James Hellyer - a blogger for DD - authors the final (2,000 word) Hustings Report. I formally thank all of the volunteer reporters who have, by their sterling work, contributed to ConservativeHome's campaign for a more transparent and democratic Conservative Party.
The final hustings meeting took place in the less than salubrious environment of Exeter’s Livestock market. I’m not sure who selected an outdoor covered area for a night time meeting in late December, where a large contingent of elderly people were expected to attend, but they won’t be winning any prizes from Age Concern. The cold was widely noted, with even David Cameron joking that he’d lost feeling in his toes by the end of the evening!
This little bit of local colour aside, the rest of the hustings would have been eerily familiar to anyone who had read even one of the previous reports filed on this site. As at the earlier meetings, there seem to have been rather more David Davis supporters handing out leaflets than there were supporters doing likewise for the Cameron campaign – although this may be attributable to the cold finishing off the t-shirt clad Cameroons.
Everything else also seemed present and correct: David Cameron joking that the two Davids has spent so much time together they were thinking of entering a civil partnership; David Davis joking that after all this exposure together “Hello” magazine wanted a joint interview; Cameron boasting that he’d “really had Paxman”; and William Aitken sporting a “Modern Conservatives” t-shirt.
The sense of déjà vu didn’t dissipate as the night wore one. Davis’s speech was the best platform performance I’d seen him give, while Cameron seemed typically fluent. However, every substantive point of both man’s speech has already been amply covered. In summary, Davis made a plea for substance over image, conviction based politics and fighting the government and thus help speed its end. David Cameron offered the familiar platitudes about change, optimism and hope, as well as the need to reflect the country we want to govern. The key difference between the two was Cameron’s belief that we should support government bills we agree with, and Davis’s belief that we should not back bad bills, and that we should instead hasten Blair’s end.
The questions and answer session, however, threw up some points I’d not seen covered before, which threw the two men’s different strengths into stark relief. As was perhaps to be expected from the area, the issues of agriculture and the countryside were raised several times.
In the first such instance, they were asked what they intended to do to support Britain’s agricultural communities. David Davis, answering first, said that the government didn’t understand the countryside because Labour was an urban party. He believed that the tide of regulation needed to be turned so that it actually supported our farmers, for example by making sure things labelled as British produce were actually British produce. His call to “take back” control of our agricultural policy garnered much support from the hall.
When it was his turn, David Cameron demonstrated the other trademark of these hustings by starting his answer with the words “I agree”. He added that the burden of regulation was too much for the farming community, and pledged a moratorium on new legislation. This didn’t seem to go far enough for some in the hall, however, who clearly believed that the presence of too much legislation meant some should be repealed, rather than it just not being added to.
The topical question of the day, of course, concerned the newly released Turner report. Both men replied that they had not read the report, but were aware of its main recommendations. Without committing himself to support of the report, Cameron commented that the need to fund a good basic pension had made the case for raising the retirement age much, much stronger.
Davis’s reply was shamelessly populist. He identified the real cause of the pension crisis: Gordon Brown. This attack on the Chancellor and the pledge to end his raid on pension funds was well received by the audience. When Davis said that if Brown was a company Finance Director he would be gaoled for fraud, he received the loudest cheer of the evening that wasn’t caused by the words “William Hague” or “repeal the hunt ban”.
Two questions on housing policy followed. The Westcountry suffers one of the greatest disparities in Britain between average incomes and house prices. The Davids were therefore asked what they would do to create affordable housing. Cameron spoke of the need to not only encourage housing associations to build more shared ownership properties, and thus allow the young to turn rent payments into mortgage payments, but also to extend the Right to Buy to housing association tenants.
This raised the obvious question of how housing associations would develop new stock to rent and sell if their houses were sold off and the money not allowed to be reinvested in more stock (as was the case with council houses). Davis answered this in his contribution: he said that all proceeds from such sales should be reinvested in new social housing.
The next question concerned inheritance tax, which is being levied on more and more estates as a result of rising house prices. David Cameron replied that he doesn’t like inheritance tax, and that people should be able to pass on their wealth to future generations, but was unwilling to indicate any future course of action he might favour as tax policies cannot be made this far in advance.
David Davis begged to differ. He said that although he would like to see Inheritance Tax abolished, this would be seen as a regressive move. What he instead pledged was to substantially increase the exemption threshold. This was justified on the grounds that at present this would be easy to do because the tax raises relatively low yields. If however we waited for prices to go up far more than they already have, the tax could yield tens of billions thus making any change politically less expedient.
The countryside resurfaced with a question on whether we needed a new generation of nuclear power stations. Davis agreed that this was unavoidable as renewables could not meet the shortfall caused by the decommissioning of our existing generators. He added that we needed nuclear if we were to cut our carbon emissions. The statement that he hates wind farms was exceptionally well received, as they can be seen blighting many stretches of Devon farmland.
David Cameron said he agreed, but then qualified this on the nuclear question by saying that we may need to replace our current stations when they were decommissioned. This didn’t address the problem, which is that the energy crisis we face would happen unless our generating capacity increased. He did however criticise the government’s slavish devotion to wind farms, and pointed out that there was more than one kind of renewable power source.
The questions on constitutional reform offered nothing new. Both men favoured a largely elected Lords. The main difference was in tone: in this case Cameron was the stereotypical opposition MP, saying that the current House was packed with Tony’s cronies and therefore wasn’t much good; in contrast Davis felt that despite that the Prime Minister’s appointments, the Lords remained the guardian of our civil liberties, and had not let us down as the cronies had grown progressively disillusioned with their master.
The only point of note in either man’s response to the West Lothian Question was David Cameron’s explicit statement that the last thing we needed was an English Parliament. He agreed with Davis that we should have English votes for English laws.
Some of the last questions were far more interesting and told us rather more about the candidates. One asked them to name their top four Conservative principles. After some fuss about who went first, David Davis offered liberty under the law, personal responsibility, a belief in family, and the nation state. If you believed in these, he said, there was no doubt that you were a Tory. “Amen!” David Cameron cried, before offering his two principles: these were “power over our own lives” and that “we are all in this together.” My impression was that Davis was more in tune with Conservative principles, while Cameron was more in tune with his campaign catchphrases. Others may disagree.
My favourite was from a thirteen year old boy. He wanted to know what they would do about the opium farmers in Afghanistan. This seemed to wrong foot David Cameron, who told us how misguided Keith Halliwell’s plan to buy the crop and then destroy it was. He then offered his solution, which was to establish the rule of law in Afghanistan.
David Davis was far more specific. The DEA had told him that three years ago, Afghanistan’s drugs output could flood the UK market, while now it could flood the world market. He said that the problem was almost out of hand because this government had mismanaged it so much. He therefore proposed a three step solution: firstly to support the Afghan government in taking on the warlords; secondly, to locate and destroy all opium cops; and thirdly, to provide the opium farmers with new cash crops and the access to our markets required to sell those crops. Davis admitted that this would require further troop commitments and could take up to five years, but it was a clear and credible approach.
This question perhaps best epitomised the two men’s responses. David Cameron would often say what sounded like the right thing, but seemed to lack that little something that could join the dots and make his answer seem more than just a sound bite or a statement of the obvious. For all the slickness in presentation and willingness to roam away from the podium when speaking, he carried an air of superficiality that characterised his answers, which were either cribbed from earlier speeches or so general as to lack any solid point.
David Davis knew what buttons to press to make the hall cheer, but his experience leant a depth to some of his answers that made him look a far more substantial and credible figure then his younger counterpart.
This was shown again in the final question, when the two men were asked whether they lived in the country and would take care of it. Answering first, Cameron told us about the village where he lived and then told a joke about a local farmer who owned only cows, but grew his herd by leading them other farmer’s bulls under cover of darkness.
Davis also told us that he lived in the country. He also said that the grange where he lives once fell under the auspices of an artificial county. This meant it was ignored as services concentrated on the urban areas like Hull. This had taught him that we needed to protect organic local structures like town and county councils, which reflected the real communities we lived in rather than a civil servants line on a map.
The impression was that Cameron was the more amiable man, but that Davis was the one who had thought about how best to organise the nation.
The final remarks brought back the sense of déjà vu.
Davis warned that the first hundred days would define the next leadership, and that he could stand up to the government. He stressed that he would hasten Blair’s end by opposing bad legislation, and would position the Conservatives as the champion of those let down by Labour. Then we would be seen as the people to put in place the solution.
Cameron reiterated his call for change, unity and victory. He said he would address the policy issues people care about and make sure we reflected the country. To prove that he personally reflected those gathered before him, he then complained about how cold it was.
And then it was over. My impression of the evening was that Davis was far stronger on policy issues, and on explaining how policies work, while Cameron was more skilled and easy in stage presentation. In the end the choice appears to come down to one between a man who knows what he wants and explain tell us how he intends to get it, and a man who is more in touch with image led politics, but is far more vague about what he intends to do and how he intends to do it.
The two men appeared to agree on a lot. This means that the choice the undecided voters have to make today is between conviction and experience or youth and presentation, and between whether we batter or back Blair. Last night left me firm in my conviction that Davis was the better man of the two.
Excellent.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 01 December 2005 at 12:56
A good comprehensive report James.
I do think you are being a little harsh on Cameron over the detail on the drugs question - I would hope that Davis, as shadow home secretary, would have a strong command of the details behind those situations. In the same way one of Davis's more shaky policy statements was on education (20 new grammar schools... and then what?).
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 01 December 2005 at 13:13
Support the Afghan Govt to take on the warlords? How?
Do we send more troops? That requires a deeper involvement by British troops in some very dangerous areas. These troops would have to fight the local militia, destroy crops of opium...we learnt those dangers with much larger armed forces in the 19th century.
Its OK have a more detailed answer but the how matters - how do we get powers back from the EU, how can we afford tax reductions without government borrowing etc. etc.
Posted by: Ted | 01 December 2005 at 13:32
I think I have two issues with David Davis:
1. He doesn't seem to have any interest in issues that are outside core Tory principles (as defined 20 years ago).
2. He doesn't seem to learn the lessons of the past - which is shown in his language, emphasis and policies.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 01 December 2005 at 13:35
"Davis’s reply was shamelessly populist."
Please God, not four years of back to the future, Hague style, toe curling, tabloid grabbing, unpopular populism...please!
Posted by: mod | 01 December 2005 at 13:40
Not very impressive:
"firstly to support the Afghan government in taking on the warlords"
Yhe government and the warlords are one and the same in most of the country. Given that Afghanistan has essentially been abandoned since it was invaded, a major state-building commitment looks improbable now.
"secondly, to locate and destroy all opium cops"
Easy to say, but the Bush administration with vastly greater resources has failed to do so. Similarly, in Colombia it's done little more than promote the death squads.
"thirdly, to provide the opium farmers with new cash crops and the access to our markets required to sell those crops"
Bit better in theory. Good luck getting it past the US/EU though.
Posted by: Andrew | 01 December 2005 at 13:43
On a few points of fact:
"Support the Afghan Govt to take on the warlords? How?"
By sending more troops, like it says in the lines after the ones you quoted! This is something he admits will be time and labour intensive.
"Yhe government and the warlords are one and the same in most of the country."
Do you think he might mean the elected government in Kabul rather than General Dostun?
"but the Bush administration with vastly greater resources has failed to do so."
The Bush administration doesn't have responsibility for this Afghanistan, it's Britain who took on that job alone.
And the US has had success in Latin America, in providing alternative cash crops for farmers to lead them away from drugs.
"Good luck getting it past the US/EU though."
Shouldn't be a problem with the US (see above).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 December 2005 at 13:54
Well done James.
Of course we are getting all the boring and predictable responses from the Cameron supporters. Yawn.
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 01 December 2005 at 14:13
The report was exactly what I thought it would be. Shamelessly bias.
All Davis is offering the party is four more years of the same right-wing policies we have had for the last eight years followed by another inevitable defeat.
I am glad that he and his, all our yesterdays policies, are going to get what they deserve.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 01 December 2005 at 14:15
Here we go again!
Posted by: malcolm | 01 December 2005 at 14:18
Jack:
Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 01 December 2005 at 14:19
"The report was exactly what I thought it would be. Shamelessly bias."
I'm glad you liked it Jack.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 December 2005 at 14:19
Thought James H did a good job - was honest in reporting what was said and in reporting his own bias, would the national media did the same.
But James M - Success in Latin America?
- that must be why cocaine is getting cheaper, why Bolivia has a presidential candidate from the coca growing poor who wants US out, why Clumbia is such a safe place to visit. The US drugs policy has been a massive failure in getting any sort of control over coca production in S America.
Posted by: Ted | 01 December 2005 at 14:25
He wanted to know what they would do about the opium farmers in Afghanistan. This seemed to wrong foot David Cameron, who told us how misguided Keith Halliwell’s plan to buy the crop and then destroy it was. He then offered his solution, which was to establish the rule of law in Afghanistan.
During WWII some bright spark decided Britain should buy up bauxite in Spain to stop the Nazis getting it forgetting that increased demand merely boosted supply.
Afghanistan is a lost cause - it is wasteland between Pakistan and Iran and keeps Russia from The Indian Ocean. With an Army in India several times larger than we have today we never conquered Afghanistan; and today you would need to destroy the Mullocracy in Iran before you could do anything.
The best way to deal with opium is to spray the whole area with granulated nuclear waste and sterilise the soil, but noone in the West would stomach the brutality needed to deal with Afghanistan.........outside the plains it is barbarism and Pakistan has no control over the border areas. It is not worth the effort - it wasn't worth the effort to The Raj and they weren't importing heroin to indulge the chic London set
Posted by: Rick | 01 December 2005 at 14:37
"but noone in the West would stomach the brutality needed to deal with Afghanistan"
Rick, I get the feeling you're rather disappointed about that.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 01 December 2005 at 15:03
"The best way to deal with opium is to spray the whole area with granulated nuclear waste and sterilise the soil, but noone in the West would stomach the brutality needed to deal with Afghanistan..."
Why not just napalm the whole country and be done with the problem in one fell swoop, eh Rick?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 01 December 2005 at 15:09
Well done James on the report. However, I feel that DD is still addressing the core vote.
DC is the man. He will help us to attract new supporters to the Conservative cause.
Can anyone come up with a strap line for the Party such as :
Conservatives - The One Nation Party
Posted by: Nelson, Norfolk | 01 December 2005 at 15:21
Nelson, my idea is to rename the Party...
Your Conservatives.
Posted by: michael | 01 December 2005 at 15:25
How about Conservative Lite?
Posted by: Derek | 01 December 2005 at 15:59
"I’m not sure who selected an outdoor covered area for a night time meeting in late December"
Perhaps it was someone waiting for the second coming James, you know -lowly cattle shed, Royal 'David's' City, a far distant land...
Who is to be leader and saviour of us all? We'll know next Tuesday.
Posted by: a-tracy | 01 December 2005 at 16:02
Normally the Tory party picks someone who will tickle the party conference faithful's tummy while being unable to connect with the rest of the electorate. DD fits that decription so well.
As an a-political by-stander, I watch with interest now that Tory members seem to be about to pick a potential winner for the first time in years.
Posted by: neilj | 01 December 2005 at 16:05
Or maybe, given the low number of female MPs/candidates:
HisTory?
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | 01 December 2005 at 16:06
or New-sTory
Posted by: | 01 December 2005 at 16:09
Good report. As a Cameroon I disagree with the take but minus the bias the detail was good and at least Cameron's strengths were acknowledged, which is pleasant to see. Davis is clearly more experienced, but Cameron is no fool; I am sure he will learn quickly. He will have to.
Posted by: Matthew | 01 December 2005 at 16:10
Sseems this site is creaking. My post at 1602 seems to be been attributed to a-tracy!!
Who is saying what on here?
Posted by: neilj | 01 December 2005 at 16:12