(Question wins applause)
DD: Welfare and tax system must help family and marriage; Unstable families produce crime and unemployment; Priority for tax cuts must be welfare policies that will help children to prosper; Detail needs to be decided - stable couples as well as married couples could be helped.
DC: Family is bedrock of society; It's not about preaching to people; It's about encouraging stability; All evidence shows marriage is a stable institution; It deserves to be recognised; Tax policy isn't only instrument; We have to look at CSA too, for example; I support Civil Partnerships; I also support childcare for working mothers.
Editor's opinion: DC does slightly better by noting policies that will benefit all families.
Cameron was left with the me-too position. Didn't do it well. Gordon Brown will dstroys the little lad.
Posted by: buxtehude | 04 November 2005 at 00:11
Why critiscise DC for adopting the "me-too" position? I thought we were trying for consesus politics these days so we might achieve things. If we don't have consensus within the party what chance do we have of winning the support of the electorate? When we have consensus like this between two pivotal figures we should be celbrating not whining.
Besides had DC been allowed to answer the question first (Seeing as it was his turn but Dimbleby conveniently forgot) we'd have seen a reversal of roles here. Don't forget it was DC who started his campaign advocating tax breaks for married couples.
Posted by: Chris | 04 November 2005 at 00:28
It's unfair to attack DC for sounding weak on this question. If he had had a question about women-only short lists or other minorities for candidates, for example, he would have scored far more heavily in this area. You really have to question the selection of the audience.
Posted by: George | 04 November 2005 at 00:32
So they'll help out married couples...thats so discriminatory. Ugly people dont benefit at all!
Just kidding everyone. Everyones attractive in their own way...(God Im starting to talk like Cameron now!)
Posted by: James Maskell | 04 November 2005 at 00:35
"You really have to question the selection of the audience."
That's right. It's the audience's fault that Cameron did badly. Or was it David Dimbleby's fault? I just don't know but Cameron himself certainly isn't the one to blame for his poor performance. How dare the BBC not have an audience full of Cameronites and have Gideon Osborne as chair of the debate? I'm so outraged at this blatant hatchet job that I think I'll rip up my television license in disgust.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 04 November 2005 at 00:37
"You really have to question the selection of the audience."
Ahhh...Diddums
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 November 2005 at 00:43
James and Daniel: Your comments on this issue strike of double-standards considering you were quite comfortable to suggest that it was entirely the media and particularly the BBC that had earlier manufactured the ascent of Cameron.
Are you now suggesting that the BBC is totally impartial on the selection of questions or is their agenda to enhance the appeal of their broadcast, reinvigorating the Conservative leadership battle (and interest in "Question Time") by helping Davis make up ground?
Posted by: | 04 November 2005 at 01:02
"James and Daniel: Your comments on this issue strike of double-standards considering you were quite comfortable to suggest that it was entirely the media and particularly the BBC that had earlier manufactured the ascent of Cameron."
It's not double standards. Cameron's campaign is a media invention. Whay back in the summer Cornerstone members were dismissing him as a "creation of The Times"...
Recognising that did not change the fact that Davis had to do something himself to overcome that. Moaning about the media was not a solution, but it was an explanation. Now the Cameron campaign are using it as an excuse.
Oh, and anonymous commenting is cowardly.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 November 2005 at 01:11
Thanks for that James H. Have you noticed how we keep being lumped together these days? I got a rather amusing email the other day comparing our current entente cordiale to the Nazi-Soviet and Redwood-Clarke pacts (I'm not sure which one was intended as the bigger insult!). It made me long for those halcyon days of old featuring our many displays of seemingly endless hypercritical pedantic verbal jousting...
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 06 November 2005 at 23:35