The Indianapolis motor-racing circuit in the American Mid-West was constructed in the early 20th century originally ‘brick by brick’. In fact, for that reason, the finish line today remains of brick construction. Yesterday, Britain’s Lewis Hamilton crossed that line first, thereby securing the second F1 victory of his career. A remarkable achievement for a man so young.

The meteoric rise of the young Englishman is the summer story of British sport. All informed sports commentators are in awe of his driving skill, wondering how he has climbed to first place in the World Championship so soon. The answer appears to be in the McClaren team’s driver-development programme. The team’s supremo, Ron Dennis, planned for Hamilton’s success many years ago. With his driver’s talent and the team’s hardwork, patience and dedication, Mr Dennis has now delivered the finished article. Laying a firm foundation a few years ago appears to have now provided ample returns for the McClaren team.

Conservative commentators could easily draw a parallel between Hamilton’s burgeoning career and David Cameron’s bid for Number 10. Today, I was fortunate enough to be at the Shadow Leader’s keynote speech in Tooting, South London. It had been billed, somewhat sensationally, as a ‘make or break’ speech for Mr Cameron. If it was, then I believe it succeeded in solidifying the foundations the Cameron team have been laying over the last 18 months.

David Cameron’s message was simple: “The British people have a clear choice. A choice between two different approaches to running the country”. By saying this, he has clearly drawn the battle lines for the next General Election. On one side stands the dour Scot, the old politician, the ‘top-down’ centralist. On the other side stands the new politician, the young man who trusts people’s decisions about their own lives and understands the limitations of government, the leader who is a true localist. Mr Brown trumpets state control whilst Mr Cameron advocates social responsibility.

By applying Conservative principles to the challenges of this new century, David Cameron has proved that his Party understands and is ready to lead this country. By emphasising security and opportunity for all he has successfully moved his Party firmly into the political centre ground. For he knows that it is there that the next General Election will be won or lost.

The Conservative leader, like the McClaren boss, has carefully built a new reputation ‘brick by brick’. Consequently, that reputation has got firm foundations. Today, those of us who were lucky enough to be present, witnessed the product of that dedicated and patient preparation. Ample returns at the ballot box should deservedly follow.

The recent furore over Channel Four’s decision to include a photographic image of the late Princess of Wales dead in her Mercedes car in Paris, as part of a documentary about her death, has raised a number of issues. Concerns have been aired about the appropriateness of showing her dead (or close to death). Indeed, my own Party has called for Channel Four to change its decision and remove the offending image from the final cut of the documentary, citing concerns over the adverse impact upon Princes William and Harry.

On June 8th, 1972, almost exactly 35 years before the date scheduled for the showing of the Channel 4 documentary about the death of Diana, the picture above was taken by Associated Press (AP) photographer, Nick Ut. It earned him the Pulitzer Prize. The photograph showed Phan Kim Phúc, a naked 9 year old girl, running towards the camera fleeing a napalm attack near Trang Bang during the Vietnam War. Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body (mainly her back) and was not expected to live. But thanks to the assistance of Nick Ut, and after surviving a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations, she became an outspoken peace activist. Interestingly, an editor at the AP initially rejected the photo of Kim Phúc running down the road without clothing because it showed frontal nudity. Pictures of nudes of all ages and sexes, and especially frontal views, were not then allowed at the Associated Press. Eventually, after much argument, the New York photo editor, Hal Buell, agreed that the news value of the photograph overrode any reservations about nudity. This chilling, yet impressive, photograph encapsulated the awful reality of the war in Vietnam. It was taken at a time when public opinion had shifted firmly against continued American involvement. Undeniably, it contributed further to the deep unease felt about the military engagement. On reflection, to have not published the photograph would have been a further crime.

The power of this photograph to change minds in a pre-24 hour news media age was truly remarkable. It is that very power that can lead to photographic censorship. There are many arguments against showing images of the dead Princess of Wales. The most persuasive have concentrated on respecting the privacy of her death. Those pleas to protect her family are, sadly, less convincing. Neither Kim Phúc herself, nor her family, were asked about the use of Ut’s photograph. Arguably, it was more intrusive. However, to have not published the image would have been to sanitise the reality of that dreadful incident. And this is the nub of the issue. Who decides whether the publication of a particular picture is justifiable? Who determines the public interest? Who can predict the impact of a photograph upon public opinion?

I, for one, wish that images of Princess Diana trapped in her car did not exist. They do and are easily accessible on the net. An argument could be made that they were taken in an attempt to satisfy the public’s insatiable demand for images of this woman. For those that had chased her to her death to have taken such photos is difficult to stomach, however, before we become too morally judgemental about the paparazzi’s behaviour, we must ask ourselves why there was such a demand for pictures of her with her new boyfriend? What does it say about our society?

Censoring the images may be more about assuaging our own collective guilt for her death than about protecting the Princes from the awful reality of their mother’s end. By airing the images, Channel Four may aid those of us who want to see more decency, respect for individual privacy and less emphasis on celebrity culture. Rather like the awful photograph of a burning Vietnamese child, the terrible images of the last moments of the Princess may bring about positive change through a re-evaluation of our society’s moral standards.

The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. – Thomas Jefferson

The on-going grammar school debate is about much more than a few academic state schools in Kent, Buckinghamshire and elsewhere. Judging by the anger and frustration shown by Conservative MPs across the spectrum of the party, it would appear that access to good education, in particular, access to a selective academic education for those children from more modest backgrounds, is an important defining issue for natural Conservatives. And this is because social mobility matters to people who are Conservative by experience. The BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson, in his blog a few days ago, neatly encapsulated the present tensions within the Conservative Party generated by the recent education policy announcement.

It is widely believed that Margaret Thatcher’s electoral success was firmly based upon appealing to the ‘aspiring class’, to those people who believed that merit and hard work should be rewarded with success in life. Mrs Thatcher’s political gift was realising that a large section of the British electorate agreed with that famous American politician, Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favour of a ‘natural aristocracy’. For Jefferson believed, that the development of such a social framework would benefit not only those that had the ability and application to succeed in life, but would also greatly aid the ‘common good’ by improving the overall governance of his country.

I have written previously on my own views about grammar schools. The “do we, don’t we” argument about grammar schools, however, should not be the real issue for us Tories. It should be more about our views regards the value of meritocracy in society. Jefferson felt strongly that an “artificial aristocracy” founded on “wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents” was a “mischievous ingredient in government”. I believe that for the Conservative Party to be electorally successful, it needs to re-establish its meritocratic credentials. Our education policy goes to very core of that task. If we allow ourselves to be charactured as appealing solely to those who are already successful in life, we will only guarantee ourselves electoral defeat.

Drug addicts need help, not condemnation. They need to be understood, not locked up. It would follow, therefore, that to encourage crime amongst addicts would make little sense. Or, that is what you might think would be government policy. However, it is not.

Apparently, if a drug addict is arrested, he is entitled to immediate treatment for his addiction (that is, within 24 hours) only if the offence he has committed is NOT drug-related. Hence, if he has mugged an elderly lady, for example, he will be treated immediately. Perversely, if he is picked up in possession of a banned substance, he will have to wait up to 10 days to receive treatment. Now, I do not know why this odd situation has arisen. It is, however, indefensible. I care for some drug addicts in the Thames Valley. The last thing that these individuals need is time in prison – a place not known for preventing drug abuse.

This government, and indeed any future Conservative government, must get its drug policies right. To not do so, is socially irresponsible. All of us must recognise that drug addiction is a problem that needs to be dealt with maturely and calmly. In particular, politicians must resist the temptation to resort to empty sound-bites about being “tough on drugs”. Young people – for let us remember the majority using these drugs are under thirty years – will see through the charade of this fake toughness. Interestingly, it is these young people that all parties need to encourage to vote. Maybe if we addressed this issue appropriately (and sensibly) younger people might consider voting for us? Proper policy implementation in the realm of drugs use may lead to both better treatment of addicts and less apathy on voting day.

Polly Toynbee’s column in the Guardian today is a typical rant about uncaring Conservatives cutting local services to the poor. She also took time to restate her support for Gordon Brown, remarkably claiming that he had achieved his economic ‘golden rule’ thoughout his tenure, “with only minor goal-post shunting”!

I try to read Ms Toynbee’s political rants as often as possible, if only to reaffirm my belief that it is the centre right of politics that truly (and honestly) serves the interests of all Britons. Ms Toynbee’s target today was the honourable endeavour of Conservative-run councils to lessen the burden of local taxation, a burden shared by the great majority. I have written on the subject of council tax previously. Ms Toynbee attacked the desire to lower taxes as being indefensible, since in her eyes, any cut in tax would lead to a cut in essential services, citing examples from Hammersmith and Croydon.

According to Polly, the Conservatives do not care for the poor, disabled and elderly. In Polly’s world, caring equates to state spending, even though the last ten years have given us all ample evidence of the ineffectiveness of state intervention, e.g. the NHS, reduced social mobility, etc.. What actually works are policies that encourage and support personal responsibility and local activism. Many Conservative Party members are actively involved in local charities and are members of school boards. It is this community participation that effects real change in communities and provides the service and care that Ms Toynbee so wants for the poor and disadvantaged. Just because the money (and time) comes from individuals, as opposed to the state, does not make it any less worthy.

I could accept Ms Toynbee’s constant rants against Conservatism if she practised what she preached. Like her, I was educated at a selective school. Like her, if I had children, I might choose a private education for them. And what is more, if I had the personal wealth to afford a second home in the Mediterranean like Ms Toynbee, I might very well choose to own one. The difference is that I am member of a political party that encourages that choice. I am a member of a party that truly believes in rewarding merit, and one that honestly accepts that because of the inherent competition between people, that there will always be winners and losers in life. That honesty also explains why we Conservatives believe that lowering the tax burden on the poorest and less successful in society is a moral good. Hence, my support for any council that lowers local taxation.

Ms Toynbee is clearly a hypocrite. She does, however, serve one purpose – to highlight the need for the Conservative Party to be actively seeking policies that will benefit the less well-off in our country. Conservatives have a moral duty to create a society in which these people can live securely, safe in the belief that with hard work and talent, rich rewards will follow. If a future Conservative government sets about improving social mobility levels, it will have gone a long way to proving that the poor in society will always be better off under a Conservative administration. The Labour Party’s raison d’etre will have then been removed. Where will you go then Ms Toynbee? Your villa?