History > 2006 > UK > Politics (IV-VI)

Comment

At least the super-rich

will vote for Gordon Brown

Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer
Nick Cohen

The great domestic political question of the 20th century was whether the state's tax rates should be set to benefit the working or middle class. The great domestic political question of the 21st ought to why the working and middle classes should pay taxes when the rich are all but exempt.

For the time being, few defenders of the status quo want to discuss it. When, for instance, you raise the case of Philip Green, who takes hundreds of millions of pounds from taxpaying shoppers in BHS and stashes them in companies held in his wife's name in Monaco, they reply that however ugly and unpatriotic his behaviour looks, it doesn't matter.

The rich may be different from you and me, but they can't hurt you or me. Green and men like him do not alter the basics of the British economy because, for all the media's fascination with the super-rich, they are a tiny band and what they do with their money doesn't damage the lives of those they leave behind to pick up their bills.

I'm not sure that this defence of an unjust system can last much longer when it is becoming very clear that the super-rich's indemnity from taxation is unbalancing the public accounts. In its end-of- year forecasts, the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicts that tax avoidance will soon lead to the Treasury breaking its rule that public debt must remain below 40 per cent of gross domestic product.

It's not just the super-rich who are keeping revenues down. VAT fraud has been one of this year's most profitable crimes and you are considered an eccentric in working-class Britain if you don't buy contraband cigarettes. But, as always, 'the scandal is what's legal', and Douglas McWilliams, the centre's chief executive, says the lawful avoidance of tax by the wealthiest is no longer an irrelevance, but a growing burden on the majority who have no choice other than to pay up. The shortfalls are bad now and they are going to get worse, he believes. In the City, boardrooms, sport and entertainment, Britain is developing an ever more unequal winner-takes-all culture - and the winners want to take it all away from the Inland Revenue.

Philip Beresford, who compiles the Sunday Times Rich List, estimates that about 200 of the 1,000 richest are avoiding tax on huge scale, which doesn't sound too bad, until he adds that the richer they are the more likely they are to hide their wealth.

In many cases, they don't have to try too hard. Philip Green is not the only person to use Monaco as a home for his money. Since 1993, the British super-rich have been able to land in London in their private jets on Monday morning and fly back to Monaco, Switzerland or the Channel Islands on Thursday night. Despite enjoying the protection of Britain's laws and the joys of its culture, a remarkably generous Treasury allowed them to pretend that they were really the residents of tax havens. A recent court case has begun the belated process of reducing the scope of the scam, but there is no sign of movement against billionaires in the Richard Branson mould who place the ultimate ownership of their businesses in tax havens or the foreign nationals who Gordon Brown allows to treat London as a duty-free shop.

The capital is full of Russian oligarchs and American tycoons because, uniquely for a country that purports to be a serious nation, Britain allows the foreign super-rich to live here without paying tax on the foreign assets in which the bulk of their wealth is stored. Other tax havens can't compete. Monaco is a pleasant place for a summer holiday, but is just another half-empty Riviera resort in the winter. Geneva and the Channel Islands have their charms, but only those with a craving for the tedious enjoy living there.

The Chancellor has saved the wealthiest from being bored to death by giving them London, one of the world's great cities, free of charge. However right-wing the Bush administration is, it would never dream of doing the same in Manhattan.

In public, the City paints a terrifying picture of foreign bankers fleeing Britain if the government requires them to pay the same tax rates as everyone else, but in private, no financier I know believes it. The odd Russian gangster will leave, they say, but London is too important a financial centre for global players to abandon.

Because Brown lacks the moral and political confidence to call the City's bluff, his debauched tax system is debauching British society. Tax-free money is making housing in the south east and beyond too expensive for the middle class, let alone the working class that Labour once represented. The legacy of a decade of Labour rule is that the modest hope of a house in which they can have children is beyond hundreds of thousands of couples.

And as it debauches the economy, it also debauches politics. Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian steel tycoon and the richest man in Britain, is only the most prominent of the many tax-avoiders who have given money to a Labour party that presides over a system which allows him to avoid tax.

The cash-for-peerages scandal began when the Lords Appointments Commission noticed that Tony Blair was proposing to give Chai Patel, the Priory clinics founder, a seat in Parliament, even though he didn't pay British taxes, but kept his millions in the Channel Islands.

When he looked back from the early 19th century and tried to explain why there had been a revolution in France in 1789 but not Britain, Alexis de Tocqueville said: 'In England, the poor man enjoyed the privilege of exemption from taxation; in France, the rich.' Two centuries on and a Labour Chancellor is telling the bulk of the electorate that he will tax them because they suffer from the twin misfortunes of not being foreigners and not being rich, while giving the plutocracy the exemptions of the old French aristocracy.

I know it is the season for goodwill, but neither he nor they should be allowed to get away with it.

    At least the super-rich will vote for Gordon Brown, O, 24.12.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1978485,00.html

Exclusive:

inside the secret and sinister world

of the BNP

Guardian reporter Ian Cobain joined the BNP
and became central London organiser. He found:

· Encrypted lists of middle-class members
· A network of false identities
· The covert rulebook

Thursday December 21, 2006
Ian Cobain
Guardian

The techniques of secrecy and deception employed by the British National party in its attempt to conceal its activities and intentions from the public can be disclosed today.

Activists are being encouraged to adopt false names when engaged on BNP business, to reduce the chance of their being identified as party members in their other dealings with the public.

The BNP has also been instructing its activists in the use of encryption software to conceal the content of their email messages, and to protect the party's secret membership lists.

Party members are also employing counter-surveillance techniques, including the routine use of rendezvous points at which they will gather before being redirected to clandestine meetings.

BNP activists are also now discouraged from using any racist or anti-semitic language in public, in order to avoid possible prosecution. In a BNP rulebook, issued only to activists and organisers, they are instructed that they should avoid acting in a way which fits stereotypes of the far right, and "act only in a way that reflects credit on the Party".

The techniques, adopted as part of the campaign by Nick Griffin to clean up his party's image, were discovered after a Guardian reporter who had joined the party undercover was appointed its central London organiser earlier this year.

During seven months inside the BNP, the newspaper also discovered that the party is planning a recruitment drive in some of the most affluent areas of the capital, largely in an attempt to broaden its support base and shake off its image as a party which appeals purely to the white working class.

In an attempt to achieve the degree of political legitimacy which it believes it needs to win more votes, the extreme rightwing party is attempting to establish itself in affluent areas of the capital such as Belgravia, Chelsea and Knightsbridge.

The BNP already has significant numbers of members living in those areas. They include Peter Bradbury, a leading proponent of complementary medicine who has links to Prince Charles, Richard Highton, a healthcare regulator, and Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the English National Ballet.

There are also dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents among the 200 members and lapsed members living in central London. One member is a servant of the Queen residing at Buckingham Palace, while a number are former Conservative party activists.

While leading BNP activists say that up to 100 new recruits are joining each week, most are joining in its traditional white, working class strongholds - and a significant number of new members lapse within a couple of years of joining.

The party is now attempting to recruit many more well-heeled members, and aims to organise them into a branch which it hopes to use in its attempts to dispel the widely held view that it remains a party of thuggish, working-class racists.

The campaign has been launched at a time of growing confidence among the party's leaders, who believe they may be on the brink of an electoral breakthrough which could see them win many more council seats, and even capture their first parliamentary seat.

The Guardian was able to witness the success which the BNP's leader, Nick Griffin, has enjoyed in his efforts to persuade his followers to avoid the use of racist language while pursuing electoral gain. Its activists often shun such words as "black" or "white", even when talking at party meetings. Many of its activists have accepted the need, in Mr Griffin's words, to "clean up our act, put the boots away and put on suits".

Mr Griffin signalled the importance of its attempt to mobilise new middle-class recruits last month. Writing in a party publications, he said: "To win electoral power, and to keep it, a political party needs to be rooted in a broad-based movement that is constantly developing and expanding the social and cultural bases of its support."

The BNP has more than 50 council seats nationwide, including 11 in Barking and Dagenham in east London, where it is the official opposition to Labour. It has rarely gained much support outside east London, West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire and some Midlands cities, however. While the party does not believe it can win many central London seats, it does hope to win seats on the Greater London Assembly, in elections which will be fought under a system of proportional representation in 2008.

The BNP is also targeting the parliamentary seat of Jon Cruddas, a contender for Labour's deputy leadership, who held Dagenham with a majority of 7,600 last year. The BNP candidate won 2,870 votes, 9.3% of the total, but only half of the constituency's electorate turned out to vote.

Some BNP leaders believe the party is close to a seat in parliament, a presence in towns halls across the country and a greater degree of political legitimacy than at any stage in its 24-year history. "But first," one told the Guardian's journalist, "people must stop seeing us as ogres."

    Exclusive: inside the secret and sinister world of the BNP, G, 21.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1976649,00.html

The Guardian journalist who became central London organiser for the BNP

Ian Cobain went undercover for seven months to explore the clandestine world of the BNP: how it operates, recruits and holds meetings

Thursday December 21, 2006
Guardian
Ian Cobain

Early one evening in October, outside an entrance to Liverpool Street station in London, a few dozen men and women are standing around in small groups, whispering into mobile telephones, shuffling their feet, smiling and nodding discreetly to one another.

It is unseasonably warm, and people are spilling onto the pavement from the Hamilton Hall, a pub a few yards away. It's also a Saturday, and throngs of noisy football supporters are weaving in and out of the station on their way home from matches around the capital.

The small groups of men and women become larger, gradually merge into one company. But they blend in beautifully with the people around them; nobody sees their congregation, nobody else notices that they are one.

These people are using what they call an RVP - a clandestine rendezvous point. And if it sounds like an extraordinarily secretive way to meet your friends on a Saturday evening, that's exactly what it is supposed to be.

But then, these are people who will use pseudonyms to conceal their true identities. Their emails are encrypted, with only the chosen few possessing the codes needed to decipher their messages. They are people who employ carefully-coded language to express their views, and who will, before speaking plainly, quite literally look over their shoulders.

This is the strange world of what may be the United Kingdom's fastest-growing political party: these people have proclaimed themselves to be the Torch-Bearers of British Culture, the guardians of our national identity.

Welcome to life inside the British National Party.

The first meeting

My first meeting with a BNP activist was in the Amato Cafe in Soho's Old Compton Street on September 7. His name was Steve Tyler, he was slightly scruffy, and he had a goatee beard and dyed hair. He must have been about 60. His companion was a young Brazilian woman. They were obviously close. As she left, and our meeting began, Steve muttered something about his friend wanting help bringing her sister into the country. That was my first surprise. The second came when Steve admitted that he is not British at all: he is Australian.

Despite this, Steve clearly regards immigration as the greatest problem facing his adopted home. "The whole world is pouring down on us," he said. "It's a huge problem, and it's going to get worse." Not that he is a racist, you understand - "I'm on the liberal wing of the party ... most of the people in the party are" - and he doesn't blame the immigrants themselves - "if I was a 19-year-old Kurd, I'd be trying to get into the country". It's just that there is such a deluge, he explains. And really, something must be done about it! "I don't want to be lying on my deathbed thinking that I could have done something about it, but didn't."

For generations people like Steve have struggled to capture more than a tiny percentage of the votes at local or general elections. That has begun to change following Nick Griffin's attempts to clean up the BNP's image since becoming chairman seven years ago. In last May's local elections the party won 229,000 votes and now has more than 50 council seats.

To put this in some context, around seven million votes were cast last May, and 364,000 people voted for the Green party. But support for the BNP is clearly growing. In some parts of the country - in areas of West Yorkshire and East Lancashire, in pockets of the Midlands and on the eastern outskirts of London - the extreme right has achieved the political legitimacy which has eluded it for generations. It is also recruiting new members hand over fist.

But what sort of people are now joining the party? What is its electoral strategy? Is it dedicated purely to the pursuit of democratic politics? And where is it obtaining its funds? In an attempt to answer these questions, and to take a glimpse behind Griffin's facade of normality, the Guardian decided that it would join the BNP.

I signed up under an assumed name last June, using a fake address in central London from which I could pick up BNP correspondence, a new email account and a dedicated mobile telephone. I was keen to become active, I said on my application form, but I wanted to remain behind the scenes.

In my first meetings with BNP activists I hinted heavily that I worked in the public sector, and could lose my job if my membership became known. Over the months that followed, there would be times when members would question me closely about my views and my background, and it would be unclear to me whether they were merely curious, or suspicious. Before most meetings I would feel some fear of exposure. But when asked about my work, I found I could reply, quite truthfully: "Trust me, if you knew what I did for a living, you would understand exactly why it is that I can't tell you."

Who is watching?

After talking about my "work for the government", Steve turned to the question of police surveillance. "The police will watch leading members, of course, but they can't watch everybody who joins. They're too busy watching Islamic terrorists these days. And it's no secret that most police officers probably support us. Certainly those working in central London know the problems we face ..."

The problems we face. I heard phrases like this uttered by BNP members many times and, after several months, came to understand their precise, nuanced meanings. "Nice areas" I quickly understood to signify predominantly white areas. "Quiet areas" are places where black and minority ethnic people live, but keep a low profile, and don't compete too hard for jobs, school places or sexual partners. "Troublesome areas" are places where black people do just the opposite. "No-go areas" are places where black and minority ethnic people are in a majority. "Ethnics" speaks for itself, as does "our people". And "the problems we face"? They are, quite simply, that there are black people living among us whites.

In my seven months as a party member I heard very few racist epithets, and no anti-semitic comments. Such language appears almost to be frowned upon in Griffin's post-makeover BNP. Perhaps it is a tribute to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986, and to the gently shifting mores of British life, that racists rarely feel able to express themselves, even among like-minded people. But some of the fear and the hatred remains: it just emerges in code.

The Orange Tree pub

On the evening of Sunday September 24 I was sitting in the Orange Tree pub in Richmond, south-west London, opposite a man who had contacted me by email. He had told me that his name was Nick Russell, and that he was the London regional organiser for the BNP. One these statements was true; the other I knew to be a lie.

Nick is indeed a dedicated party activist. His real name, however, is Nick Eriksen. He is 47, a former civil servant, and he once served as a Tory councillor in Southwark, south London. An intense man, with bitten nails and a permanent frown, he appears forever to be on the brink of losing his temper. His complaints that night were endless: the sale of a local real-ale brewery, the iniquity of Britain's divorce laws, interference from Brussels and, of course, immigration. "Yes, I suppose if I was a half-starved Somali goat-herd, I would want to come to Britain ... the South Africans will never stage a proper World Cup, how could they? It's a black country. They've got the infrastructure the whites left them, but it's a mess now ... I hear there are a hundred thousand Bulgarians and Romanians waiting to get in ... I would have thought the number of people we had living in Britain in the 1930s or 40s was the optimum population." And so it goes on.

Nick, I discover in time, is an almost archetypal BNP member. I had joined a party which draws in people who are not only xenophobic, but harassed and malcontented, people who feel themselves to be unfairly put-upon, to be slightly under siege. It is a party of people for whom British society, as it is and as it is developing, has no appeal, and no room.

It was also a party which was about to appoint a Guardian journalist to one of its key positions.

Nick was looking for a central London organiser. He already had almost a dozen district organisers working under him, in different parts of the capital, but central London had been neglected for years. The party had decided to bring its members living in central London into one branch, and then get some of them active: distributing leaflets, writing to newspapers, contesting council byelections.

The party, Nick explained, is particularly keen to gain a foothold in the Greater London Assembly. The next elections to the assembly, in 2008, will be held under a proportional representation system, and the BNP will capture a seat if it wins just five per cent of the vote. "Around 7% or 8 % will give us two seats, which would be good, as it could be a bit lonely for just one person."

Nick explained that the lists of local members and former members would be sent to me in encrypted emails. He slid a brown envelope across the table: inside was a CD which held the software which would enable me to decode them. He also asked me to write down the elaborate password I must use with the software: "the KING was born on 31 FEBRUARY."

It will also be my job to organise social events four times a year: "We'll tell you which venues you should use." And one last matter: Nick thinks that perhaps I should use a pseudonym, just to be on the safe side. "Why not? It's not against the law. It's a free country." I could even use it when meeting other BNP members. Nobody need ever know my real name. Nick suggests I call myself Ian Taylor.

A couple of months later, when Nick eventually tells me his real name, he explains that he adopted his pseudonym because he is an English teacher. (An inordinate number of members claim to be teachers, or retired teachers, or married to teachers - I'm never sure whether they are telling the truth.)

"It's ludicrous that you could lose your job for being a member of the party," he says. "But there's nothing wrong with using another name. We have a long tradition in this country of using different names. George Orwell wasn't really George Orwell. Cliff Richard isn't Cliff Richard."

Before I leave the Orange Tree, we are joined by Chris Forster, who stood as a BNP candidate in Richmond at the last council elections. A rather raffish-looking Cockney in his 60s, Chris explains that he was a National Front supporter in the 1970s. He talks about a number of murders and child sex attacks which he hears are happening in West Yorkshire, which are being ignored by the media, and which - we are expected to understand - have been committed by Asians.

Nick and Chris agree that the news from such areas is unremittingly depressing. "And that's not to mention Lambeth." From time to time they become so despondent about "the problems we face" that they fall silent and just shake their heads. Nevertheless, they insist that it is a great time to be joining the BNP. The party is completely skint, it seems, but they assure me that more and more people are joining every day. Up to 100 new members a week. An electoral breakthrough must be just over the horizon. It must be!

Tomorrow, it seems, belongs to us.

Central London organiser

Shortly after this, Sadie Graham, the BNP's Group Development Officer, writes from Nottingham to thank me for becoming the central London organiser and to offer advice. This includes the suggestion that I contact my "regional security officer" before holding any meetings.

From York, the party's Group Support Officer, Ian Dawson, telephones to give me details of my dedicated email account - londoncentral@bnp.org.uk - which sits on the BNP server. He then sends me my password for the account: 27sortcode87.

The following week I receive an email with an encrypted attachment. Using the software from Nick, I open up the attachment to find it is an Excel spreadsheet listing 192 current and lapsed members living in the three central London boroughs, plus the north London boroughs of Camden and Islington. I am also sent a second list of people who have joined in the previous few months, or expressed an interest in joining. Someone has made notes against a handful of applicants' and members' names, observing that they appear to be of "Italian origin" or "Greek origin".

While some of the members of my new flock are from the BNP's traditional constituency - the white working class - there are also some scattered around some of the wealthiest areas of the capital, living in Chelsea townhouses, Belgravia mansions and apartments in Knightsbridge. They include dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers. One member is a former Miss England, another is the American chief executive of a City investment corporation, while one is a servant of the Queen, living at Buckingham Palace.

Among my members, I discover, is Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the English National Ballet. During a subsequent conversation, Ms Clarke says that she believes immigration "has really got out of hand", despite her partner, both on and off-stage, being a Cuban dancer of Chinese extraction. She adds: "If everyone who thinks like I do joined, it would really make a difference."

Another is Richard Highton, administrator of the Optical Consumer Complaints Service, which handles complaints about opticians. "Everyone you speak to is fed up and thinks the same," he says. "I would have thought central London is a breeding ground for discontent at what we have at the moment."

Then there is Peter Bradbury, a leading practitioner of complementary medicine and board member of the General Naturopathic Council, which works in partnership with a charity established by Prince Charles. He explains that he first joined the party many years ago, and was a friend of its late founder, John Tyndall.

Gregory Lauder-Frost, former political secretary of the Conservative Monday Club, the rightwing pressure group, emails to say he is unable to be an active member, as he spends most of his time at his home in the country.

And Annabel Geddes, the entrepreneur who created the London Dungeon and who became director of the London Tourist Board when she sold the business, apologises for having lapsed and promises to send a cheque to renew her membership. Annabel volunteers the opinion that Asian immigrants are a "bloody bore" while black people are "ghastly". "I'm a racist," she declares proudly. "We've got to keep little UK basically Anglo-Saxon."

She pauses, and asks whether I agree. "Well madam," I reply, "I am the central London organiser of the British National party ..." .

    The Guardian journalist who became central London organiser for the BNP, G, 21.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1976613,00.html

Cash for honours: donors say Blair 'misled' police

Published: 17 December 2006
The Independent on Sunday
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor

Millionaire Labour Party donors have contradicted Tony Blair's evidence to the police in the cash-for-honours affair - saying that they were nominated for their public service to the nation, and not for services to Labour, as claimed by the Prime Minister.

Secret No 10 papers, copies of which have been seen by The Independent on Sunday, back up their claims, putting fresh pressure on Mr Blair over the cash-for-honours affair.

The donors expressed surprise after Mr Blair's historic interview with Scotland Yard in Downing Street last Thursday, when he told the police the honours were "expressly party peerages given for party service".

In contrast, the official nomination documents, marked "Restricted Appointments", say that Mr Blair's "grounds for recommendation" to the House of Lords were the donors' work in the fields of education, health and charity. The leaked citations make no mention of "party service" and cast doubt on No 10's assertion that the honours were not bestowed in exchange for cash.

The revelation comes as Mr Blair's personal fundraiser, Lord Levy, again became the focus of the police inquiry following the PM's evidence in which he said he personally did not have "full knowledge" of the financial help received by Labour, or the nominations of lenders for peerages.

Mr Blair's evidence has baffled the donors, who believe they were nominated for the contribution they made to British society, not to the party. The curry magnate Sir Gulam Noon, who lent £250,000 to Labour, told the IoS he had been nominated for a peerage "for my charitable work [and] my building of the business".

A spokesman for the other businessmen at the centre of the cash-for-honours affair, Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley, said: "My recollection was they were told it was for services to education." Earlier this year, Dr Chai Patel gave a BBC interview in which he outlined the achievements that had led to him being nominated - including founding the Priory Group of clinics. His office refused to comment on his nomination, but a friend said: "When he was nominated he thought it was for public service."

Last night, opposition politicians queried the nature of the "party service" provided by the millionaires, as none has a clear track record of Labour Party activism. It is not clear whether Sir David Garrard is even a Labour Party member, while Sir Gulam Noon has also given cash to the Liberal Democrats.

Downing Street said the "party service" referred to their willingness to serve as working Labour Party peers. A party spokesman said: "I am not going to get into how many leaflets they have delivered."

But Lord Oakeshott, a LibDem Treasury spokesman, said: "What services have the failed peers performed for Labour apart from giving big donations? The sooner Mr Blair has to tell the truth on oath in court about the real reasons he nominated these people for peerages the better."

Dr Chai Patel's official citation lists his contribution to mental health services as well as his advisory positions. The citation for Sir David Garrard notes his £2.4m contribution to the Business Academy in Bexley, and other work. Barry Townsley's citation says he "is involved with numerous charitable organisations and good causes". It concludes: "He would be [sic] active contributor to the Lords speaking on education and business matters." Sir Gulam Noon's citation says "he would be an active member of the Lords bringing wide ranging business experience".

    Cash for honours: donors say Blair 'misled' police, IoS, 17.12.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2081662.ece

Bring back Victorian values, says key Tory

· 'Slapping hoodies OK' - Cameron ally
· Policy review attacks absent fathers

Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor

The Tories are to launch the biggest crusade for personal morality since John Major's ill-fated 'back to basics' campaign, demanding the right for citizens to tackle teenage yobs physically and calling for a reduction in family breakdowns.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, told The Observer that people who slapped others or scuffled with youths while trying to stop crimes being committed should not be prosecuted. His words mark a clear break with David Cameron's 'hug a hoodie' rhetoric. Asked about family breakdowns, he said the strict Victorian approach to family life had, in some ways, been successful, adding that parents must be responsible for their children and communities.

'You can argue that our Victorian forebears succeeded in achieving something very unusual between the 1850s and 1900 in changing public attitudes by - dare one use the word - instilling moral codes. I don't want to suggest this was an ideal society, but it was one where a sense of moral values and of the responsibility people owed to each other did seem to be pervasive. There was a much greater sense of shame in respect of transgressions.'

His words come as former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith prepares to publish a report on social justice tomorrow, blaming the breakdown of traditional families for poverty, school failure and crime. But rather than attack single mothers, he will blame men shirking their responsibilities. The report backs tax breaks for married couples, arguing the present tax credits system makes some couples better off apart.

The report by the Conservatives' social justice policy group, commissioned by Cameron, also questions why absent fathers are common in some communities: 57 per cent of Afro-Caribbean children are raised by lone parents, against 25 per cent of white children.

The new rhetoric revives a debate on personal responsibility not seen since the Major years, following criticism of Cameron's modernising agenda. It also challenges Labour ministers, who have toughened their stance on crime. A spokesman for John Reid, the Home Secretary, declined to comment on Grieve's views despite claims they could encourage vigilantes.

Grieve told The Observer that, decades ago, neighbours who forcibly tackled a young vandal would have been backed by the child's parents; now, individuals would be prosecuted for assault. People no longer expected support from either the police or passers-by for making a citizen's arrest: 'They take the view that if the matter gets out of control, there's a danger that if they lay hands on the young person they might be liable to prosecution for assault, even if their response is proportionate.

'The police must provide greater reassurance that they are not going to get mired in trivial allegations. If somebody is brought in to the police because they are committing vandalism and starts making trivial allegations that they were assaulted by the person who arrested them, this should be consigned to the dustbin unless there is evidence that real physical injury has been caused.'

The law did not allow hitting criminals outright, but they could be restrained during a citizens' arrest, he said, and if a struggle ensued people could use reasonable force. 'The niceties of what goes on cannot be subject to minute scrutiny, so if what is being complained about in terms of being assaulted is relatively trivial, it doesn't merit a great deal of considering, even if [the offender had been] slapped.'

Duncan Smith's report will say family breakdown costs £20bn a year, adding: 'At the heart of stable families and communities lies marriage. For too long this issue has been disparaged and ignored.' Underlining his traditional views, he told the Sunday Telegraph that gay couples were 'irrelevant' to family policy because only 0.5 per cent of Britons were gay. The true figure is six per cent.

His report says cohabiting parents are more likely to split than married couples, and warns of the risks of 'transient parenting', where children have a succession of short-term stepfathers.

It also backs more help for stay-at-home mothers, citing a YouGov poll showing nearly half of Britons think child-care subsidies paid to working mothers should also go to mothers at home.

The report may make difficult reading for two Tory MPs, James Gray and Greg Barker - both fathers who recently left their wives - but will trigger fresh debate about modern fatherhood.

John Hutton, the Work and Pensions Secretary, will publish plans this week forcing mothers to register the father's name on birth certificates, to make fathers recognise their responsibility. Fathers who do not pay child support will risk electronic tags and curfews.

Separately, ministers are considering scrapping requirements on IVF clinics to consider the baby's need for a father figure, making it easier for single women to become parents via fertility treatment.

The National Council for One Parent Families said the Tories should start tackling poverty within families of all types, adding: 'It is not lone parenthood itself that causes long-term poorer outcomes for children in one-parent families, but rather the poverty associated with lone parenthood and, where it exists, parental conflict before the separation.'

    Bring back Victorian values, says key Tory, O, 10.12.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1968663,00.html

Labour drafts in US election architect for 'our midterms'

Howard Dean to advise party on campaigning strategy ahead of key May vote

Saturday November 11, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan and Julian Borger

Labour has enlisted one of the engineers of this week's Democratic victory in the US midterm elections in an attempt to boost its flagging fortunes before the local elections in May.

Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate and one of the men credited with masterminding the trouncing of the Republicans, will visit the UK next month to brief party officials about his pioneering campaigning techniques.

"The Welsh, Scottish and local elections next year are our midterms," said Hazel Blears, Labour's chair. "It has to be done differently for us to carry on being successful ... We're looking at how [the Democrats] have upped their game."

Labour is particularly interested in the Democrats' style of targeting grassroots voters through low-key meetings in homes. "We want to look at their experience in campaigning, getting out the vote, holding house meetings where people can come together ... You don't want to transplant American politics, but there's a lot we can share," said Ms Blears.

Many political observers will regard the drafting in of Mr Dean as bizarre, given that the Democratic victory was largely founded on voters' anger about the war in Iraq - the very subject which has alienated many Labour supporters and on which Mr Dean has been so outspoken.

But Ms Blears believes Labour can benefit from the tactics used so effectively by the chairman of the Democratic national committee. "Part of [their new success] is politics, but it's also about organisation," she said.

She also said Labour could benefit from the so-called "viral" tactics Mr Dean helped pioneer. "Politics is increasingly local and decentralised ... People go to people they trust for word-of-mouth recommendations. It's about like-minded people talking, with concentric circles of campaigning, rather than about a political message from the centre."

In the US a fierce debate is under way within the Democratic party involving Mr Dean, whose own presidential hopes foundered after a disastrous speech in 2004. He espouses a 50-state strategy, in which the party tries to rebuild itself as a truly national organisation, channelling resources in particular to the hard-to-win conservative "red" states. But this doctrine brought him into direct conflict with the congressional campaign chiefs, Rahm Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer, who wanted to focus Democratic activists and campaign money on swing states to ensure that the party won enough seats to guarantee a majority.

Here, Labour's mimicry of Democratic tactics helped clinch its 1997 landslide, thanks to key officials - including chief pollster Philip Gould and Margaret McDonagh, the general election coordinator - who had worked for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992. Now it hopes to copy Mr Dean's innovations, which revolutionised his party's campaigning. His bid for the Democratic presidential nomination two years ago broke new ground by reviving and modernising grassroots activism, largely through the internet. Supporters fed back their opinions via online polls and emails, on several occasions persuading Mr Dean to alter his speeches and tailor his message.

Renewing Labour's campaigning techniques has become crucial, not just because of the Conservative lead in opinion polls, but also because the Tories are using their war chest in increasingly sophisticated ways, with highly targeted mail shots and telephone calls. The Tories and Lib Dems have also sent envoys to the US to learn new techniques from campaigners over there. The internet was widely used in the US midterm elections, in many cases for negative campaigning. Activists "Google-bombed" rival candidates, flooding the net with unflattering articles and references so that voters searching for their names would discover negative material. The video site YouTube contributed to critical Democratic victories in Montana and Virginia, as activists videoed Republican speeches and posted the gaffes they captured.

    Labour drafts in US election architect for 'our midterms', G, 11.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1945410,00.html

3.45pm update

Short resigns from Labour party

Friday October 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Bonnie Malkin and agencies

The relationship between Clare Short and the Labour party hit a new low today, after the former international development secretary resigned the Labour whip.

The outspoken ex-cabinet minister told Sky News that she was resigning because the House of Commons was "weak" and too much power was "concentrated in No 10".

She said that her decision was influenced by a series of rebukes from the chief whip, Jacqui Smith.

"I was reflecting the views of the country and she tells me I can't say it," Ms Short said.

"What could I do? I've only got a couple of years left in parliament; I want to be able to speak the truth as I see it."

In a statement, Ms Smith said: "It is a shame that, following my reprimand to her for advocating the defeat of her Labour colleagues at the next election and several recent warnings about her lack of attendance, she has decided to resign the Labour whip."

But she noted Ms Short's "contributions to the Labour party and government".

The move comes as the latest in a long line of disagreements between Ms Short and the party.

Since 2003, she has been at odds with the government over her opposition to the war in Iraq, which led to her quitting the cabinet.

Since leaving the cabinet she has become a frequent critic of the prime minister.

Last month Ms Short, 60, announced that she would resign at the next election and campaign for a hung parliament because she was "profoundly ashamed" of the Labour government.

In an article in the Independent, Ms Short said that New Labour was arrogant, lacked principle and displayed "incredible" incompetence.

She wrote that the future of British politics should be a hung parliament which would encourage electoral reform and said that Labour should hold a third of the seats, the Tories a third and the rest should be made up of Greens and other parties.

Ms Smith retaliated on that occasion by referring her conduct to the party chair and the general secretary.

In her resignation letter to Ms Smith, dated yesterday, Ms Short said that she wished to become an "independent Labour MP" and remained "a convinced social democrat".

"It is my view that our political system is in trouble and that the exaggerated majorities in the House of Commons have led to an abject parliament and a concentration of power in No 10 that has produced arrogant, error-prone government," the letter reads.

It also accuses Ms Smith of attempting to stop Ms Short criticising Tony Blair's "series of half-truths and deceits to get us to war in Iraq".

"In the circumstances I think the best way to ensure that I can put forward my views for my remaining time in parliament is for me to resign the whip.

"I will therefore sit in the House of Commons as an independent Labour MP."

Ms Short's decision received a mixed reception from some of her colleagues.

Peter Kilfoyle, who resigned as a defence minister over the war in Iraq, said: "I am sad she has chosen to resign. I would ask what she hopes to achieve by resigning.

"No matter how strongly you feel about issues, you should stay inside the party and fight your cause.

"She voted for the war, and I never understood the logic of voting for the war and then resigning from the cabinet. I do not understand why she has taken the line she has."

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, said he had not heard about Ms Short's resignation, but added: "If she's made that announcement, well, it's been known for some time she wasn't voting with the Labour whip."

Lord Foulkes, the Labour peer who was her deputy at the Department for International Development, commented: "I always thought this was inevitable. It is a bit like the final act of a modern Greek tragedy.

"I am sad in many ways because she was very kind to me.

"Her great achievements at the Department for International Development have been overshadowed by the manner of her resignation, when she first clung on to her job and voted for the war and then was forced to resign."

Lord Foulkes spoke of her "bitterness verging on hatred" towards Tony Blair and the Labour party.

"That was totally unjustified because she would not have been able to do what she did in the Department for International Development without Blair's support.

"The prime minister gave us a completely free rein. He also saved her career as an MP. "She was threatened twice with deselection by her local constituency party. It was Blair's intervention that kept her on."

Ms Short had a 6,801 majority in her Birmingham Ladywood seat last year, but suffered from a 20% swing to the Liberal Democrats.

She said she was standing down so that she could speak the truth, but did not completely rule out standing as an independent candidate, despite 23 years as a Labour MP.

Ms Smith also criticised Ms Short for announcing her decision "through a leak to the media rather than to her constituency Labour party". Ms Short denies that.

    Short resigns from Labour party, G, 20.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1927585,00.html

Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Chief Whip
Government Whips’ Office

19 October 2006

from The Rt Hon Clare Short MP

Dear Jacqui

I am sorry it has come to this, but after a lifetime of service to the Labour Party and twenty three years in the House of Commons I think I am entitled to discuss what has gone wrong with the Government and our political system in my remaining years as an MP.

It is my view that our political system is in trouble and that the exaggerated majorities in the House of Commons have led to an abject parliament and a concentration of power in Number 10 that has produced arrogant, error prone government. Given that the next election might well produce a hung parliament, I want to be free to argue that this creates a valuable opportunity to reform our voting system so that the House of Commons more accurately reflects public opinion and we have a parliament more able to hold the Government to account and to ensure that policy is well considered.

As you know I am critical of many other aspects of Government policy. The previous Chief Whip tried to use her authority to stop me discussing the fact that the Prime Minister engaged in a series of half-truths and deceits to get us to war in Iraq. You focus on my views on electoral reform. The consequence is a string of rebukes, usually through the media. In the circumstances I think the best way to ensure that I can put forward my views for my remaining time in parliament is for me to resign the Whip. I will therefore sit in the House of Commons as an independent Labour MP.

I remain proud of the history of the Labour Party and a convinced Social Democrat.

Yours sincerely

Clare Short
 

    Read Clare Short's resignation letter, 19.10.2006, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2006/10/20/ClareShortresignationletter.doc

Cabinet split over new rights for gays

· Blair backs Ruth Kelly in church row
· Faith schools seek equality opt-out

Sunday October 15, 2006
The Observer
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor

The cabinet is in open warfare over new gay rights legislation after Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, who is a devout Catholic, blocked the plans following protests from religious organisations.

Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, was so angry with the move that he wrote a letter to Kelly three weeks ago, telling her that the new rights should not be watered down.

The battle between what is being dubbed the government's 'Catholic tendency' and their more liberal colleagues centres on proposals to stop schools, companies and other agencies refusing services to people purely because of their sexuality.

Tony Blair, who sent three of his children to Catholic schools, is said to be anxious about the impact on faith schools and faith-based adoption agencies, which are demanding to be exempt from the law.

Kelly has now delayed the introduction of the laws for consideration of what a spokesman said were 'difficult issues'. Johnson is leading the opposition to watering down the laws. 'His department has in the past taken the faith schools' line but Johnson is saying they have got to be sensible about this,' said a senior Whitehall source. 'You can' t have Satan worshippers going into the local church to have their annual meeting, but if there's a publicly funded school and it wants to open its facilities to everyone else but not a local gay and lesbian group - that's discrimination.'

The proposed measures would ban discrimination over the provision of goods and services, meaning, for example, that hotels which banned gay couples from sharing a room could be prosecuted. In turn, gay bars would also have to be open to straight clients. More broadly, the rules potentially affect everything from fertility clinics' right to refuse lesbian couples IVF treatment to whether the tourism industry can promote heterosexuals-only honeymoon resorts, drawing several Whitehall departments into the row.

Faith schools have, however, led the protest, arguing that the rules could affect teaching about sex or require them to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours. Catholic adoption agencies fear being forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Catholic church, which regards homosexuality as a sin, has suggested adoption agencies would close down rather than obey.Johnson, who originally agreed the proposals when he was Trade and Industry Secretary before a Whitehall reorganisation transferred the issue into Kelly's department, is understood to be dismayed that they are now in jeopardy.

The issue has also tested David Cameron's progressive credentials, with senior Conservatives still locked in debate about their response.

The new regulations were due to have been introduced this month. That has been delayed until next April after what a spokeswoman for Kelly's Department of Communities and Local Government said was an unusually large number of representations.

'There are some difficult issues,' she said. 'There are issues around Christian B&Bs, where it tends to be Christians that stay there and some of the religious lobby are saying they would not be happy for a gay couple to stay there.'

The proposals already exempt so-called doctrinal issues - giving vicars freedom to preach sermons as they wish. Ministers insist religious education teachers would still be able to teach what the Bible says about homosexuality, and that the measures would simply mean faith schools could not, for example, refuse to admit openly gay pupils.

Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who is both gay and an ex-vicar, said he was 'very anxious' about the likelihood of exemptions being granted: 'Where organisations are working on behalf of the state, the only thing that should matter is the interests of the children involved. It would be an enormous mistake to provide exemptions for faith-based organisations.'

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, the gay rights lobby group, said backing down particularly over adoption would also have serious consequences: ' It would be playing into the offensive and completely dishonest stereotype that somehow gay people are not safe with children, and the impact that would almost certainly have on the wider gay and lesbian public is [feeling] that the government was stigmatising gay people for no good reason.'

The consultation is particularly sensitive because both Kelly and her deputy equalities minister, Meg Munn, as well as Blair, are committed Christians.

The dispute is now likely to go to a cross-departmental cabinet committee for resolution. A source close to Kelly insisted the delay did not mean she was refusing to implement the proposals.

    Cabinet split over new rights for gays, O, 15.10.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1922914,00.html

4.30pm update

Cameron rejects 'pie in the sky' tax cuts

Wednesday October 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

David Cameron today insisted he would not offer up "pie in the sky tax cuts" as he closed his first full party conference as Conservative leader with a declaration that the Tories were now "back in the centre ground of British politics".

The Tory leader, barely 10 months into the job, attempted to reposition the party's stance on the health service, telling delegates in Bournemouth that his priority could be summed up in three letters: NHS.

And he promised, after taking the party to its first sustained lead in the polls for more than a decade: "The best is yet to come."

Telling activists the party was "getting ready to serve again", he also warned that "people are not going to jump from Labour straight into our arms".

Specifying his personal priorities as "family, community, society, the NHS, the environment and quality of life", Mr Cameron insisted: "We must not be the party that says the world and our country is going to the dogs - we must be the party that lifts people's sights and raises their hopes."

And he challenged the prime minister to use this autumn's Queen's speech to introduce green legislation and "do something for the environment" in his final months at Number 10.

With the three party conferences over, the focus now returns to Westminster, with Tony Blair's final Queen's speech of government legislation expected in November.

The home secretary, John Reid, has already revealed it will contain several crime, anti-terrorism and immigration measures.

With Tory opposition to ID cards, Mr Reid last week branded Mr Cameron's party as "soft on terrorism".

Mr Cameron opened by brushing off Boris Johnson's gaffes of yesterday, joking: "We are not New Labour - we don't mind when people go off-message. We've had a great week - even Boris managed to get to Tuesday without putting his foot in it."

Referring to Lord Tebbit's calls for a return to more Thatcherite policies, he quipped: "Well, I've got on my bike and I'm looking for work."

The Tory leader, who turns 40 this month, began by addressing criticisms that his leadership lacked substance. "I don't think that announcing policies in a rush amounts to substance," he said.

And lambasting critics who were already demanding tax cuts, he declared: "They're not coming back, and we're not going back."

"We believe sound money and stability always comes first. We will not take risks with the economy."

Mr Cameron focused heavily on "trust in politics", attacking Mr Blair for being presidential and arrogant.

Making an explicit comparison between himself and Mr Blair, he told delegates: "12 years ago there was an energetic young party leader. He stood before his party conference for the first time. He said he'd change his party. He made promises about changing the country.

"Remember him? I do. Look what happened. People voted for him, but he let them down."

The packed audience at Bournemouth cheered loudly when he promised to make decisions in cabinet rather than "on the sofa" in Number 10.

"I want to be prime minister of this country - I don't want to be president," he said.

On the environment, he joked that he liked trees but was not a "tree-hugger", and warned that going green was not "some fashionable, pain-free option".

Urging people to see Al Gore's environmental film, An Inconvenient Truth, he said: "There is a price for progress in tackling climate change."

He reiterated Tory plans for an annual carbon audit, putting yearly limits on emissions, and creating a market in carbon.

As billed in advance, Mr Cameron referred to his own family's experiences of the NHS - calling it "one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century".

He talked of using A&E late at night "desperate with worry", saying his family relied on the NHS "day after day, night after night".

In words that will rarely have been heard at a Tory conference before, he declared: "It is a symbol of collective will, of social solidarity."

Mr Cameron promised the health service "the money it needs", but gained a large round of applause for insisting there would be "no more pointless reorganisations".

The Tory leader declared: "Tony Blair once explained his priority in three words: education, education, education. I can do it in three letters: NHS."

Mr Cameron also pledged that the Tories could not ignore the need for more housing, despite campaigns to stop building plans around London.

He called for more flats for young people, so long as they were built "in harmony with existing architecture and the environment".

He also made an impassioned call for an improved transport infrastructure system in the UK, but did not specify support for a new north-south train line.

As is traditional with a Tory party conference, one of the loudest cheers came in support of UK armed forces fighting abroad, as Mr Cameron recounted his visit to Afghanistan promising to "do more" on housing and schooling for service personnel. He even hinted at income tax relief for troops fighting overseas.

Mr Blair's vow to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" had been one of the best things the prime minister had ever said, Mr Cameron told delegates.

But Mr Blair had thrown that approach away at his party conference with a "cheap joke" mocking the Tory leader's "hug a hoodie" speech.

And treading into territory rarely mentioned in a Tory leader speech in the past, he referred to the Cantle report into the race riots in the North of England in 2001, saying he backed faith schools but supported the report's conclusions that they should admit a percentage of other faiths.

Mr Cameron added that new immigrants must learn English in the name of social cohesion.

Attacking the prime minister's close relationship to Washington, Mr Cameron declared he loved America, but "unlike some people" - Mr Blair - he "knew where he stood" during the cold war. Mr Blair was famously a member of CND when he was first elected an MP in 1983.

"Questioning the approach of the US administration does not make you anti-American. If [the PM]'s accusing me of wanting a British prime minister to pursue a British foreign policy, then I plead guilty!" he declared.

Watched by his wife, Samantha, Mr Cameron concluded with a celebration of the role of marriage in society as a sign of commitment, trumpeting the party's acceptance of same-sex civil partnerships.

"Let us as a society and as a culture value and recognise marriage more," he said.

    Cameron rejects 'pie in the sky' tax cuts, G, 4.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/story/0,,1887434,00.html

4.45pm

Full text of David Cameron's speech

Wednesday October 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

This was the original text of David Cameron's speech to the Conservative conference in Bournemouth today. There are some discrepancies between this text and the speech as actually delivered.

It's been a great week.

This week we've shown we are back in the centre ground of British politics.

A stable economy.

Fighting crime.

Backing the NHS and our state schools.

Childcare and flexible working.

Improving our environment and quality of life.

Those are people's priorities. Those are our priorities today.

We've seen fantastic new candidates, one-third of them women.

But it's not just who we select.

It's what they do.

Our new candidates are changing the way we think about politics, not just campaigning and delivering leaflets but making a difference in their community.

This week we've done that in Bournemouth.

Conservatives, converting a disused church into a community centre.

That's our idea - social responsibility - in action.

I want to thank everyone who got involved, and in particular the local MP, Tobias Ellwood, and all his team who worked so hard.

We are united and rejuvenated.

And as this conference has shown, we are the party that is open to new ideas and fresh thinking.

On Sunday, I spoke to you about the changes we're making in our party, and why they are so important.

Today, I want to talk about what I believe in, and what we need to start doing for our country.

And as I do that, I want to deal directly with this issue of substance.

Substance is not about producing a ten-point plan.

It is about deeper things than that.

It is about knowing what you believe.

It is about a clear idea of the Britain you want to see.

For us, that Britain is based on the idea of social responsibility.

That means a Britain where instead of always turning to the state for the answers, we turn to each other and ask: what more can we do together to solve this problem?

So I don't think that announcing policies in a rush amounts to substance.

Real substance is about taking time to think things through, not trotting out easy answers that people might want to hear.

It's about sticking to your guns.

It's about character, judgment, and consistency.

It's about policy, yes.

But it's about getting it right for the long term.

That's why I asked Oliver Letwin, one of the most intelligent and thoughtful politicians in our country, to lead our policy review.

Tax

Right, let's talk about tax.

Everyone in this hall, me included, knows that a low tax economy is a strong economy.

But some people want me to flash up some pie-in-the-sky tax cuts to show what we stand for.

Let me tell you straight.

That is not substance.

And that is not what we stand for.

Do you know what I think?

I think that when some people talk about substance, what they mean is they want the old policies back.

Well, they're not coming back.

We're not going back.

We've laid it out clearly at this conference.

We will not take risks with the economy.

We will not make promises we can't keep.

As George Osborne said in that brilliant speech yesterday, we believe in sound money and stability always comes first.

Economy

George has also rightly said that we need a broad-based economic policy, not just a tax policy.

We need to strengthen our pensions system.

Deregulate our employers and wealth-creators.

Invest in education, skills, the potential of our people.

Build a modern transport system.

And we need to do more to promote British trade and investment.

In this age of globalisation and fierce international competition from India, China, Brazil, we cannot afford to sit back.

We have to fly the flag for British business.

NHS

As our economy grows, one of the most important calls on the proceeds of that growth is the NHS.

The NHS is vitally important to every family in this country.

It certainly is to my family.

I believe that the creation of the NHS is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century.

It is founded on the noble but simple ideal that no person should ever have to worry about their healthcare.

But it's about more than that.

The NHS is an expression of our values as a nation.

It is a symbol of collective will, of social solidarity.

That is why the British people, of all political parties and of none, are so proud of it, and so attached to it.

I have always believed this.

But when your family relies on the NHS all the time - day after day, night after night - you really know just how precious it is.

I know the problems.

Turning up at A&E and the children's one is closed.

Waiting for the doctor when you're desperate with worry.

Waiting for the scan that is so desperately need.

It can be incredibly frustrating.

But more often than not, it is an inspiration - thanks to the people who work in the NHS.

The nurses who do everything to make you comfortable.

The doctors who desperately want to get to the truth.

And the army of support staff who get forgotten so often but who make such a difference to all of us.

For me, it's not a question of saying the NHS is "safe in my hands."

My family is so often in the hands of the NHS.

And I want them to be safe there.

Tony Blair once explained his priority in three words: education, education, education.

I can do it in three letters.

NHS.

We will serve and support the national health service.

We will always support the NHS with the funding it needs.

But we will make sure that money is well spent.

Health spending has doubled under Labour.

But where has all the money gone?

Into pointless and contradictory reorganisations.

Do you remember "24 hours to save the NHS"?

It should have been "24 ways to reorganise the NHS".

First they abolished the independent NHS Executive and put the Department of Health in charge.

Then they abolished the eight regional NHS offices and created 28 new strategic health authorities.

Later they abolished the 28 new strategic health authorities and created ten new regional strategic health authorities.

Out went GP fund-holding, in came primary care groups.

Out went primary care groups, in came primary care trusts.

They abolished health authorities.

Then they created them all over again.

Are you still with me?

Because I can tell you, the people working in the NHS are utterly bewildered.

The other day I read about a public health director who has been in his job for 12 years.

Because of all the reorganisations, he's had to reapply for the job seven times.

What a shambolic way to treat people.

What a waste of time. What a waste of money.

No wonder beds and wards are closing.

No wonder that doctors and nurses are so dissatisfied with what's happening.

Politicians have interfered in professional judgements and diminished professional responsibility.

I've heard it described as the "death of discretion".

They join the NHS in their twenties, full of idealism and vocation.

By their forties, far too many are demoralised.

From idealism to demoralisation in half a career.

How can we do this to people?

The waste of money in the NHS is nothing next to the waste of talent and energy and hope.

So I make this commitment to the NHS and all who work in it: no more pointless reorganisations.

Yes, change is necessary in the NHS.

But the changes we want to make are based on our idea, social responsibility.

We want to see far greater professional responsibility in the NHS.

And we should remember that the world of healthcare extends far beyond the hospitals and the GP surgeries.

As we live longer and our society grows older, these services will play an ever-more important part in our well-being.

How do we help carers go on caring?

Why can't we have more occupational therapy, so people can get the adjustments to their house or flat so they can go on living at home longer?

Why can't we recognise that social services isn't a Cinderella service... for many people, it's the vital service that helps them enjoy some sort of quality of life.

Next week, Andrew Lansley and I launch our national campaign on the NHS.

I hope that you are ready.

We must get out there on the streets of this country and send this government a clear message.

They have mismanaged the NHS.

Stop cutting the NHS and let's back it with all our hearts and improve it for everyone.

Labour

I back the NHS because I believe in it.

Standing up for your beliefs is what real substance is about.

But in politics, it's also about telling the truth.

Not everything that Labour have done since 1997 is bad.

People don't want us to turn the clock back.

They want us to improve the bad things, yes.

But they also want us to keep the good things.

Like Bank of England independence.

Like the minimum wage. We'll keep it and, when we can, we'll increase it.

Where Labour do the right thing, like those education reforms, we'll back them.

That is real substance.

Standing up for what you believe.

Putting your country first.

That is something that this party has always deeply understood.
 

Trust in politics

And let me tell you why it's so important.

Twelve years ago, there was an energetic young party leader.

He stood before his party conference for the first time.

He said he'd change his party.

He made promises about changing the country.

Remember him?

I do.

And look what happened.

People voted for him, but he let them down.

So let's not think that people are going to jump from Labour straight into our arms.

This is going to be slow, patient, hard work.

We have to show, day by day, week by week, month by month that we deserve our country's trust.

And I'll tell you something important, something substantial, that we have to change

For too long, the big political decisions in this country have been made in the wrong place.

Not round the cabinet table, where they should be.

But on the sofa in Tony Blair's office.

No notes are taken.

No one knows who's accountable.

No one takes the blame when things go wrong.

That arrogant style of government must come to an end.

I will restore the proper processes of government.

That means building a strong team, and leading them.

I want to be prime minister of this country. Not a president.

Price

There is another important aspect of earning people's trust.

We must face up to the fact that progress towards our nation's priorities is never free.

There's always a price to be paid.

Pretending that everything is simple and straightforward and can be sorted out with a wave of a minister's wand...

Making out that anything is possible, everything is easy, it's all painless...

That is spin.

We've seen enough of that over these last nine years.

We must be different.

We must show that we understand the price of progress, and tell people what it is.

Not after we get into government, but before.

That is real substance.

Green

As you might have gathered by now, I am passionate about our environment.

It's a very personal commitment.

I grew up in the countryside.

I've always loved the outdoors.

As you can see if you look around this conference, I'm quite keen on trees.

We saw in our debate on Monday the scale of the threat from climate change.

I know that we have within us the creativity, the innovation, the technological potential to achieve green growth - sustainable prosperity.

The Stern report will tell us that the tools of success are in our grasp.

But it will also say that the price of inaction gets higher every day.

So I will not pretend to you that it will be easy.

That there will be no pain or sacrifice.

If you want to understand climate change, go and see Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Today, I want to tell the British people some uncomfortable truths.

There is a price for progress in tackling climate change.

Yes of course low-energy light bulbs, hybrid cars - even a windmill on your roof can make a difference and also save money.

But these things are not enough.

Government must show leadership by setting the right framework.

Binding targets for carbon reduction, year on year.

That would create a price for carbon in our economy.

What does that mean?

It means that things which produce more carbon will get more expensive.

Going green is not some fashionable, pain-free option.

It will place a responsibility on business.

It will place a responsibility on all of us.

That is the point.

Tackling climate change is our social responsibility - to the next generation.

And I'll tell you something.

In politics, it's much easier to take steps that will be painful if political parties work together, instead of playing it for partisan advantage.

That's what we have offered to do.

We have asked Tony Blair to put a climate change bill in the Queen's speech.

If he does, we'll back it.

So come on, prime minister.

It's your last few months in office.

It's your last Queen's speech.

Use it to do something for the environment.

Housing

But the environment isn't the only priority.

There are other priorities - and sometimes they compete.

Sweeping contradictions under the carpet may make life easy for a while.

But it's not substance.

So let us confront a tension that this party feels very deeply.

We are the party of aspiration and opportunity. Always have been, always will be.

A profound part of that is owning your own home.

That dream is something Conservatives instinctively understand.

We also understand the importance of conservation.

But if we want new homes, they must be built somewhere.

Yes, they must be built with care for local communities.

Yes, they must be built in harmony with existing architecture.

And, yes, they must be built in sympathy with the environment.

But let us not pretend there is a pain-free solution to this dilemma that satisfies every vested interest, as well as providing all the new homes we need.

We must be on the side of the next generation.

If we are to be the party of aspiration, we must be on the side of aspiration.

And that means building more houses and flats for young people.

It is our social responsibility.

Responsibility

Before putting myself forward for this job, I thought about all the responsibility it entails.

When I spend time in a school or a hospital, I now think of the ultimate responsibility a prime minister has to make sure our public services are properly funded.

As prime minister, words on the environment will have to turn into action at home and abroad.

But there is no greater responsibility for a prime minister than protecting the security of our country and sending our armed forces into action

Troops

In July, I went to Afghanistan to meet our troops.

Some of them are just 18 years old.

They've only been in the army six months.

They are fighting a ferocious enemy, day in, day out.

Living off ration packs.

Boiling hot days.

Sleeping in the open.

When you think of your own comfortable life at home, it makes you feel incredibly humble.

Our mission in Afghanistan is not just a moral responsibility.

It is vital to keep Britain safe.

A lawless, broken Afghanistan was the cradle for the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Our armed forces are doing important work in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let the message go out from this conference, to the best armed forces in the world.

You are fighting in our name, and we are proud of what you do.

But I want us to send our forces a second message.

Responding to the questions that our troops themselves are asking.

They're asking for armoured vehicles that will actually defend them against roadside bombs.

They need more helicopters.

They're asking to be able to phone home for more than 20 minutes a week.

And they're asking for decent treatment for their families at home.

You know Liam Fox.

I know Liam Fox.

There is someone with real passion and energy who would never stop fighting for Britain's troops to get them all that they need.

There is a big RAF base in my constituency.

I know it well.

I know the houses the forces' families live in.

Some of them aren't good enough.

I know the schools their children go to.

Half the school roll changes every year and they don't have the extra support they need to cope.

Meanwhile our servicemen and women pay income tax while they're fighting overseas.

Our forces and their families do so much for us.

And we should do more - a lot more - for them.

Terrorism

Our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan remind us of the great dangers of our times.

I know that if we win the next election, the moment I walk through the front door of Downing Street I will have the huge responsibility of protecting the British people from terrorism.

There are some who still believe that the threat we face today is no different from ones that we have faced before, such as the IRA.

They are profoundly mistaken.

We are dealing with people who are prepared to do anything, kill any number, and use suicide attacks to further their aims.

Defeating them will be a battle of hearts and minds, as well as force.

But this threat cannot be negotiated away or appeased - it has to be confronted and overcome.

Security

When it comes to our national security, I will always listen to the police and security services, and take their advice with the utmost seriousness.

I will never play politics with this issue.

What I will do, is my duty.

Which is to support the government when they do the right thing.

And hold them to account when they're getting it wrong.

So let me say plainly, I believe that this government is getting some things wrong.

They're pressing ahead with ID cards that won't stop dangerous people coming in to our country.

But they're not giving us the border controls that just might.

They're bringing in new offences that aren't being used.

But they haven't changed the law so that wiretap evidence can be used to prosecute terror suspects in court.

People who threaten our security should be arrested, charged, put in front of a court, tried and imprisoned.

That is the British way.

When I ask myself why they haven't done some of the things they should have, I keep coming back to one thing.

The Human Rights Act.

I believe that yes, the British people need a clear definition of their rights in this complex world.

But I also believe we need a legal framework for those rights that does not hamper the fight against terrorism.

That is why we will abolish the Human Rights Act and put a new British bill of rights in its place.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

Protecting our security is not just about terrorism.

People's daily fear is crime.

Gun crime is up, knife crime is up. There is violence and disorder on too many of our streets.

But all we get from Labour are endless get-tough headlines and thousands of new criminal offences.

They're not building the prisons.

They're not reforming the police.

They're not cancelling the early-release schemes.

Those are the things that need to be done.

And then, in the final irony, last week Tony Blair attacked me for what I said about hoodies.

In that one cheap joke, he gave up on one of the best things he ever said: that we need to be tough on the causes of crime.

Everyone in this hall, everyone watching at home, knows that we will only tackle crime if we tackle family breakdown, if we tackle drug addiction, if we mend broken lives.

So we have a new reality in British politics today.

With David Davis as home secretary, this party, the Conservative party is the only party in Britain that will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

Foreign policy

And we will be tough when it comes to promoting this country's interests abroad.

Last week the prime minister criticised me for wanting a foreign policy which was more independent of the White House.

I don't need lessons in the importance of Britain's relationship with America.

My grandfather went ashore in Normandy in June 1944, in a combined Anglo-American operation that liberated western Europe from the Nazis.

I became involved in politics in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.

Unlike some, I never had any doubts about whose side I was on in the cold war.

But now Mr Blair objects when I say our foreign policy should not simply be unquestioning in our relationship with America.

William Hague and I have said we must be steadfast not slavish in how we approach the special relationship.

Apparently Tony Blair disagrees.

Well, if he's accusing me of wanting to be a British prime minister pursuing a British foreign policy, then I plead guilty.

Questioning the approach of the US administration, trying to learn the lessons of the past five years, does not make you "anti-American".

Ask John McCain.

I'm not a neo-conservative.

I'm a liberal Conservative.

Liberal, because I believe in spreading freedom and democracy, and supporting humanitarian intervention.

That is why we cannot stand by and watch further genocide in Darfur.

But Conservative, because I also recognise the complexities of human nature, and will always be sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world.

We need more patience, more humility in the way we engage with the world.

Cohesion

The same values should guide our approach to building a stronger society at home.

The Cantle report into the riots in our northern cities in 2001 talked about many communities living "parallel lives".

Communities where people from different ethnic origins never meet, never talk, never go into each other's homes.

Ultimately, it is an emotional connection that binds a country together.

Sympathy for people you don't even know, and who may be very different to you.

It is by contact that we overcome our differences - and realise that though our origins and our cultures may vary, we all share common values.

The most basic contact comes from talking to each other.

So we must make sure that new immigrants learn to speak English.

And one of the most important ways we make connections with people is at school.

So let me face head-on the question of faith schools.

I know that people feel strongly about this issue.

So do I. I support faith schools.

Many parents want to send their children to them, and [I] trust their judgment.

All faiths want them.

And let us say, clearly, that Islam is one of the great religions of the world, and that British Muslims make a fantastic contribution to our country.

Today, a new generation of Muslim schools is emerging.

If these schools are to be British state schools, they must be part of our society, not separate from it.

The Cantle report recommended that faith schools admit a proportion of pupils from other faiths.

Only this week the Church of England said it would implement this recommendation in all new church schools it creates, admitting a quarter of pupils from non-Anglican backgrounds.

That is a great example of what I mean by social responsibility.

The church deciding to take responsibility for community cohesion.

Society, not the state.

I believe the time has come for other faith groups to show similar social responsibility.

And if we are to bring our society together, then schools - all schools - must teach children that, wherever they come from, if they are British citizens, they are inheritors of a British birthright.

The foundations of our society: the rule of law, democracy and individual freedom.

And every child in our country, wherever they come from, must know and deeply understand what it means to be British.

The components of our identity: our institutions, our language and our history.

The Conservative party must address these issues.

Real substance means addressing them openly and frankly.

The issues are incredibly complicated.

They will need sensitive handling.

And I can't think of anyone better to do it than our shadow education secretary, David Willetts.

Education

Although we agree with Labour about trust schools, there is still a profound divide between our approach to education and Labour's.

They think equality means treating every child the same, including kids with learning difficulties in the same classes as the brightest.

Forcing schools to accept disruptive pupils, putting up with bad behaviour, no matter the damage it does to the others.

We think equality means something else.

Individual children have individual needs, individual abilities, and individual interests

Real equality means giving every child the education that is best for them.

That should mean more setting and streaming within schools, so each child can develop at the speed that works for them.

It should mean clear rules of behaviour, so that our children grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong.

And it means saving special schools, so that parents have choice, and children with learning difficulties can receive the care, the education and the attention they need.

Social responsibility

Building a strong society is not just a task for politicians.

We are all in this together.

We all have a responsibility to each other.

Changing Britain for the better is not just about passing laws.

We've got to be less arrogant about what politicians can achieve.

Because it is not the politicians who make the wealth, who build the houses, who heal the sick. It is people.

It is society, not just the state.

That is why social responsibility will be the foundation for all that we do.

When our party was last in power, our task was to restore economic responsibility, putting individuals and businesses in charge of their own affairs.

The task for us today is different.

For years, we Conservatives talked about rolling back the state.

But that is not an end in itself.

Our fundamental aim is to roll forward the frontiers of society.

Family

And there is one vital way in which we can do that.

The real privilege of my childhood was that my family was loving and close.

Families, to me, are not just the basic unit of society, they're the best.

They are the ultimate source of our society's strength or weakness.

Families matter because almost every social problem that we face comes down to family stability.

And so I will set a simple test for each and every one of our policies: does it help families?

The first thing to help families with is childcare.

This is particularly vital for single parents.

Why are so many single parents trapped in poverty?

Partly because childcare is so costly and complicated in our country.

Those of us who don't live the life of a single parent, just try and imagine it for a moment.

Think about what it's like when you're left on your own to look after the kids.

If I'm in charge on my own for just a few hours the place looks like a bomb's hit it.

Imagine looking after children all on your own all the time.

And trying to get a job, trying to hold down a job with an employer who isn't understanding about the fact that you might have to disappear at a moment's notice because there's no one else in your child's life, and you are responsible.

Britain has got the most expensive childcare in Europe.

So we support the government's efforts to put more money into childcare.

But why are they saying you should only get help if you use formal childcare?

What about the grandparents, the friends, the neighbours, who for so many families provide that lifeline by looking after the kids.

So let's trust the parents in the childcare choices that they make.

All families do a vital job, and they all need our support.

But I also believe that marriage is a great institution, and we should support it.

I'm not naive in thinking that somehow the state can engineer happy families with this policy or that tax break.

All I can tell you is what I think.

And what I think is this.

There's something special about marriage.

It's not about religion.

It's not about morality.

It's about commitment.

When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something.

Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important.

You are making a commitment.

You are publicly saying: it's not just about "me, me, me" anymore.

It is about we: together, the two of us, through thick and thin.

That really matters.

And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man.

That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.

Of course not every marriage lasts, and many couples are much better off apart.

Women must have an escape route from abusive relationships.

Every married couple has rows and difficulties.

But if you've made that public commitment, it just helps you try harder to work your problems through.

We can argue forever about whether favouring marriage means disadvantaging other arrangements.

My approach is simple.

If marriage rates went up, if divorce rates came down, if more couples stayed together for longer, would our society by better off?

My answer is yes.

But supporting marriage is not just about money, or tax breaks.

It is insulting to the human spirit to believe that a relationship between two people is just about money, or even mainly about money.

It isn't.

So recognising marriage more directly in the tax system is not enough.

Flexible working.

Family centres.

Relationship advice.

All of these things matter.

Let us as a society and as a culture value and recognise marriage more.

Optimism

Family. Community. Society. The NHS. The environment. Our quality of life.

These are the things that matter most to me.

These are the things that drive me in politics.

And I want us here to be optimistic about their future.

Tony Blair said Britain is a young country.

He is wrong.

This is an old country, with a proud past and a bright future.

Look at the forces shaping our world.

Technology that can topple dictators.

Innovations that can tackle climate change.

The prospect of global trade and investment and development that can end the spectre of poverty and heal the divisions between rich and poor.

Our generation of politicians must understand these forces, must harness them for progress.

We must not be the party that says the world and our country is going to the dogs.

We must be the party that lifts people's sights and raises their hopes.

We are getting ready to serve again.

Standing up for what we believe.

Reaching out for what we can achieve.

Let us be confident as we say, together, here, today: the best is yet to come.

    Full text of David Cameron's speech, G, 4.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/story/0,,1887540,00.html

3.30pm

Cameron urged to ignore calls for tax cuts

Monday October 2, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

The Tories must ignore "barking" calls for tax cuts from the right of the party if it is going to win the next election, a senior backbencher warned today.

Former shadow development secretary John Bercow insisted that the British public did not want US levels of low taxation in preference to a functioning welfare state.

And - without naming figures such as the party's competition spokesman, John Redwood - he warned colleagues to ignore the "siren voice of militant rightwingery" as the tax question dominated the fringes of the Bournemouth conference.

His intervention - watched by the party policy chief, Oliver Letwin - came as delegates heard at a simultaneous lunchtime fringe that up to 100 backbench MPs were calling for a timetable for announcing tax cuts.

Several meetings in Bournemouth have seen rank-and-file delegates break with the official line that stability comes before tax cuts.

However, Mr Bercow said the "message" of the last election was that the electorate did not want tax cuts. "Whether colleagues like it or not they have to accept it," he said.

"The British public do not want US levels of taxation. The Great British public believe in a significant and generous but much more efficient and reformed welfare state. It would be barking to go for some sort of 'slash-and-burn' approach.

"Gordon Brown wants the Tory party to lurch to the right. Siren voices of militant rightwingery say we better go back to our base.

"I'm bored rigid of retreating under fire and one of the uplifting things about David Cameron is he's not going to change."

The party's official policy chief, in charge of masterminding the six policy reviews currently underway, was more guarded - even when pressed to admit the last election saw Michael Howard offer too little too late in the way of tax cuts.

Saying he would leave that "to the historians", Mr Letwin repeated the party's official line that tax cuts were "not the most important issue".

If you asked British business, he said, they would put skills, infrastructure and stability ahead of tax cuts "and that is the commitment we have made as a party".

At a simultaneous fringe in Bournemouth, Edward Leigh, the chair of the rightwing Cornerstone Group of Conservatives, estimated there were 100 Tory MPs wanting tax cuts.

Mr Letwin refused to reveal details of future Tory thinking on taxation, but did admit that switching the balance of taxation from income to "green" taxation was "a profoundly interesting and fruitful line of thought".

Mr Cameron's line on preferring to "redistribute the fruits of growth" rather than pledge tax cuts has come up against a significant coalition of opposition from the margins of the party.

A pamphlet from Mr Redwood and the No Turning Back Group demands tax cuts. This will be followed by a call for £20bn worth of tax cuts from the party's independent tax commission chaired by Lord Forsyth, which is due to be published on October 19.

There were also signs of a grassroots revolt with an online survey of 1,500 party activists showing almost two-thirds of Tory party members want a clear commitment to tax cuts before the election.

Just 5% backed the leadership's stance, in the survey conducted for the ConservativeHome website.

Nearly half (46%) of those surveyed felt "demotivated" by a failure to highlight issues such as immigration, Europe and crime, and wanted a change of direction "quite soon".

The Taxpayers' Alliance, a new lobby group backed by Tory donors and other business figures, also issued an ICM poll yesterday suggesting people would be more likely to vote Conservative at the next election if they were promised tax cuts.

The Taxpayers' Alliance chief executive, Matthew Elliott, said: "The idea that people don't want to hear the Conservative party call for lower taxes and public service reform is completely wrong. The leadership have got too many people giving them advice that's 10 years out of date."

Greg Hands, MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, also issued a 10-point plan for flatter taxes under the aegis of Conservative Way Forward.

Even from the party's left, Steve Norris called for a commitment to reduce public spending as a proportion of GDP. Mr Norris told a fringe meeting: "I think we pay far too much tax ... 42% of GDP is appalling; 37% would be a lot nearer the mark."

    Cameron urged to ignore calls for tax cuts, G, 2.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/story/0,,1885876,00.html

1.45pm

Tories will build more prisons, says Davis

Monday October 2, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

David Davis today promised to end the "carousel of crime" with a new prison-building scheme and a focus on education and drug rehabilitation within jails, as the Conservative conference turned the spotlight on law and order in Bournemouth.
The shadow home secretary also revealed that the Tories would be publishing a radical cost/benefit analysis of immigration which will lay out future Tory party policy in the next few weeks.

The defeated leadership candidate, formerly a territorial member of the SAS, also made a mild jibe at the party leader, David Cameron, saying he agreed with Mr Cameron's advice to "hug a hoodie", only "I might just hug a little harder and longer".

After admitting to the Guardian today that it was electorally difficult to oppose ID cards, he insisted to delegates that "fundamental liberties are a source of our strength".

Mr Davis also reiterated that the party would bring in a British Bill of Rights to replace the EU-based Human Rights Act - which has come under fire recently - and would continue to oppose any government plans to increase detention without trial.

Gordon Brown has hinted he would try to reintroduce the government's original plan of allowing the police to hold terrorist suspects for 90 days without charge.

The last attempt to do so saw defeat for the government, but still resulted in a compromise increase from 14 to 28 days.

The Lib Dems also oppose any further increase.

Mr Davis began his keynote speech by quoting from a letter sent to him by a teenage rape victim, despairing of British justice after her attacker received a sentence under which he could have been released within four years.

Criticising both the "'walk on by' society" and the "distracting navel-gazing initiatives" of the government, Mr Davis paraphrased a catchphrase made famous by Michael Howard, the former Tory home secretary, telling delegates: "Prison can work."

"It's just not working at the moment," he added.

Promising to end the 'carousel of crime' by which half of all crime is committed by ex-convicts, Mr Davis vowed to expand drug rehabilitation schemes and education programmes to make prisoners literate.

But he insisted that, under a Conservative government, muggers and violent criminals would be brought before the courts and "treated like the criminals they are" rather than receiving what he called "the equivalent of parking fines".

"We will provide the prison places to do this," he added, in a section his aides confirmed would mean a large increase in current prison capacity.

He pledged that his dual approach would make prison "tougher not softer."

In the other main policy announcement of his well-received 20-minute address, he promised to bring immigration "back under control" in the wake of a new Tory report.

"Unlike the Labour government we're not afraid to talk honestly about immigration.

"In a few weeks Damian Green and I will publish an analysis of the benefits and costs of immigration. And we'll lay out the principles on which Conservative policy will be built."

That would appear to pre-empt some of the policies likely to be part of Mr Cameron's 18-month policy review, whose six groups report back next summer.

However, it is likely that the Tories' hand has been forced by the government's equivocation over unrestricted access for workers from Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU in January.

    Tories will build more prisons, says Davis, G, 2.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/story/0,,1885821,00.html

Tax undermines Cameron's quest to claim centre stage

Tory leader urges party to stick to mainstream and avoid premature commitments in maiden speech to conference

Monday October 2, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

David Cameron's call yesterday for the Conservative party to build its foundations on the centre ground was badly jolted on the opening day of the Tory conference when he faced a growing grassroots revolt demanding tax cuts. The call for tax cuts came from party activists, backbench MPs, Tory donors and the chairman of the party's competitiveness commission, John Redwood.

Mr Cameron's first speech to the conference as party leader was also overshadowed by his chief policy strategist Oliver Letwin becoming embroiled in a row about whether he had asserted there were no limits to the role of the private sector in the NHS.

The Tories, launching a campaign shortly to protect the NHS from Gordon Brown's cuts, initially issued a lengthy statement angrily denying Mr Letwin had ever made the assertion about no limits to the private sector in the NHS in a Sunday Times interview.

Later a recording of the interview released by the Sunday Times, and heard by the BBC, suggested Mr Letwin had indeed said there would be no limits. Some shadow cabinet members privately called for the accident-prone Mr Letwin to be taken off the TV screens.

The rows came as Mr Cameron unusually opened the conference with a scene-setting speech urging the party to make social responsibility, as opposed to Labour's state responsibility, the binding idea of liberal Conservatism. He defined his outlook in the single word of "optimism", saying: "I am optimistic about human nature. That's why I trust the people to do the right thing. Let optimism beat pessimism. Let sunshine win the day."

Defending himself from the charge that he is all style and no policy substance, Mr Cameron said the party's big goal was to build a new spirit of social responsibility in Britain. He said: "When we see challenges to overcome, we do not just ask what government can do. We ask what people can do, what society can do."

Mr Cameron urged the party to be patient, stay on the centre ground of British politics and "stick to the plan" by avoiding premature policy commitments three years away from an election.

He said: "Preparing the ground is just the first stage. Now we must show what we will build there. That means laying strong foundations, not pulling policies out of a hat to show what sort of government we will be."

But his call for optimism came as the right prepares today to step up the pressure in a pamphlet from John Redwood and the No Turning Back Group demanding tax cuts, a move that will be followed by a call for £20bn worth of tax cuts from the party's independent tax commission chaired by Lord Forsyth and due to be published on October 19. There was also signs of a grassroots revolt with an online survey of 1,500 party activists showing almost two thirds of Tory party members wanting a clear commitment to tax cuts before the election. Just 5% backed the leadership's stance in the survey conducted for ConservativeHome website. Nearly half -46% - of those surveyed showed members feel "demotivated" by a failure to highlight issues such as immigration, Europe and crime, and want a change of direction "quite soon".

The Taxpayers' Alliance, a new lobby group backed by Tory donors and other business figures, also issued an ICM poll yesterday suggesting people would be more likely to vote Conservative at the next election if they were promised tax cuts. The Taxpayers' Alliance chief executive, Matthew Elliott, said: "The idea that people don't want to hear the Conservative party call for lower taxes and public service reform is completely wrong. The leadership have got too many people giving them advice that's 10 years out of date."

Greg Hands, MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, also issued a 10-point plan for flatter taxes under the aegis of Conservative Way Forward. Even from the party's left, Steve Norris called for a commitment to reduce public spending as a proportion of GDP. Mr Norris told a fringe meeting: "I think we pay far too much tax ... 42% of GDP is appalling; 37% would be a lot nearer the mark."

Polls at the weekend suggested the Tory lead had slipped to 1%, as Tony Blair enjoys a post-conference bounce. But Mr Cameron, backed by his shadow chancellor George Osborne, adamantly refused to budge. He said: "Those people who say they want tax cuts and they want them now - they can't have them." Mr Osborne held out hope only of flatter taxes and a rebalancing to green taxes.

    Tax undermines Cameron's quest to claim centre stage, G, 2.10.2006,
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativepartyconference2006/
    comment/0,,1885480,00.html