toryleadership

Q3: Cannabis

"Is there any chance that you will reverse the position on cannabis that the Tories held at the last election and support the existing downgraded classification of this drug?"

David Cameron: “We considered this issue while I sat on the Home Affairs Select Committee. I’ve said that the Conservative Party, as part of its broad policy review and policy development process, should review the cannabis laws. I will accept the conclusions of that review. I do believe, however, that the classification of different drugs should reflect the harm they do and therefore send out a credible message to young people.”

David Davis: “No. As a parent bringing up children I know the worry and horror parents have about drugs and their children. Drugs ruin lives. I believe we need to have strong sentences for people who push drugs and extend powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime.  Together with strong action against those who deal in drugs I believe we have to do more to help those who are dependent on them. In my role as Shadow Home Secretary I committed us to a policy at the last election of expanding 10 fold the number of intensive residential drug treatment places providing for 50,000 patients a year with a programme of 6 months.”

Editor's Comment: "Another slam dunk win for the Shadow Home Secretary.  Earlier in the week David Davis noted that use of cannabis was the difference between passing exams and failing them for some children.  We all now know that cannabis is getting more potent on the streets and that it is linked to mental illness.  It can also be a gateway to other drugs.  Mr Cameron talks a lot about the "credibility" of drug classifications.  I doubt that young people pay much attention to the distinctions between different classifications.  There has been survey evidence which showed that young people thought that cannabis had been made legal following David Blunkett's downgrading in the last parliament (a downgrading that Mr Cameron supported at the time).  We need to be telling people that all drugs cause harm and on Britain's poorest estates they are a leading cause of social injustice.  Mr Cameron's liberal attitude to cannabis and ecstasy is the big hole in the safety-net offered by his 'modern compassionate conservatism'.  On the thread to Question Two, Charlie suggested that Mr Davis should be Mr Cameron's Chancellor because of his commitment to economy-boosting tax relief.  We might need DD to stay as Shadow Home Secretary, too, in order to veto this weakness on drugs."

The swing on the David-O-Meter reflects each individual question - it is not an overall assessment.

Q2: Economy-boosting tax relief

"In the early Thatcher years some taxes were increased in a bid to protect the public finances but others were cut to address the brain drain and other disincentive effects. Do you agree that the first budget of the next Conservative government should include some simplification and reduction of the tax burden that Gordon Brown has imposed on Britain's wealth creators?"

David Cameron: “I agree that lower and simpler taxes are essential components of what should be our principal aim: a comprehensive economic policy that helps create prosperity in an age of global competition. A strong economy needs competitive tax rates and good public infrastructure in areas like education and transport.  That’s why I’ve argued that we must share the proceeds of economic growth between tax reduction and investment in public services. But I don’t think it is at all sensible to specify the contents of a budget four or five years in advance – when we have no idea what the public finances look like.”

David Davis: “The cost of all the extra regulations on our business is put at £40bn by the British Chambers of Commerce. We have now the heaviest tax burden on people for 25 years. Regulations and the burgeoning tax burden is crippling our economic growth and damaging our competitiveness. It will soon stop us being able to afford the public spending we need to obtain the public services we want.  Reducing the regulations imposed on business and the tax burden are therefore essential and will form the core of the first budget of a Conservative Government under my leadership. I have announced that I would ensure public spending grows within the growth rate of the rest of the economy and return £38bn back to people from Government. This could equate to giving back £1,200 p.a. for an average family.  I have set out examples of where this growth policy has worked in practice e.g. as in Ireland and Australia. The argument is a difficult but vital one to make. We must start now in getting this argument over to the electorate if we are to have a chance of succeeding at the next General Election.”

Editor's Comment: "David Cameron doesn't really attempt to answer my question here.  His answer is a string of his campaign soundbites - including the 'sharing the proceeds of growth' formulation that the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as so elastic as to be pretty meaningless.  I read Mr Cameron saying that he wants lower taxation but only Mr Davis is making it clear that he will reduce taxation.  Britain's global competitiveness has been undermined by Gordon Brown's years of hi-tax and hi-regulation.  We need to turn the tide on that wave of tax'n'regulation if Britain is to improve its long-term growth-rate and so safeguard jobs and the government's revenue base.   Tax relief and tax simplification must happen on day one of a Conservative government.  As Mr Davis said on Radio Five this morning it is more important to cut economy-constraining taxes during a recession than in other periods.  Mr Davis' commitment to make the case for tax relief now and throughout the parliament is more likely to persuade the British people of the case for economy-boosting tax relief than if we wait until the eve of the election (as Michael Portillo and Oliver Letwin did for the Tories at the last two elections).  At the moment the tax debate will always be won by Labour because it has completely framed the tax debate in budgetary terms.  Conservatives need to show that tax is also a vital economic weapon."

The swing on the David-O-Meter reflects each individual question - it is not an overall assessment.

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'."