Cameron's Conservatives need new direction
Sunday, July 22, 2007 
It doesn't take a genius to recognise that the Conservatives (or, should I say, David Cameron's Conservatives) are in trouble.
It was never going to be easy, overcoming a reduced but substantial Labour majority, and those of us who know a little bit about the Tory party have known for years that a fundamental problem is the lack of grassroots activists.
We may be living in the internet age, but you still need people to knock on doors, push leaflets through letterboxes, and generally get the message across on a local level. And that's where the Tories lose out. There simply aren't enough people sufficiently motivated to help out.
Meanwhile Cameron's Blair-lite strategy appears to have hit the rocks. The idea of mimicking 'nanny' Blair - one of the longest-serving PM's in British history - may have seemed a good idea at the time, but the chickens are coming home to roost.
In my view, if he wants to defeat Gordon Brown, Cameron has got to get to grips with the nanny state and nail his colours firmly to the mast. He has got to promote less not more government as a central plank of Conservative policy. He has got to give people a real choice at the next election - are you for or against Big Government? - and spell out what that means in practice.
On Sunday 30th September, at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, The Free Society - supported by Forest and the new Free Spirits group - will host a reception at the Hilton Hotel. We're calling it 'Nanny State? No Thanks' and we will use the event to drive home one of three messages that are central to our post-smoking ban strategy.
To demonstrate our impartiality (and the importance of targetting both of the major parties), The Free Society roadshow will also make an appearance at the Labour conference in Bournemouth where we are hosting a similar event at the Royal Bath Hotel on Tuesday 25th September. Details in due course.
Events
Reader Comments (8)
Simon - I could not agree more. If Cameron is serious about forming the next government, then you must set out in the clearest terms the relationship that his government will have with the general populus. A pledge that he (Cameron) will give back people responsibility for their lives and the dismantlement of the grotesque quangos and special interest groups (funded by the state) would be a huge step in the right direction.
What do you expect when you create "non-jobs" as exists in large swathes of the public sector? They have to justify their existance and that largely means inferfering in people lives and taking away people's responsibility for their own actions.
I do not understand why Cameron is hesitating on this matter, as it should be an inact part of his politics.
I agree with you whole heartedly Bill, but I think you need to get this across to the Conservative Party, through your MP maybe? Posted on here just gets if off your chest, but we need to get it off our chests and into the Conservatives minds.
David Cameron must tell us immediately that the next conservative government will AMEND the smoking ban.I do not want the ban lifted,I want it made fair.The owners and managers of any business must be able to decide if they wish to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment.If it is to provide for the smoker then the rules must be quite clear,if you are a non-smoker then come in here of your own free will with out complaint,or do not enter at all.The ban on people working in smoking establishments is a gross violation of the freedom of the individual and must be lifted immediately.All premises allowing smoking must be ventilated to the most stringent standards.Cameron must show that there is clear blue water between the tories and labour and the lib-dems.No more pussyfooting around we need to know now.If Cameron wants my help to get the tories back in power I like 36% of this nation must be told what it is we are voting for.
Sorry for once to disagree with you to some extent abbeyfield. I do not agree that only establishments allowing smoking should be "ventilated to the most stringent standards" for two reasons.
Firstly, ETS is the least of many people's concerns in many establishments as traffic fumes enter city buildings without exeception and secondly, badly ventilated premises allow a build of body chemicals which over certain quntities are not healthy either. Consider, for example, what aircraft air is like these days. Airlines did not disallow smoking because the were initially forced to but to save on ventilation and air cleaning costs. When smoking was permitted the air was apparently changed completely every three minutes. Now it's every nine minutes and they also use rebreather capsules - ergo you are constantly breathing recycled air. Hence the air quality, despite the annoyance to some people, was actually better when people smoked.
Then, when it comes to pubs and any other building for that matter, you have the effects of all the cleaning agents, BO plus the methane gas emitted by people's flatulence and all the germs. As a result of the letter in badly ventilated buildings you get sick building syndrome.
In addition, bearing in mind that I do not believe that ETS is a deadly toxic substance, we should not pander to such a load of nonsense. Therefore singling out ony places where people who smoke a places where stingent standards should apply is wrong on that count too. No, what is necessary is simply a well thought out quality air standard to which all establishments and places of work should comply.
With regard to Cameron about whom this thread is about, it is indeed difficult to decide whether or not he is rather weak. I must admit that on his current record I rather despise him. I have had enough of Blairism and the nanny state and am sick of Cameron's trendy approach to climate change for whereas I agree that climate change is happening I am deeply, deeply sceptical that it is caused by human agency.
On the smoking ban issue it was widely stated that Cameron intended to amend what is a very bad law and if that is true he has certainly decided to play safe since. The Tory Party now puts out the same pap on ETS as Nu-Labour but with Ian Duncan Smith having a hand in making such decisions, what an one expect? He said he was "a quiet man" and I am relieved about that for when he does speak what he says is usually crap.
Another name for Cameron imho would be Blair 2.0
He's openly declaring he is going to follow in Blair's wake and use the tax stick to get his way. All he has to do now it talk of banning something and we'll know he's adopted both of "New" Labour's ideas.
Politicians these days seem to think legislation is the answer to the country's ills. I don't know where they got this delusion from but continually making new laws just makes the country less free. I want to see the Conservative pledge to give us back some of our freedom's again.
It must be remembered that the Conservative Party traditionally represents the middle and upper classes and it is known that the prevalence of smoking becomes much less the further we climb up the social economic ladder.
If anybody ever made a good case for defending the freedom to smoke it was John Reid when referring to the unemployed and single mothers on sink council estates. I just don't think that the Conservative Party, the middle classes and smoking make a good mix at all.
Christ Robert, what century do you exist in? Today it is the Conservatives who represent the true working class, with New Labour having been taken over by the "toffs" (for want of a better word). Have a look at Britain's rich list today and you won't find many Conservatives on there, it is taken up almost entirely by New Labourites.
As for your remarks regarding the prevalence of smoking becoming much less the further we climb up the social economic ladder, this simply isn't true. You are trying to put across a bit of NL propaganda here by aligning the uneducated poor with smoking, because according to NL doctrine, they know no better. If this were true, which we all know it isn't, then surely it should be NLs job to give these poor people some education, so that they can make an educated choice of their own?
I find this attitude to smokers condescending to say the least, and far from defending the right to smoke, John Reid was equally as condescending when he referred to the unemployed and single mothers on sink council estates. "Unemployed" and "single mothers" and "sink estates". He certainly knows how to band words together doesn't he? But I am afraid that neither his words, or yours, work for me.