Combating crime is about more than catchy election slogans. The (in)famous New Labour sound-bite “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is widely believed to have been coined by our new Prime Minister. At the time, it was deemed politically effective at positioning the New Labour project on the right side of a domestic issue previously believed to be ‘natural Tory territory’. Since then, we have had a series of Home Secretaries who have, at times, appeared more ‘right wing’ than their opposing Conservative Shadows. However, like their performance and the election slogan that preceded them, the policies (and their implementation) have been found wanting.

Today, the Conservative Party has released a document titled “It’s time to fight back“. It reveals the sorry reality of the Labour Party’s failed attempts to deal with crime. Sadly, the document provides ample evidence of the ‘Broken Society’ that has developed under the present government. In the last 10 years, violent crime has doubled, with gun crime in particular increasing four-fold. Fatal attacks have become more common. The recent tragic cases of Rhys Jones and Garry Newlove are but two examples of needless deaths, casualties of a society that to my mind appears broken. Despite the awful reality we all see, the Labour Party appears to have its head buried in the sand. The worst ostrich of all is the latest Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who when interviewed at the weekend, denied the concept of a broken society. What more needs to happen for this government to realise that there are deep-seated social problems within British society? A child allegedly gunning down another child in Liverpool is apparently not enough. What about an 18 year old girl called Sian Simpson being murdered in London by a gang of teenage girls? Acceptable behaviour in a decent society Ms Smith?

Unlike the Labour Party, who see government as an exercise in enacting legislation (30 criminal justice bills since 1997!!), the Conservative Party sees government as providing effective answers to crime, both in the shorter and longer term. Hence, a Conservative government would provide more police and make them more visible. Furthermore, Conservatives would scrap the Early Release Scheme introduced by the Labour Party so that criminals serve their full sentence. More importantly, though, a Conservative Party would set about healing our society. This is because Conservatives understand and accept that all citizens of this country have a social responsibility to build strong communities. For it is the creation of strong communities, in tandem with a strengthened police force and justice system, that will deal effectively with violent crime in this country. The Labour Party appears to have never understood that tough problems need tough decisions and tough measures, not easy sound-bites and empty gestures. In contrast, Conservatives have grasped the realities of violent crime prevention.

Overall, survival for all cancers combined in the UK as a whole is not only below the national average, it is also noticeably similar to some eastern European countries that spend less than one third of the UK’s per capita healthcare budget – The Lancet Oncology Journal

In 1979, the Conservative Party came to power to cure the ‘sick man of Europe’. The unchecked powers of the Unions, most ably assisted by the Socialist Labour Party, had ravaged the British economy. Britain was sick and decrepit. Malaise, inflexibility and economic low self-esteem were widely reported. It took the Conservatives to administer the medicine, a not always pleasant experience for some, but as history has shown us all, a necessary economic tonic for Britain as a whole.

Yesterday, evidence was presented that confirmed that Britain is once more the sick man of Europe (see table above). Despite record increases in NHS expenditure since Labour came to power, British cancer mortality rates still rank amongst the lowest in Europe. The Lancet Oncology Journal claimed, on the basis of their figures, that the government’s cancer plan introduced in 2000 in England (2001 in Scotland) was not working. Cancer charities have since cited the absence of proper radiotherapy services as a major cause of poor survival rates. Tellingly, the report called for a “fundamental assessment of the ways in which the NHS operates”.

So, in summary, despite record investment, much legislation, the employment of more doctors and nurses, the reorganisation of primary care administration (three times), the introduction of private funding via the PFI initiatives (often leading to budget overspend), the appointment of a ‘Cancer Tsar’ and the contracting of a vast array of management consultants at large cost, this ten year-old Labour government has failed to put Britain on a par with the health of the rest of Europe. What a total disgrace. Furthermore, at a time when they have failed our cancer patients, they have embarked upon a hospital closure campaign that will adversely affect healthcare services. And yet, they still continue to tax us more and more.

Once more it would appear that it falls to the Conservative Party to administer the necessary medicine. It will not be an easy task. Confronting the entrenched interests that blight the NHS, dealing with the learned helplessness of the medical staff, eradicating poor clinical practice, emphasising services that are evidence-based as opposed to those “that we have always provided”, removing unnecessary management, localising decision-making, and most importantly, diminishing the power of the Department of Health, are goals that will not be easily achieved. We must, however, be determined to do so. For if we are successful, Britain will be bequeathed a health service that is fit for a First World nation in the 21st century.

The Royal British Legion has recently launched a campaign to support ex-service personnel. My grandfather is a long-serving member of the British Legion, having seen action in a Bomber crew in World War II. Like many, he lost family and friends in that terrible conflict and hence, I have always had personal reasons for supporting the Legion. Their present campaign, however, appears to have been launched in response to the recent increased demands placed upon British Armed Forces.

At present, Britain has significant forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, as well as smaller commitments elsewhere. David Cameron is presently in the province of Helmand in Afghanistan. He is there to rightly show the Conservative Opposition’s full backing for that on-going campaign to support the democratically-elected government in Kabul, and to wage war on al-Qeeda forces based on the Pakistani border. He is also there to highlight the importance of proper government funding for our Armed Forces.

According to a recent Commons Public Accounts Committee report, there is presently an overall shortfall of Armed Forces personnel of 5,850 (3.2 per cent of full strength). Shockingly, military recruitment drives have been cut back by pressure to downsize or reduce funding. The report cited an example of the Army cancelling some infantry training courses during 2004-05, and consequently deferring recruits, in order to stay within budget constraints. During the past decade, the Government has cut the strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary from 142 to 110 ships. The frigate and destroyer fleet has been dramatically reduced from 35 to 25. Furthermore, the Government has withdrawn the Royal Navy’s Sea Harriers from service in early 2006, despite its replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, not being expected in service until 2014. These are hardly the actions of a government that places proper funding of the Armed Forces as a top priority. Indeed, it hardly augurs well for the defence of the Realm.

The British Legion is right to highlight that the government has broken a covenant that I believe all Britons believe in: if British service personnel are asked to put their lives at risk they should not only expect proper equipment in the field but also proper care when they come home. It is a sad indictment of government policy that a charitable organisation has felt the need to highlight short-comings in the care of ex-servicemen and women.

The original decision by the Labour government to commit forces to support the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan was the right one. Where they have been found wanting, however, is in the proper support of our Armed Forces since then. I have written previously on the need for the British government to properly fund the army, navy and airforce, if it is to continue actively engaging them in global conflicts. When is our new Prime Minister going to authorise increased defence expenditure? It is easy to talk tough in the US about intervening in Darfur etc… It appears much harder for him to commit government funds to pay for commitment. The sooner Mr Brown’s ‘honeymooning’ is over the better off our armed personnel will be. The Nation’s covenant with the Armed Forces deserves much more respect.