A Tory party at odds with its own voters David Cameron has arrived back from his tour of Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Burma having done some useful and important work on behalf of Britain. His visits should help to strengthen our trade with nations where British companies, despite historic links, have been slow to expand their interests. The Prime Minister is an effective ambassador for his country. The sincere and persuasive belief in the quality of British products that he expresses in his article overleaf is welcome after the half-heartedness of Gordon Brown, his predecessor, who often managed to convey not just a lack of interest, but a profound disdain for the business of improving Britain's trade. Regardless of his success abroad, however, Mr Cameron has come home to some of the sharpest criticism his premiership has faced, criticism that has every chance of turning into permanent dissatisfaction with his leadership and with the direction the Coalition is taking. It is now clear that the Government has adopted two policies which do not make sense either financially or politically. One, which appeared in last month's Budget, is the policy of diminishing the tax breaks for charitable giving; the other, which derives from the "Green Deal" adopted by the Coalition, is to force householders who wish to improve or repair their homes to spend thousands of pounds on insulation. Let us start by examining the reduction in the level of tax breaks for charitable giving. Encouraging philanthropy is at the core of what Mr Cameron insists is his most significant political idea: the Big Society. At its heart is the realisation that the state is not the same as society, and that many of the roles that have been taken on by Big Government should start to be assumed by concerned citizens acting together. In order to provide any sort of substitute at all for the state's services - whether it be organising a school, or a service to deliver meals to old people - private individuals, of course, need resources. Where will that money come from? If not the state (and the Big Society is based on the premise that the state is not necessarily the best provider), then it must come from private charity. So what on earth are the Conservatives doing embracing a policy that will actively discourage charitable giving? For there can be no doubt that that will be the principal effect of capping the amount donated to charity that is subject to tax relief. In all the reports and interviews we publish today, people who have given substantial sums to charity are unanimous: if this policy stays, they will give less. No adequate justification for the new policy has been given. Its purported aim is to close a loophole that allows very rich people to avoid paying their fair share of tax. But no evidence has been adduced to support this claim; no numbers have been provided. In fact, charitable giving is not a particularly effective form of tax avoidance, and if that were a rich person's only goal, he or she would not give millions of pounds to charity. We ask the question again: why have the Conservatives adopted a policy that goes against everything they stand for, and which punishes exactly the kind of people they insist they wish to encourage - wealth creators who demonstrate a sense of social responsibility by giving generously to charity? Such people, incidentally, are often Conservative supporters - or were, until they were branded as "tax dodgers." This measure does not appear to have been thought through and, as we report today, the first signs are emerging that it will be significantly watered down. The Government will not admit to a U-turn, but there are plans to introduce a series of caveats whose effect will be to soften the policy. It would have been easier not to introduce it in the first place. The same can be said of the decision to force anyone thinking of repairing their house or building a conservatory to insulate their walls and loft in order to ensure that the property is "low carbon." This policy is, admittedly, a consequence of Labour's absurd commitment to reduce Britain's carbon output by 80 per cent in 40 years. But the Tories endorsed that commitment: only three Conservative MPs voted against the Bill that became the 2008 Climate Change Act. Mr Cameron himself promised to lead "the greenest ever government" - so he can hardly blame the Lib Dems for this measure. But it promises to be electoral suicide. Many homeowners who pride themselves on improving their properties are Tory voters. But they might change their minds when they see how much the green agenda of this Conservative-led Coalition is going to cost them. These two policies need to be abandoned. If they are not, there is a real risk that the Conservatives" reputation for competence will suffer irreparable damage.