Policy Blizzard's First Flurry

Talk of a "blizzard of conference policy announcements" has begun the "Cameron fight back" with what must surely rank as highly attractive, family-friendly changes to the tax and welfare system: the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers on homes worth up to £250,000 and an increase in working tax credit paid to two-parent families (worth up to £2,000 a year for 1.8 million families with children), funded by a crackdown on "work-shy" benefits claimants, including "aggressive" penalties for those who turn down jobs.

Whether it and the flurry of other manifesto suggestions to be rolled out this week are seen to bring together and build upon the many recent policy group reports and whether they will prove sufficiently appealing to close the double-figure poll lead that Gordon Brown now enjoys remains to be seen...

If you want a reminder of the policies that you, The Difference readers, said you would most like to see the Party put forward, when David Cameron first suggested a blizzard of policy ideas, visit Your Policy Ideas Results.

Howard 11 - Cameron 21

Michael Howard, you may recall, summed up conservatism in eleven words:

• Cleaner hospitals, more police, school discipline, controlled immigration, lower taxes, accountability.

David Cameron is apparently to use twenty-one words:

• Giving people more opportunity and power over their lives.
• Making families stronger and society more responsible.
• Making Britain safer and greener.

Anyone care to offer their alternative suggestions?

Blueprint for a Green Economy

"If we are to create a way of living that we can sustain, then water, waste, transport and energy, as well as farming, food, fishing and the built environment, have to be thought of as a whole."

Launching the Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group report, a day after the price of crude oil reached a record $80, former Environment Secretary John Gummer is surely right to place the emphasis on sustainability.

At the end of the day, for all the uncertain predictions about an imminent big freeze or, conversely, a global heatwave and for all the questions about the extent to which man has exacerbated the planet's natural cycles of climate change, one thing is certain: the world's reserves of fossil fuels will one day run out. Whether we make them last 50 years or 100 years, or even 200 years, won't ultimately affect mankind's carbon footprint. What our rate of fossil fuel use will affect is the timeframe available in which we can invest in the research and development of renewable sources of energy — during which we can answer the really big question: How can we sustain life and civilisation as we know it? Or, as the report puts it, given that there are plenty of other symptoms of the damage wrought by humans' modern lifestyles — such as desertification, soil erosion, and the destruction of forests — can we continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one?

Does the report provide a satisfactory answer that is "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? The introduction notes that "Instead of wanting the State to intervene and control, Conservatives seek only to ensure that the market framework is capable of delivering the nation’s requirements and that people, communities, and organisations, whether for profit or not, are empowered and trusted to play their proper and fullest role." Yet, about aviation, it complains:

"Growth in demand is heavily concentrated in short-haul leisure flights taken by UK residents. Between 1994 and 2004, 70% of the additional international trips that occurred were UK residents going abroad for leisure. From the perspective of the UK economy, this is arguably the wrong sort of growth. Shorthaul leisure flights exacerbate the country’s tourism deficit – the difference between what overseas visitors spend in the UK and what British citizens spend abroad – which already stands at around £15 billion. Today, over half of all air trips arriving or departing UK airports are UK residents travelling for leisure, and this proportion is set to increase." (p.355)

Thus, some of what are already its most criticised recommendations, such as no further airport expansions, rethinking Heathrow's proposed runway, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted, seem to burst with big state interventionism. The authors argue that "Scaling back airport expansion plans would lead to more efficient use of existing capacity, and accelerate the allocation of flight slots to parts of the market that value them most" and that this "does not mean that there would be a diminution in the cheap flights already available," but it is hard to see how such an approach could not but damage Britain's economy and international competitiveness.

I am happy to accept the premise that no government can be neutral in matters of wellbeing and we should therefore shift taxation policy towards the taxation of pollution — from 'pay as you earn' to 'pay as you burn.' However, if the shift is to be managed in an orderly manner, the Government will need to ensure that the alternatives that it wishes us to embrace are adequate. There is no point trying to tax us from flying if the rail network doesn't have the capacity to cope with the additional passenger loads. I would probably even be willing to accept that the best way of retuning growth to take account of environmental health is "by pricing carbon into the equation as the most effective surrogate for environmental cost" — so long as this genuinely is not used as a means to increase the total tax burden.

I agree that "It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and sustainable economic growth." So, its discussions about energy efficiency — for instance in the context of the household sector discussed earlier in the week by Zac Goldsmith, which include the rejection of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) regime — are to be welcomed. In the related context of planning and also of rural life and Defra, its recommendation that "the localism agenda be used to empower the very lowest of levels of government, nearest to the people whose lives they affect" is also strongly welcome. This also applies to the subsequent discussions about reform of Europe's infamous Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, "to shift the CAP across Europe from production-related subsidies (Pillar 1) to a system of paying farmers for the public goods and services they provide (Pillar 2)." As it says, "The more complex the world gets, the more globalisation seems to remove power from people, politicians, and even nations, and the more it is important that individuals feel they have a real say about the future of their own community." It is high time that this process should be reversed.

Given that I also believe we should "tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies,’" I would also not oppose the suggestion for the planning system to "prioritise the protection and enhancement of ‘town centres’ and ‘local neighbourhood shopping centres’ over and above out of town/edge of town retail development." If we wish to strengthen our local communities, then it seems vital that we maintain the economic and social viability of our towns. I expect that some of you might disagree, but I think this is an area where Margaret Thatcher's "Never call me laissez-faire" quote is probably relevant: "Government must be strong to do those things which only government can do."

Lastly, back on transport, I was pleased to see the call for increased carriage of freight by inland waterways and, in relation to proposed national road user charging, the willingness to "seek simple and transparent ways to achieve our ends and avoid grandiose schemes that rely on unproven technology and huge investment."

In conclusion, does the report tell us how we can continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one in a way "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? Given that these are merely proposals that will all go into the melting pot containing the many recommendations from each of the other policy group reports, then I believe we have to conclude that it does as least help illuminate the way forwards. The next challenge will be for the Party to compile a coherent manifesto around a single Conservative vision for the twenty-first century...

A Sense of Belonging

Discussing today's Public Services Improvement Policy Group report on Radio 4 this morning, Baroness Perry suggested that the tendency for school size to increase over the last ten years has been a disaster "very much at the root of some of the bad behaviour that we have seen":

"It's a sense of belonging more than anything else which children lack in very large schools. They feel that nobody knows them and if you are not known you can get away with anything. The sense of being part of a smaller community where people do know who you are, where you have a real sense that you belong in the community and it matters what you do, makes a huge difference."

She went on to praise experiments in America where big schools have been broken down into small units — what they call "several small schools under one roof" — resulting in reduced truancy rates and improvement in both performance and discipline. She was also critical of the increase in the number of repeating exclusions — almost a quarter of a million a year — which she described as "just a recognition of failure":

"I want to see much more positive attempts within the school to keep these children engaged, interested and excited in what's going on. I think we are failing them by giving them a curriculum which is only really suitable for about half the children in our schools — the other half are being failed by what we're offering them."

Among the 156 proposals in the report, some of the other ones that stand out for me are:

Health

• We propose that the Treasury should present an annual report to Parliament which sets out the public health implications and impacts of all public expenditure programmes both within and outside the Department of Health.
• We propose that the next Conservative government should remove licences from shops prosecuted for selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.
• We propose that the next Conservative government should establish better access to mental health and drug rehabilitation services for those in the criminal justice system.
• We propose that the next Conservative government should bring forward legislation to provide for the establishment of an NHS Board which is independent and accountable to local communities and through Ministers to Parliament.
• We propose that the next Conservative government should establish a new statutory framework for NICE which clarifies the scope of its work and advice.
• We propose the next Conservative government should work with professional and patient groups to develop a new primary dental service contract that ensures equitable access to dental services.

Education

• We recommend that teachers receive full anonymity until any case against them has been fully dealt with.
• We recommend that a review of guidelines and publications are sent to schools should take place, with the aim of reducing the burden that these place upon teachers, allowing them the professional freedom to teach.
• We propose that the level of prescription set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and the Primary National Framework be slimmed down to enable early years teachers to focus their judgments on what is best for each individual child.
• We recommend that there should be far fewer national targets, as the determination of the broad outcomes would give a firm steer to the service nationally. A slimmed down structure of national tests at 7, 11, 14, GCSE and 18-19 examinations and diplomas would provide the government and public with all the information needed to monitor whether the system was delivering successfully.
• Any pupil falling behind at the age of 11 should, we believe, be given a chance to have remedial education to bring them up to the right standard in the basics, either during the summer before secondary school, or even – particularly perhaps for the summer-born – repeating the final primary school year.
• We recommend that schools should set by ability unless they can demonstrate that they can achieve higher standards using mixed ability teaching.

Social Housing

• We recommend that social and economic mobility should be cornerstone of housing policy generally, and of community housing policy in particular. The aim of community housing must be to encourage greater home ownership, with a flexibility that will cater both for those in greatest need and for those struggling to find a home.
• We recommend that tenants who move between Housing Associations retain their Preserved Right to Buy.
• We propose a review of VAT and Stamp Duty regimes that discourage private sector involvement in refurbishing the social housing sector.

Freeing Britain to Compete

How do we summarise the Economic Competitiveness Policy Group report, given that it has already been drip-fed to the media for almost a week? Rather than listing specific proposals, such as the abolition of inheritance tax, perhaps we should simply quote John Redwood's co-author, the chief executive of Next, Simon Wolfson, who says the two most significant messages are:

1. Regulate both the private and public sector less, and
2. Invest in British infrastructure.

Alternatively, we could just go with Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who declared on the Today programme that once again it is now OK to admit "I'm a Conservative who believes in lower taxes."

Download the full report from Stand Up, Speak Up

An Unquiet World

Almost before any of us have had a chance to digest Tuesday's report from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group has today published its own final report, An Unquiet World. Unlike the ground-breaking first report from the Social Justice Policy Group, it is not always obvious why we had to wait eighteen months. For instance, take the first four conclusions:

• The UK has not made enough of its natural advantages in developing a close relationship with India.
• Our civil liberties at home and our human rights record abroad matter and must be upheld in a consistent manner.
• The broader Middle East is a region in turmoil. ... Iraq has made some aspects worse.
• The risk and danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been increased by the situation in the broader Middle East.

... Or its verdict on the key relationships and institutions:

• The continuing importance of the transatlantic Alliance.
• The vital need for functioning US European relations.
• UK security involves close partnership in Europe.
• Functioning international law and invigorated international institutions protect and promote our interests. ... The UK should put effort into UN reform generally and Security Council enlargement in particular.

None of this sounds particularly fresh or insightful. Even once it reaches the sections on security, its criticisms of Government and European policy are nothing new:

• The identity of the British people needs to be rebuilt to include minority communities on the basis of shared values and active equal citizenship.
• The UK is without arrangements in place for guaranteed energy supply or a strategic reserve available for emergencies.
• Policies being pursued by European governments towards Russia and the countries on the EU’s borders in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe do not serve the political and security interest of member states as well as they could and should.
• It is urgent for EU leaders to agree with Turkey a way forward on the accession negotiations.
• Our armed forces which serve the nation with great professionalism round the world are overstretched and there is no reserve available for emergency. ... Their mission no longer corresponds to the real security requirements of the nation.

The real interest, therefore, doesn't come until we reach its recommendations. It suggests that an incoming Conservative government should:

• Conduct a Defence review not with the aim of inflicting further cuts, but of ensuring that our armed forces have been asked to do the right job, are properly equipped and trained and are employed on the right terms and conditions.
• Establish a dedicated force with a permanent command headquarters for homeland defence and security, to provide assistance as and when requested to the civil authorities in the event of a major terrorist incident or other national emergency.
• Maximise the influence of its considerable range of soft power assets (such as the British Council, the BBC World Service, and British university system). British diplomacy, an asset neglected by the Labour Government, should be revitalised.
• Create a National Security Council in the Cabinet Office. The FCO should be brought back from the sidelines. The FCO and DfID should develop a dedicated civil expeditionary capability.
• Adapt the method of budgeting for spending on the external aspects of national security by relevant departments (FCO, MOD, DfID) to support a national security approach and alter spending patterns to fund more adequately reform and nation building programmes relevant to the establishment of open societies.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that "Much of the existing policy base is valid and should be built on." However, particularly coming so soon after the Prime Minister adopted Conservative calls for a unified border force (even though Brown's version turns out not be to quite as radical a reform as initially appeared), we could have hoped for a greater emphasis on those elements that would demonstrate to the public that there is in fact a difference between the major political parties — and that the Conservatives are the Party that can best meet the nation's domestic and international security challenges. ... Let's hope the next policy groups establish a little more "clear blue water" in their reports.

In It Together

Poverty is a denial of human potential. The stifling of dynamism, creativity and intelligence that attend poverty affects us all. Unleash that potential and we will all benefit through an explosion of thought, culture and trade.

In the twenty-first century extreme poverty is not only a preventable economic absurdity but a moral disgrace. That is what has motivated this group in its work.

But even if we were driven purely on the basis of self interest then act we must. Poverty undermines our security and prosperity as well as our humanity. It is necessary for our own well-being that we work together to remove the scourge of poverty that so blights our time.

The bald fact is that extreme poverty does not affect only the few, it harms the many. We are all in this, like it or not, together. And that is the only way that poverty will finally be eradicated: together.

So begins Peter Lilley in his introduction to the second of the Conservative Party's policy group reports, published today. Unlike the Social Justice Policy Group's recent report, media coverage of In it together: the attack on global poverty, from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, has so far been very poor.

Overall, with its emphasis on trade and training instead of aid and tariffs, it looks good, although expecting the World Bank and other multilateral organisations to track corruption seems rather naive. In all, the group makes 76 recommendations, all of which could be funded within the current commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on international aid. Here are a few of the highlights, listed under the report's six headings:

Aid

• DFID’s process for allocating bilateral aid should be adjusted from a cliff edge to a slide. So when low income countries pass the middle income threshold they should no longer risk losing all their aid.
• DFID should continue to develop funding mechanisms which provide longer term, more stable and more flexible aid funding. This principle should apply both to bilateral aid and that provided through NGOs and local partners.
• We recommend that DFID should allocate its aid budget so as to encourage NGOs to develop specialist competences and focus on them, and should be more willing to use smaller NGOs which have already specialised in a particular function or country and proven their ability and integrity.
• DFID should create a Human Rights Review Panel to advise whether aid should continue to flow to governments after human rights abuses occur and DFID should respond speedily but proportionately to any deterioration in standards, thereby obviating the need for a more drastic response later on.
• The UK must make a long-term commitment to training medical staff in countries with the greatest need for them.

Economic development

• Increased UK support for skills and enterprise training for young people is necessary.
• The UK should endeavour to extend its support for secondary education, to assist low income countries in moving towards universal secondary education.
• We support the provision of development funding directly to private sector enterprises and entrepreneurs, if this offers the best way to tackle poverty.

Trade

• There is a strong case for allowing low income countries, in particular, i) open access to EU and other developed country markets; and ii) flexibility as to how rapidly they liberalise their domestic markets. Real Trade involves both.
• The UK should aim to spend a larger proportion of its existing aid budget to 2013 on aid for trade.
• The UK should press the EU to take up the US offer of an end to all market distorting support as part of the Doha Round. At the very least the UK should press for the EU to meet the G20’s request for deeper reductions. The UK should also seek to hold the EC to its earlier offer to abolish all subsidies on exports from the EU ... The UK should push for an immediate end to certain CAP programmes such as tobacco and cotton subsidies.

Corruption and governance

• DFID should live up to its promises and respond more vocally, robustly and proportionately to evidence of corruption affecting UK aid.
• Aid to promote good governance should be used to help both stimulate and satisfy demand for greater accountability, by strengthening the capacity of civil society to challenge governments over issues of corruption, human rights, and transparency and accountability.

Conflict, fragile states and humanitarian aid

• The UK should support an International Arms Trade Treaty to curb the flow of weapons to conflicts.
• Pledges for quick-onset emergencies should either be made from existing contingency funds or from new money, and should not involve the re-allocation of previously allocated funds.
• What is needed is greater coordination, not centralisation. If donors duplicate, this is a waste, but if the UN were to attempt to centralise all donors and then assign tasks this could take up valuable time – putting lives at risk. Attempts to centralise responsibility under a single agency should be resisted by the UK Government.
• The UK should welcome and undertake to uphold the commitment of the international community at the UN Millennium Review Summit in 2005 to ‘take collective action [to protect vulnerable populations] in a timely and decisive manner . . . should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities [be] manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity’.

DFID - the aid effectiveness challenge

• DFID should, as a leading bilateral donor, take a much more robust line with multilaterals, demand evidence of effectiveness and performance, be ready to withhold discretionary funding where necessary and through this more assertive stance create real impetus for change.
• DFID must focus on results, rather than processes, and must develop methodologies and techniques that will enable a results-focused comparison of different projects and programmes.
• Our proposed option for the evaluation of DFID’s effectiveness is the creation of an Independent Evaluation Group which would report to Parliament via the International Development Select Committee.

Help Shape Election Manifesto

Following the issue of the Social Justice Policy Group proposals earlier this week, the Conservative Party has now launched its public consultation, Stand Up Speak Up. Make sure you read the reports, vote on the policy recommendations, and join the debate — you might even win a chance to have a one-on-one discussion with David Cameron.Fixing our broken society - problems like crime, anti-social behaviour, poor schooling and family breakdown - is the biggest challenge Britain faces. Gordon Brown’s social failure is costing us £102 billion a year. We think it’s time for change.

As David Cameron said a month ago, let's "stand up and lead the way in getting people involved in a massive grassroots debate on the future of our country. Let’s show the cynics some energy, not apathy."

Visit: Stand Up Speak Up

Highlights From Breakthrough Britain

Writing in the overview to the Social Justice Policy Group's report, Breakthrough Britain, Iain Duncan Smith says, "Breakthrough Britain advocates a new approach to welfare in the 21st century. We believe that, in order to reverse social breakdown, we need to start reinforcing the Welfare Society. The Welfare Society is that which delivers welfare beyond the State." He identifies two specific areas why their approach is unique: "Firstly, we have recommended a range of policies which are designed to break the cycle of disadvantage in the early years of a child’s life. Secondly, we wish to strengthen families by removing the perverse disincentives in the fiscal system which are an obstacle to stable families."

It is understandable that media coverage has so far focused on the group's marriage and tax-related suggestions. After all, the Government has spent ten years creating a tax and benefits system that perversely penalises married couples, perpetuating poverty for the 76% of children who live in couple households. However, any attempt to heal our broken society will need to change more than just the tax system. Duncan Smith explains the significance of the five pathways to poverty identified by the Group:

"Our approach is based on the belief that people must take responsibility for their own choices but that government has a responsibility to help people make the right choices. Government must therefore value and support positive life choices. At the heart of this approach is support for the role of marriage and initiatives to help people to live free of debt and addiction. Government has to be committed to providing every child with the best possible education and giving the most vulnerable people the necessary support to enter active employment. The problems of family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction, failed education, debt and worklessness and dependency affect us all, either directly or indirectly, as Breakdown Britain showed."

The Difference offers the following list of highlights from the report that it is hoped will receive due attention in the coming hours, days, and weeks:

Family Breakdown

• Relationship education in schools
• Creative ways for delivering more respite care
• Targeted assistance for parents who currently struggle to nurture their children, rather than steering them towards local authority childcare
• Removal of the bias towards state-provided childcare.
• A review of family law conducted by a dedicated independent commission
• Reinstatement of the use of ‘marital status’ in government forms and statements

Economic Dependency

• Clear work expectations must be attached to the receipt of benefits for people who can work
• Back-to-work services should be state determined but not state delivered
• A serious and thorough review of the Housing Benefit system is needed
• Parents should be given the opportunity to front-load child benefit

Educational Failure

• £500 p.a. educational credits for disadvantaged children to fund supplementary educational services such as a year’s extra maths tuition, six months intensive literacy support and a year’s group music lessons
• An end to bureaucratic overload
• ‘Booster classes’ for pupils falling behind
• More alternative provision to pupil referral units

Addiction

• An integrated addiction policy to replace the separate drugs and alcohol treatment
• A devolved responsibility to local Addiction Action Centres
• An expansion of third sector proven provision of ‘holistic’, value added, abstinence-based treatment

Serious Personal Debt

• UK credit unions should be strengthened, supported and expanded
• Local community based debt advice should be supported
• The benefits system and Social Fund should be reviewed in detail
• Education in personal finance should be improved

Third Sector

• Gift Aid should be made easier to claim
• Introduce Charitable Remainder Trusts as tax-efficient vehicles for planned giving
• Launch a 'V Card' reward scheme to boost volunteering
• Greater third sector delivery of public services
• Less bureaucratic and prescriptive Government funding
• Introduce voucher schemes to empower users of government-funded services
• Enhance the third sector's voice in Cabinet and Parliament
• Create a level playing field for faith based organisations

Yes, all this will come with a cost. But, as the report also notes, social breakdown presently costs the UK £102,000,000,000 per year, or around £3500 per taxpayer — that's a lot of money that could be better invested.

Your Policy Ideas Results

Gordon Brown has been Prime Minister for a full week. After an initially impressive start, he performed poorly at his first PMQs today, needing to be rescued by John Reid over the Government's position concerning Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

The question now is how David Cameron will respond. Concluding the policy survey that we have been conducting since the Conservative leader announced that he would be launching a Blizzard of Ideas against the new Prime Minister, below are the top ten policies suggested and voted on by The Difference readers that you would most like to see rolled out in the coming weeks, listed under the six headings being used in the Party's official policy review process. Interestingly, the most popular suggestion was made by Alex, the recent winner in our ongoing comment competition!

Making our economy more competitive
1. Increase the income tax personal allowance to about £10,000
9= Leave the EU
Public service improvement
2. A universal school voucher system
6. Provision for public petitions to trigger Parliamentary debates
Improving our quality of life
3. Reduce immigration
7= Allocate funds to sexual health programmes advocating abstinence as a positive life-style choice
Protecting our security
4= Re-install border controls
7= Invest in our armed forces
Social justice
4= Reduce the legal time-frame in which abortion is allowed
9= Enforce strict guidelines on allowing state-funded abortions
Globalisation & global poverty
9= Champion a Global Free Trade Association

A total of 567 votes were cast — so thank you to everybody who took part in this campaign. You can find the full results at last week's Poll of Polls.

New Government Priorities

Standing on the steps of Number Ten, the new Prime Minister promised "a new government with new priorities." He would do well to heed the latest report from Reform, Key policy lessons of the "Blair years" for future governments. Damningly, it concludes:

"Left untouched, the Blairite policy legacy would not lead to economic collapse. But it would lead to slower growth and deeper social division. Better-off people would take a stronger grip on private schools and good state schools. Social mobility would fall. The tax burden on young people would rise. The regional divide would worsen. The Government’s basic objective – economic efficiency and social justice – would recede."

Among the reforms necessary, it recommends:

• Aiming to reduce public-spending-to-GDP from the current level of 43 per cent of GDP to the levels of Ireland and Australia (around 35 per cent) in two Parliaments;
• Introducing a phased programme of tax reductions to increase incentives, to give individuals room to invest in themselves and to foster the economic contribution of young people.

One of the report's authors, Reform's Director Andrew Haldenby, observed, "Perhaps the key lesson of the 'Blair years' is that the personal force of a Prime Minister with landslide majorities and unrivalled communication skills is no substitute for structural reform. It now falls to his successors to make the necessary, fundamental changes to public services; their task is unfortunately harder because of the huge cost and spending increases of the last decade. They must also reverse the rising tax burden because, above all else, it is private initiative that has driven the country's advance in the last ten years."

Given that Gordon Brown has been the principal man responsible for raising our tax burden so high, I fear that we will have to wait until yet another party leader has been invited to form a new government before we really see the fundamental changes that the country needs. Nevertheless, like all those in the country who hope for better days ahead, I eagerly look for the new Prime Minister to deliver on his promise of "change in our NHS, change in our schools, change with affordable housing, change to build trust in government, change to protect and extend the British way of life."

Poll of Polls

Here, as promised, are the suggestions you made for the policies that you would most like to see David Cameron announce as part of his Blizzard of Ideas after Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. If there are ideas that you did not submit in time to be included but still wish to contribute, you may post them in the comments. Voting has now closed. A summary of the results appeared at Your Policy Ideas Results.

Making our economy more competitive

Leave the EU  13% (21 votes)

Establish a new ‘Commission for Public Procurement’  1% (2 votes)

Increase home ownership  8% (14 votes)

Encourage personal pensions and savings  13% (21 votes)

Reduce means-testing  10% (16 votes)

Improve the quality of vocational training  10% (16 votes)

Increase the income tax personal allowance to about £10,000  18% (29 votes)

Merge Income Tax and National Insurance  10% (16 votes)

More flexible mortgage lending regulations and provision  6% (10 votes)

Grants to bring unused or under-used properties into occupation  9% (15 votes)

Drop congestion charging in favour of higher fuel taxes  3% (5 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 165

Improving our quality of life

Reduce immigration  18% (25 votes)

One-to-one midwifery care  10% (14 votes)

Allocate more money to pro-life counselling and support for unintentionally pregnant women  15% (20 votes)

Allocate funds to sexual health programmes advocating abstinence as a positive life-style choice  16% (22 votes)

Privacy laws to prevent paparazzzi hounding famous people  7% (9 votes)

Replace the Press Complaints Commission with a joint Commons & Lords Select Committee  4% (5 votes)

Reduce traffic in inner-city areas through limited bans on cars  4% (5 votes)

Make more cycle paths  12% (16 votes)

Introduce a free school transport system  15% (20 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 136

Public service improvement

Secondary schools to be state-funded, independent trust schools  18% (19 votes)

Abolition of all LEAs and most of the Department of Education  15% (16 votes)

A universal school voucher system  25% (26 votes)

Simplify rules to set up new schools and access state funding  19% (20 votes)

Provision for public petitions to trigger Parliamentary debates  22% (23 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 104

Protecting our security

Invest in our armed forces  25% (22 votes)

One year conscription for 18 year olds  10% (9 votes)

Re-install border controls  27% (24 votes)

Require parliamentary approval to commit British troops to combat and treaty ratifications  24% (21 votes)

Simplify legislation into: unenforced guidelines and laws the police should enforce  15% (13 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 89

Social justice

Reserved seats in Parliament for children and the unborn  0% (0 votes)

Reduce the legal time-frame in which abortion is allowed  53% (24 votes)

Enforce strict guidelines on allowing state-funded abortions  47% (21 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 45

Globalisation & global poverty

Create a worldwide League of Democracies  25% (7 votes)

Champion a Global Free Trade Association  75% (21 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 28