Q1: Compassionate Conservatism

"Some people think Conservatism is about helping people to help themselves. Does contemporary Conservatism have anything distinctive to say to those people who cannot help themselves?"

David Cameron: “Yes it can and it must. Modern compassionate Conservatism means being clear about our obligations to help the weak, the vulnerable and those who get left behind. There are two particular aspects of this which I have addressed in my leadership campaign and which I would emphasise here. First, my plans to free the voluntary and social sector so that community organisations and faith-based groups can expand the scope of the fantastic work they do, and secondly my campaign to save special schools.”

David Davis: “I am very proud that the Conservative Party believes in helping people to help themselves rather than enslave them into a dependency culture. I believe people want to be free to live their own lives and be given opportunities to succeed. The issue for Conservatism and the heart of my campaign is to show that there is nothing incompatible with this philosophy and concentrating our attention on helping those who are the poorest in society. It is the poorest in society who often don’t get the opportunities to help themselves and who are most often forgotten by state failure. It is the yardstick by which I measure all my domestic policies.  That is why I have concentrated several of my policy announcements on improving lives for the least well-off: at least 20 new grammar schools in our most deprived cities, tackling the poverty trap where people are penalised for trying to better themselves and on ensuring equal access to healthcare.  I believe this is a distinctive message and one we need if we are to regain seats in our inner cities and the areas the Conservative Party does not at present reach.”

Editor's Comment: "These are both solid answers.  Both contenders clearly support policies that will kickstart social mobility and DC showed a lot of understanding of the hard work that needs to get mobility going again with his remarks of Tuesday.  Then he said: "The tragic deficiency in Labour’s bureaucratic approach is the lack of human-scale help for those who are in need, not just of money, but of human support.  Sometimes it’s simple things like the confidence to buy a suit, or knowing the importance of turning up on time to an interview.  A stable family environment, free of drug or alcohol dependency, are the first steps on the ladder to self-sufficiency.  These are not things that a bureaucracy can provide.  Labour’s big bureaucracies terrify.  And they do not reach out a helping hand to those whom they terrify."  Neither contender has quite captured the extra mile compassion that characterised Liam Fox's campaign, however.  I'd like to see more emphasis on how we will help those people who will never be able to progress to independent living but will always need special help from the state and society.  I think of people with chronic mental health problems (as spotlighted by Dr Fox) and very old pensioners.  The David-O-Meter gives DC a very slight advantage in this first topic because of his mention of special schools.  It's the one hint of this 'extra mile compassion'."

Comments

[Cllr Graham Smith]

Dr Liam Fox has made some very pertinent remarks about the way the state's powers can be abused in the name of mental health (hat tip http://purplepiranha.blogspot.com/):

"If you are regarded as having a Personality Disorder and remember there's no objective test for that and someone thinks that you might commit a crime in future, you can be detained against your will. It's the only example I can think of in this country where you could actually have your liberty denied without breaking any law and I find that really quite sinister."

[buxtehude]

Not bad. But tell me: why would we take seriously Cameron's views if he is not prepared to put them forward in front of Paxman?

[michael]

For Davd Davis, compassion seems to be measured only in pounds and pence.

Remember, this is the man who was a leading backer of moves to enforce a 3 line whip opposing the Adoption and Children Bill which would allow gay couples to adopt children.

This was not only an issue of compassion, allowing more children a better start in life - it should have been an issue of conscience for Party MPs.

Not only did it make the Party look intolerant, it made us look incompetent.

So I question Davis's compassion but I also question his judgement, particularly his recent promise to allow MPs to speak their mind.

[James Hellyer]

"It's the one hint of this 'extra mile compassion'."

It's the one drum he has to bang, you mean.

[James Hellyer]

By that I mean special schools represent Cameron's one tangible achievement and his oft used reminder that he's not in an ivory tower.

[Mark Fulford]

Cameron touches upon freeing local voluntary groups, but I'd like to take it further by empowering local groups - giving support and legal protection to people who want to make their communities better places to live.

[Simon C]

Both candidates are close on this, although DD loses points for talking about "the bottom 25%" of society. There is no warmth or humanity in that - it's accountant-speak.

As Tim says, though, whilst it is encouraging that both recognise the importance of getting some serious social policy in place, it is a disappointment that neither has made a really concerted attempt to take Liam Fox's agenda and run with it. "Broken Society" is still the only phrase of the whole contest to have any lasting resonance. Both these 2 need to demonstrate that they have the vision, the strategy and the language to make a compelling case for social reform.

On a separate point, workload has meant that I have spent less time blogging here than before. But I am also becoming increasingly disenchanted by the sometimes repetitive and unpleasant nature of some of the contributions from supporters of both candidates. That will put people off this site - and it has meant thatI have not missed blogging here as much as I would have done a month ago. I hope that today's series of blogs will enable us to focus on ideas, and that we can discuss them in a cordial way.

[Andrew]

David Davis has spoken extensively of using voluntary and charitable organisations in place of the plethora of useless and dysfunctional state agencies that currently fail to provide for the people who need help the most. It is good to see David Cameron once again taking a lead from David Davis. That'll be useful in a month's time when DC is deputy leader.

[James M]

Are we saying now that we cannot take a candidate's views seriously for the sole reason he will not be interviewed by Paxman!?! That is barmy.

In the end the Paxman interview is the only sign of a strong leader - in fact he as pretty weak at the last election in his interviews.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Simon - completely agree. In less than a months time one of these fien candidates will be our leader taking the fight to Labour. You can back your individual man without disparaging the other.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"David Cameron: "Yes it can and it must. Modern compassionate Conservatism means being clear about our obligations to help the weak, the vulnerable and those who get left behind.""

Is this the same David Cameron that attacked a hardworking Christian charity that provides vital help in the Third World for the weak, the vulnerable and those who get left behind yesterday? The same David Cameron that took a swipe at Sir Richard Branson for having the temerity to suggest that the National Lottery should not be run for profit so that more of the proceeds could go to charitable causes? Surely not.

[I feel your pain]

DC is clearly more in touch with the mood of modern youth - he's a director of the Tiger Tiger bar chain.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"DC is clearly more in touch with the mood of modern youth - he's a director of the Tiger Tiger bar chain."

That would explain where the Cameronites get all their cheap shots from. Boom boom.

[Andrew]

'Is this the same David Cameron that attacked a hardworking Christian charity that provides vital help in the Third World for the weak, the vulnerable and those who get left behind yesterday?'

Presumably, DC intends to set up a 'powerful new body' like the Bank of England to decide which charities are good, and which are not, and whether we are meeting our switchover targets from public sector to charitable/voluntary sector...

[Editor]

Daniel: Naughty, naughty! Your comment is a case book example of selective quoting.

DC was attacking Christian Aid's suggestion that free trade was an enemy of the poor. He was questioning the public's growing dislike of profit-making companies in his remarks about Richard Branson.

If you read DC's full CPS speech (in which he talked about Christian Aid/ Branson) there's much substantial commitment to vulnerable people at home and abroad.

[johnC]

This is the same 'hardworking Christian charity' which in a recent policy document dismissed free trade and free market economics as a disastrous anachronism.
Read 'A policy out of control: 25 years of pain' to get a flavour of Christian Aid's hostility to the free market system.

[Jack stone]

When David Cameron speaks there is an opptimism there that makes yoiu believe he can make things better and a warmth about him that makes you feel that he really does care.
I am afriad when Davis talks it is all old fashined and uninspiring and there is just no warmth about him. Frankly he always comes over to me as an old fashioned country bank manager who is incapable of seeing beyond the balance sheet!The public unfortunatly have the impression that the Tory party do not care.Having someone as leader who simply seems incapable of showing he cares or is passionate about anything would make it impossible to change that view.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel: Naughty, naughty! Your comment is a case book example of selective quoting."

Guilty as charged, Your Honour!

"DC was attacking Christian Aid's suggestion that free trade was an enemy of the poor."

I refer you to the response of Christian Aid: "Christian Aid is not anti-free trade and we have no objection to profit. What we do say is that the way that trade rules have been stacked against poorer countries is neither 'fair' nor 'free' and that developing nations should be entitled to the same measure of protection that developed countries employed on their way to becoming rich."

[Peter Harrison]

I know that Christian Aid said that. The problem is that their website (and a lot of their literature) appears to give a completely different view which condemns free trade outright.

I support Christian Aid but I would like them to make their message much clearer. If they put up front the message that they support free trade but that isn't what we've got, I would be much happier.