the one of the most important issues, both candidates agreed, with Cameron going on to add that change and unity within the party will lead to victory.

After eight long years in the wilderness, victory is now finally starting to look a realistic prospect for the Conservative party.

Comments

[Nelson, Norfolk]

I attended the above meeting and I can confirm that it was a very good natured meeting.

Gary has given a very good report and I feel that we should all thank him for his efforts.

For me the most important part of the meeting came when both candidates stated that they will fully support the winner of the contest.

I blieve that if the whole party work together we can go on to win elections.

I came away from the meeting with the impression that the Party will do just that. For me that is excellent news.

We are lucky to have such talented people in our party such as DC and DD. They deserve our thanks for agreing to stand for the leadership. I wish them both best wishes for the future.

[Rick]

I suppose the £38 bn figure is a roll-up as usual in politics ie. this is the total spread over 5 years. Set in the context of public spending of around £500 bn annually or £2.500.000.000.000 over 5 years it doesn't seem quite so huge; the questio is whether given economic conditions at that time it would be appropriate and in line with boE monetary policy.

[Barbara Villiers]

Thank you Gary for such a measured report. You could gave those morons in the media a few lessons on objective reporting. Well done!

[Peter Harrison]

Rick - No, it isn't a roll-up figure. DD has promised a cut of £1200 per annum for the average taxpayer. With around 30 million taxpayers, that equates to a cut of £38bn per year, so it is £38bn out of £500bn public spending.

[Selsdon Man]

The £38 billion is a strategy not a promise, as Davis told Paxman. Strategies can be changed. A promise is an obligation.

[wasp]

Sorry Selsdon but if you menion numbers you have to make them happen. This would be a noose around DD's neck

[Richard Weatherill]

Thanks, Gary, for a very good report.

"It is almost as if Davis views the current situation as a war against Labour, which is in stark contrast to how Cameron comes across."

This comment goes to the heart of the difference in approach between the two candidates and, in many cases, of what separates the main protagonists on this site. It sums up why, in the end, I shall probably vote for David Davis.

[Michael McGowan]

Whether Davis does or does not regard the current situation as a war, Labour undoubtedly does.

[James Hellyer]

"Cameron disagreed, claiming that the idea of a patient’s passport sends out a signal to voters that the Conservative Party favours the privileged few."

But is it the right policy? Would it deliver the aims we want? If so, surely abandoning it because of how it is perceived is political cowardice.

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

Talking of DC's jokes here's one that I can not claim credit for but warrants repeating.

Dear Labour Supporter

We the Labour Party are changing our emblem from a Rose to a Condom, as a condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives a false sense of security whilst you're being screwed.

Love to you all
Tone

[Jack Stone]

The stratagie of all out war put forward by Davis is the same sort of failed stratagy we had by William Hauge and Michael Howard. If it failed them I don`t see why anyone should think it will suceed under Mr Davis.
We need to fight Labour the Cameron way. With our heads not our hearts!

[Vidkund Quisling]

I'm with Jack Stone on this one. Beating Labour by actually opposing Blair hasn't worked. We can be far more cunning by luring them into a false sense of security by agreeing with Blair, but briefing against him behind his back.

[Rick]

So if I don't like Blair's policies I blame the Tories not Labour.............it was always said he was a Ramsay MacDonald sustained by Conservative votes...........proving it should be helpful to Gordon Brown.

(Just don't forget how Macmillan knifed Eden over Suez and won the next election)

[Rick]

A Conservative Government led by David Davis would introduce a new ‘growth rule’, ensuring that public spending increases by one per cent less than the trend rate of growth in the economy. This would allow for a reduction in the nation’s tax bill of £38 billion a year by the end of the next Parliament, which could be used to cut the basic rate of tax by 8p in the pound. DAVID DAVIS CLAIM

Rick - No, it isn't a roll-up figure. DD has promised a cut of £1200 per annum for the average taxpayer. With around 30 million taxpayers, that equates to a cut of £38bn per year, so it is £38bn out of £500bn public spending.

Posted by: Peter Harrison | 23 November 2005 at 09:22

So he is speaking of £38 bn in FY2014-2015 predicated on growth in public spending being held to 1% below trend. Somehow the prospect of £1200 pa in 10 years time does not look too good on a discounted basis.