Tuesday's speeches at Conservative Party Conference—what was said?

At this year’s Conservative Party conference ministers were expected to pull together, eschewing glitzy and dramatic announcements that promoted their own briefs (and careers), in favour of a coherent message. That message was that the Conservative Party will, under Theresa May, create a “society that works for everyone.” This was certainly on display today in speeches from Michael Fallon, Liz Truss, Amber Rudd, Damian Green, Jeremy Hunt and Justine Greening. There was much to please traditional Conservatives, some policies designed to appeal to UKIP supporters, and a few hints of a Cameroon modernising agenda. These last notes, though, were fitted into an overall project which stresses above all talent, motivation and opportunity. May and others like Damian Green want to emphasise compassion, but a belief in the value of competition, talent and hard work was perhaps more evident at Conference today.

Over the weekend, Green announced the policy most designed to signal the government’s new commitment to compassion in their approach to benefits: people with lifelong, severe conditions with no chance of improvement will not have to undergo reassessment every six months to show they are still too unwell to work. This is an important move, and today Green built on it by shifting away from the abrasive rhetoric that Iain Duncan Smith often used to talk about benefit claimants and welfare dependency. This language suggested that a punitive approach needed to be taken towards the unemployed. The change in rhetoric is important, but cuts to benefits remain in place, as does the benefits cap—we are yet to see if the new rhetoric will lead to real, significant policy change in this area.

In education, major policy change has already been floated under May. Justine Greening’s speech was always going to attract much attention. Greening is generally seen as sceptical of the value of grammar schools, and indeed was comprehensive-educated. Yet today she had to argue for the expansion of grammar schools, a policy which has quickly come to define May’s pitch as Prime Minister. Ditching the obsession with grammar schools was a key part of the modernisation of the Tory party. Cameron saw it as key to showing the country that the Tories were forward-looking, not intent on returning to some imagined golden age of British society (before multiculturalism and social liberalism). May hopes grammar schools can stand as a symbol of her distinctive approach to government: as a symbol of what talent, hard work, and opportunity can together deliver. (She also hopes to appeal to UKIP voters, who tend to strongly support the return of grammars.) May and Greening’s task is to try to make grammar schools seem forward-looking.

Greening emphasised that May’s priority was that the Conservatives needed to work “to make our country one that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.” Yet there is overwhelming evidence that grammar schools never delivered equal opportunities to all children; indeed, there is some evidence they can increase levels of inequality. Probably Greening’s most important message was that this is “not a return to the eleven plus”—the exam is widely known to favour middle-class children. Instead Greening painted a picture of what she hopes will appear as a “modernised” grammar-school system, with schools “working much harder” at ensuring disadvantaged pupils attend them, helping to improve other schools in their areas, and admitting children at different ages. Greening announced a range of other policies: continuing to encourage academies and free schools, improving technical education, and providing funding to improve opportunities for young people in six new “Opportunity Areas.” But May’s government will probably be judged in the end on grammar schools more than any other area of education policy.

The NHS, too, was key to Cameron’s modernised Conservative Party image, and in Jeremy Hunt’s speech, it was clear that he and May know the importance of showing that the NHS is “safe in their hands.” Hunt celebrated the Tories’ increases to the NHS budget, but wanted, too, to argue that the NHS has major flaws, citing statistic and anecdote to try to rally support behind new reforms. In particular, Hunt is still fighting the longrunning battle over the “seven day NHS” and the new contracts for junior doctors needed to make it a reality. Hunt took a sideswipe at junior doctors who have argued that the government’s claim that a “seven day NHS” is needed to ensure more people don’t die unnecessarily at weekends is based on problematic evidence: “let’s not argue about statistics” he told them. He also floated new policies, though. First, he suggested that the NHS needs a culture change, where people learn from mistakes rather than fearing litigation if they admit failings. And second, he announced a new plan for mental health services, a priority that comes from May and fits into her stress on compassionate Conservatism. Whether this plan will do what is needed to address the major shortfalls in funding for mental health services, though, awaits to be seen.

Hunt also touched on the question of immigration, pledging to train more doctors and make the NHS self-sufficient. Immigration was central, too, to Amber Rudd’s speech, which was full of policy proposals and announcements, and focused above all on cutting immigration. This was a speech designed to put at rest the minds of those who voted for Brexit because they wanted immigration to be lower. Rudd said the government was committed to reducing net migration to “tens of thousands.” She suggested that they might “tighten” the test companies must take before recruiting foreign workers, and restrict visa opportunities for those on “lower quality” courses in higher education. She also announced a new £140m “controlling migration fund,” which will be designed to ease pressures on public services in areas of high immigration, but also to crack down on illegal immigration. There were few notes of “compassionate Conservatism” or modernisation here.

On the other hand, Liz Truss’s speech struck various modernising notes; she announced that she would be continuing with the prison reforms that Michael Gove began as Secretary of State for Justice. In particular, Truss focused on rehabilitation and education as ways to give prisoners new opportunities in life, and to break the cycle of criminality. She also stressed that there should be more diversity in the judiciary (the Supreme Court has only one woman, and no ethnic minority members). It remains to be seen, however, whether the money to make rehabilitation the heart of prisons’ work will be forthcoming; and it is not clear what new measures Truss plans to put in place to improve the diversity of the judiciary, when the Judicial Appointments Commission has been working with an explicit brief to achieve this goal since 2006.

Michael Fallon effectively linked his defence brief with “a vision of a country that works for everyone.” He hit hard at Jeremy Corbyn for opposing the renewal of Trident, on grounds of security, but also job creation. In Fallon’s speech, the defence forces emerged as a force for good in British society in a multitude of ways: providing apprenticeships and skills; different paths to success for those who got little from school; developing what earlier generations of Tories would have called “character,” and what Fallon gestured towards as “British values.” This was a speech to appeal to the party faithful, but Fallon also sounded a few modernising notes, particularly when he announced that he wanted at least 10 per cent of new recruits to come from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds by 2020, and that all combat roles should be open to women. There were some parts of a modernising project here, firmly marshalled behind a rhetoric of “talent,” not “tokenism,” and opportunity for all. That was the message of many of the speeches on display today.