When I read this morning about Brown and his failed attempt to appear on Match of the Day I tried hard to feel the contempt for his cynical PR ploy that the newspapers suggested I feel. Instead I felt a strange kind of admiration for such blatant opportunism and the willingness of the PM and his PR team to grasp at anything to hitch a ride on the political zeitgeist of popular-cultural integration. As we all know, this is a technique pioneered by Blair and elevated by Cameron in his early years as leader of the Conservative party to a fine art. Despite the cynicism of parts of the media, it has been very successful in winning over the ordinary punter – something that both parties need to be doing to turn around a legacy of low turn-out in UK elections.

The fact is, I admire Brown in this case because, rather than seeing it as a desperate stunt, I believe that in politics the counter-intuitive often works. Sarah Brown’s stewardship of London Fashion Week was completely unexpected when it first took place a couple of years ago. But in the opinions of many it has turned her into Brown’s greatest asset. If Samantha had done the same thing, it would have made no impact at all on David Cameron’s reputation.  Although the Match of the Day attempt may not have worked, more broadly this approach is where Brown might have the edge over Cameron. Brown is perceived as impersonal and awkward, but what if Brown’s faltering style and capacity for PR blunders make him the perfect candidate to build a campaign around his ‘everyday life’? I wouldn’t be surprised if we see at some point during the campaign another Match of the Day style PR attempt for Brown suddenly strike the right chord and have a real impact on his hither-to un-glittering profile as a figure of public empathy.

Based on the counter-intuitive premise, it follows that Cameron’s excellence at using this technique in the past might make the public more cynical about any carefully choreographed PR moments he is planning in the next six weeks. The air-brushing accusations and the android connotations all make this ground trickier for him in the future and my feeling is that Cameron should be careful that he is not seen as trying to emulate his success of a few years ago when he was seen as a star-in-waiting rather than as the possible Prime Minister in a few weeks time. Cameron may well therefore be sensible to steer away from a very ‘lifestyle’ focused campaign and concentrate on winning over the doubters with a serious straight campaign that delivers some really meaty policies – and indeed recognises the public as having the intellectual metal to deal with these.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Isabella Sharp

Governments are under enormous pressure especially in Britain where both main political parties are pressing for immigration to be an issue at the next general election with a race to the bottom of who can impose the strictest controls. They face conflicting pressures: significant levels of resistance to increased immigration in public opinion on the one hand, and sound economic and social rationales for the relaxation of entry barriers on the other. By creating a true property-owning democracy, Margaret Thatcher ensured that the vast majority of us have an active interest in a Conservative ideology. A masterstroke. What we must not allow to happen is the likes of Nick Griffin redefining the narrative – contrary to the evidence – around immigration.

The massive inflows associated with European Union accession led neither to the displacement of local workers nor to increased unemployment in the UK. Simulations following the European Union accessions of 2004 suggest that output levels in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which allowed large-scale inflows from the new member states of Eastern Europe, would be 0.5–1.5 percent higher after about a decade, and the net fiscal figure for the United Kingdom at the present time is ± 0.65 percent of GDP. Given that the recovery of our economy is so fragile, it would be madness to place more restrictions on immigration, and it isn’t the reason we have a legion of NEET’s across the country – it’s Labour’s failure in education that has let a generation of young people down.

It is easy to make cheap platitudinous statements defending the Labour government’s abysmal record in education (remember its slogan Education, education, education), but the hard work of the pupils and teachers is irrelevant if it is directed (by the government) toward means that give them and the country so little benefit.

Can anyone say that more choice, more competition, more efficiency, more responsiveness to parents and more resources spent on actual teaching wouldn’t be the best thing to do? Because that’s what would happen under a Conservative Government.

Students don’t get suitable careers advice and end up not picking suitable A-Levels for their choice of university/career/life simply because no-one told them what the implications of their choice were. Can anyone tell me how Conservative policy isn’t the right thing to do instead?

The Labour party’s response to the crisis in education is simply to extend the pain by raising the school leaving age in an attempt to delay the consequences of their failure to live up to expectations they set in 1997. As a way to improve educational standards, and to act as a cure for unemployment evidence shows this to be suspect. Is it any surprise that social mobility has decreased under Labour?

We have the plans to fix a broken education system, it’s time to tell that to the people on the doorsteps. We must not pander to populist calls for more restrictions on immigration.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Thomas Byrne; you can visit his personal blog here

A nervous crowd alighted on Brighton this weekend, and rightly so as polls put Labour ahead in terms of seats won. There was frustration on the part of delegates attending: ‘what does Time for Change mean if we don’t know what the change is?’ one asked. In discussions overheard at fringes and in corridors one could hear a collective sigh at the prospect that this election may echo those of recent years and that the Conservatives might not be able to see it through after all.

However, despite the stakes that rested on Cameron’s speech on Sunday afternoon, there was some reason to be positive. A more low-key and relaxed atmosphere than at October’s conference meant that there was room to discuss and debate openly the prospect of a hung Parliament, what this might mean for the Conservatives and how to avoid it.

It is of course vital that the Conservatives prepare themselves for all eventualities following the election. Being aware that a hung Parliament may not necessarily involve a Conservative-led government is an important element of this. The Liberal Democrats are holding their cards close to their chest at the moment and could find themselves in a position of extraordinary power both during the formation of a coalition government and in the coming months when they could force constitutional reform to maintain and stabilise their position in the centre.

These are sobering thoughts for the committed Tory delegate but could this prospect provide the spur that Conservatives need? The October conference resonated with the fear of losing hold of what was a substantial lead in the polls and it was almost as if the Conservative leadership were afraid to ruin it by taking the risks needed to push their campaign one direction or other. Now that the Conservatives feel under the kosh, they conversely have less to lose by throwing in everything they can and not being afraid to outline concrete ideas. By rolling up their sleeves to fight a very real threat from Labour and the Lib Dems they more likely to be able to win the election than by trying to maintain a shining image as a ‘government in waiting’.

It is from honest debate as seen at moments this weekend, rather than the polished pr of the October conference, that a real plan of action can surely emerge. The question to ask is: is it too late?

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Isabella Sharp

One of the aims of this website, when it was first created, was to be a forum to find conservative methods to reach progressive ends. Taxes should be cut from the bottom up and public expenditure reduced from the top down. Labour has failed to break the UK poverty trap.  It is the duty of a Conservative government not to let the same thing happen again and prove to the country that they are the real progressive force in British Politics.

Raising the personal allowance to £12,000 would take 7 million low-paid workers out of the income tax net altogether. People working full time or less on the minimum wage would pay no income tax at all. This tax cut would put at least £20bn per year back into people’s pockets (according to real life figures), allowing considerable additional spending and investment in the economy.

This is the key to overcoming recession and restoring economic growth. As well as stimulating the economy by giving people more disposable income to spend and invest, raising the personal allowance to £12,000 would strengthen incentives to work, help to eliminate the ‘poverty trap’ and make low-paid jobs more economic – greatly increasing opportunities for the unemployed, and a step towards enhanced social mobility.

Often people find that as they start working, they both pay tax and lose benefits, leaving them little better off than they were before. Indeed, the effective marginal tax rates for people moving from benefits to low-paid jobs can be close to 100 percent. These proposals would change that.

The cost in tax revenue to put in place this proposal into place would be between £20bn and £30bn.  Cuts must be avoided in areas that would otherwise adversely affect the poor in relation to the financial gains due to be made from the substantial increase of the Tax Free allowance, which are as follows:

• Scrap the Bus Service Operators’ Grant. 
• Suspend further orders and upgrades for the Eurofighter. 
• Reduce the government advertising and publicity budget by half 
• Halve public sector spending on consultants. 
• Slim down the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). 
• Rationalise the framework of regional business support.
• Cut 25 per cent from the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
• Abolish the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT).  

I believe that this proposal is genuinely progressive and genuinely Conservative.  It will do more for the poor in twelve months than the Labour Party has done in twelve years

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Thomas Byrne; a more detailed version of this article can be found on his personal blog. Thomas is building on a previous article on this website.

This year’s British American Project (BAP) conference in Edinburgh focused on Sustainability and Development. At a time when the world is facing a crisis in terms of global warming and depleting natural resources, this conference could not have come at a better time. As some of the leaders of tomorrow it is imperative that we instigate debate and pool ideas as to what we as individuals and collectively should and could be doing.

I organised a panel debate for this year’s conference, simply because I didn’t want the conference theme to be solely about the planet (climate change and the green agenda). In my world of Social Firms it is also about people. I’m forever talking about the need to create sustainable, paid jobs for people who are too far removed from the open labour market to compete in the mainstream. These are mainly people with mental health problems, learning disabilities, other disabilities, ex-offenders (90% of whom have one mental health problem and 70% apparently have two), homeless people and ex-drug and substance abusers.

Alan Baker & Paul Miller, Brighter Future Workshop

Mental illness is the common denominator within the latter groups. Add this to their situation and they don’t stand a hope in hell of getting a job with the average employer (according to a recent survey, 60% of employers admitted they wouldn’t consider employing someone who’d had a mental health problem²). The jobs aren’t there for individuals facing such significant barriers to employment – especially now other job seekers have risen in numbers and ability. It is surely wrong to consign more than a million people who grapple with these disadvantages on a daily basis – yet who want to work – to the scrapheap of unemployment for the rest of their lives. It is simply not a sustainable route forward.

This is where the ‘development’ bit comes in – Social Firms are market-led businesses that compete in the open market but which are set up specifically to create paid, sustainable employment for people with severe disadvantages. These are businesses which re-invest their profits back into achieving their social mission of creating jobs for people who would otherwise struggle to get work. A quarter of the workforce needs to be employed from this group if they are going to be regarded as a Social Firm. We have printers, website design companies, guest houses, travel agencies, recycling companies, contract gardeners and caterers….market opportunities are seized for social good.

It works too! We’ve grown the number of Social Firms from 5 in 1996 to more than 170 today and all without any central Government intervention. My message is: imagine what more we could do to help our economy save money and sustain our communities if we managed to co-ordinate some support from Government in order to grow the number of Social Firm businesses.

For someone to be really empowered economically and socially they need to have a paid job. There’s no point creating short term, unsustainable jobs to help people with multiple disadvantages move into employment; the groups we’re talking about need ongoing support to enable them to maximise their own potential within the workplace. But one thing’s clear – this support is still cheaper than that person being unemployed for the rest of their lives. The tangible benefits that this has for both the individual and society far outweigh the investment in this model as a sustainable option.

The guesthouse in Edinburgh, for example, alone saves the NHS approximately £21k per year for every person with a mental health problem that they employ within the business. Collectively, all the Social Firms and emerging Social Firms in the UK save the Government approximately £30m in benefits alone because of who they create employment for. Let’s remember that otherwise, these individuals are more likely to be unemployed than in an open labour market job because of the complexity of their support needs.

Nathan Dobie & Mick Parker, CREATE Liverpool

Social Firms are one type of social enterprise and the simplest definition for social enterprise is ‘any business that trades for a social and/or environmental purpose’. They reinvest their profits back into meeting this purpose and whilst the specific purpose of Social Firms is to create paid jobs for severely disadvantaged people, other types of social enterprises have a very broad variety of missions. So the Eden Project is a social enterprise, for example, as is Café Direct and Coin Street Community Builders on London’s South Bank…all with their own particular mission. What links them, however, is a drive to tackle social or environmental issues through enterprise and beyond a doubt this has got to be the most sustainable route to improving the world in which we all live.

I am passionate about the value of social enterprise (and of course Social Firms in particular) to this country and indeed the world. It was a privilege to be able to bring this passion to the BAP conference in Edinburgh via my panellists talking about the question of sustainability and development – it certainly sparked debate throughout the few days that we were all together.

So find out more about social enterprise – you can’t help but be inspired. Here are just some websites to whet your appetite and help your learning – or you could just pick up the phone and talk to me!

Social Enterprise Coalition: www.socialenterprise.org.uk

Social Firms UK: www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk

National Visit Programme: www.visitsocialenterprise.co.uk

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Sally Reynolds, CEO, Social Firms UK. If you would like to talk to Sally, she is happy for us to share her phone number so please email us at info @ platform10.org