The crisis in Georgia should focus all our minds. It is a terrible tragedy with innocent people being killed and forced to leave their homes. Convoys of refugees in Europe are a sight that no one wants to see. We should condemn the Russian retaliation as utterly disproportionate and never forget the human aspect of what is happening.

And then we should take a deep breathe and think about what we say very carefully.

There is an obvious temptation to reach for evermore hyperbolic phrases to condemn Russia’s actions. Talk of Russian Bears and echoes of cold-war politics are flying around the blogsphere.

But this is not the cold war.

We must not confuse the Kremlin in 2008 with the Kremlin in 1978. The Soviet Union and today’s Russia are very different. That is not to say that Russia is not driven by its own national interests; just that there is no ideological desire to expand its philosophy across the world.

Also, it is too simplistic to dismiss the trouble in South Ossetia as a battle for a pipeline. It is about Russia being strong enough to assert its influence in an area next to its borders.

Clearly it shouldn’t have crossed its borders, and shouldn’t be bombing in the way it is but this does not mean we are seeing a return to a Russian Bear threatening global thermonuclear war.

The best analysis comes this morning from William Rees-Mogg in The Times. Forgive me if I quote two important paragraphs:  

“The new Russia of Vladimir Putin is nationalist in the old tsarist fashion, and is determined to protect Russian interests. In the 1990s, the Yeltsin years, Russia could not assert these traditional Russian positions, because it was too weak. They are being reasserted now, and this reassertion is backed by Russia’s growing importance as a provider of oil and gas.”

“Russia probably lacks the economic or population base to maintain Putinism in world competition. The US may well have another generation as the leading world power, but its lead is narrowing. Europe has not resolved the cultural differences of its membership. China and India are emerging superpowers. But these groupings are almost as uncertain as the European powers were in 1914, and the scarcity of future energy supplies makes them feel insecure.”

In a world shrouded in such uncertainty, we need caution. This is a site about Tory politics, so in that spirit, we should applaud William Hague’s cautious language on this subject.

In all the coverage I’ve seen about the Labour leadership this weekend (most of it highlighted on Conservative Home) one name has been conspicuously absent: Tony Blair. You remember. Nice Young Man. Used to run the country.

Let me share with you a theory from a friend of mine who is well connected in the Labour Party. He believes the future of Gordon Brown depends on the former PM. His argument runs like this:

The only way to persuade Gordon to go voluntarily (and privately) is if enough cabinet ministers see him at once and threaten to resign (the Polly Toynbee theory). But getting 10 cabinet ministers to agree to do that – privately – is virtually impossible. Almost certainly, if anyone tried to organise such a coup, they would be found out and the plot would be undone.

So that means one of the big beasts has to move more publically and on their own. Think of Geoffrey Howe’s devastating attack on Margaret Thatcher from the backbenches. But is there anyone in the Labour Cabinet with that authority? The only person would be Jack Straw, who must harbour ambitions on the job himself. He knows that if he wields the fatal blow, he would never get to be leader. Anyone else would be terminating their political career (which rules out Alistair Darling and David Miliband).

But if you introduce Tony Blair to the political chessboard, you can build a completely different scenario.

Blair is a Labour loyalist. He will not want to see the party destroyed by the Conservatives at the next election, and so must be keen for a leadership change. He has the opportunity to intervene and deliver the final – devastating – blow to Gordon’s authority from outside.

He could simply comment on the importance of having a leader who could survive in “this media age” and the job would be done. If he then provided the cover to the first candidate to emerge once pressure became too much for Brown then that candidate could go all the way.

And who would Tony Blair want to see in Number 10? Step forward David Miliband: the real “heir to Blair”.

No political party, once it gets into office, will continue to be Eurosceptic: thus reads Dan Hannan’s first rule of Government. But what will that mean should the Tories win in 2010?

Let’s jump forward a few years and imagine a couple of days in the life of Michael Minister MP. In the days following David Cameron’s victory he gets a phone call from Number 10, appointing him to a junior role in the Ministry for Administrative Affairs. At last, the chance to exercise real power!

Michael is – of course – a committed Eurosceptic. He cheered from the sidelines while John Redwood took on John Major in the 1990s, and only backed Dave in 2005 after he committed to taking the Tories out of the EPP. He was disappointed that the MEPs didn’t agree, but he kept criticisms quiet. Loyalty is a worthy trait; and he knew if he got into power he could finally do something about it.

The second phone call is from a friendly chap called Tom, the new minister’s Private Secretary. He is – of course – excited to be working with Mr Minister, and looks forward to meeting him. Unfortunately, this won’t be in the office; but on the train to Brussels. Yes, the first day in the life of Michael Minister is to be spent at the European Council. He will be briefed on the Eurostar.

For Michael, this is good news: finally a chance to say no, no, no to whatever bureaucratic madness is being thought up. Unfortunately, political reality has another idea.

Michael is to discuss further reform of farm subsidies and the effect on regional development aid. The French have agreed to moderate farming reform, if they can get a change in the rules on how deprived areas are defined. The Germans are completely opposed to the reform, as their agri-businesses are quite happy with the way things are. The Dutch – who are about to take on the EU Presidency – are keen for a quick deal before they are in office and their plans for high-speed rail links are completely overshadowed. The list goes on.

“Now Minister,” declares Tom as they sip coffee on the train to Brussels. “We in the UK want to see the moderate reform take place. It will provide cash for social policies in inner cities (which could be distributed to community groups) and reduce the bureaucratic burden on farmers. But, that will mean signing up with the French and siding with them on vehicle emission standards. If we don’t get a deal, then our farmers will still drown in red tape from Brussels and – given the current economic situation – it is unlikely you will be able to fund those drug centres in Newcastle.”

“So you want me to do a deal with the French?” asks our incredulous minister. “What if I refuse?”

“Well, minister that would be a very brave decision. A whole host of other business is dependent on this draft directive, and you will need to discuss the implications of a change in policy with your colleagues in DEFRA, DWP, DCSF, DFT and – of course – Treasury,” Tom listed. “Oh look, we’ve arrived in Brussels.”

———————————————————————————————————————–
I could go on, but this is a blog and not a novel. Nevertheless, the experience of Michael Minister is not a fantasy. EU negotiations are complex. It is impossible to go into Brussels with an agenda that says “we are not going to play”. If that happens, then the EU will grind to a halt and the UK economy will suffer.

I am not arguing that change in the EU is not needed. It is just that achieving that change will not be easy. It will be time consuming and will demand a lot of partnership building with other countries and other leaders. It will also need compromise. Perhaps that is why it is impossible for a Government to be Eurosceptic?

A few weeks ago an environmental sceptic told me that “green” was now a dead issue. He confidently asserted that all my “tree hugging” was now futile when people were worried about their finances and their mortgages.

Yet today, we have the Prime Minister warning about the shocking amount of food wasted every year and launching the findings of his review into the sustainability of biofuels. Both of these are essentially environmental issues.

You cannot divorce the environment from economics: whether it is the taxes placed on a litre of petrol, or the perverse incentives that make “buy one get one free” popular in the supermarket (encouraging us to buy food we don’t want and probably won’t eat). Both are issues important to the household budget AND to the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

It is precisely because times are tough that it makes sense to economise and stop wasting food. The environmental effects of wasting less should be obvious. Equally, the high price of oil is a reality that changes how much petrol we use in our cars, and so reduces pollution.

The environment can only benefit from the most efficient use of resources possible, and right now it seems that that is what everyone is arguing for. We might not get agreement at the G8 on a global deal on CO2 emissions, but at least the terms of debate have changed. 

Whatever you do, don’t look at your pension statement (if you have one). Unless you are very lucky, it will make torrid reading. With the FTSE 100 down nearly 700 points in just a few months, oil prices set to climb even further, and house prices stalled, it is terrifying times for your average voter.

The seeming inevitability of a Tory victory seen in recent weeks cannot be divorced from the economic turbulence to hit on Brown’s watch. Certainly the botched election and politicking during the 2007 Conference didn’t help, but when average punters see their savings disappear then any doubts about political leadership disappear. This has cemented feelings about Brown rather than anything else.

Brown might be hoping things turn around economically before 2010 but this is unlikely to improve his poll ratings. Under John Major the economy was well on its way to success when the 1997 election was called; but that wasn’t enough to save the Tories. Voters had taken away their trust in the Conservatives’ ability to manage the economy and they weren’t going to give it back. Labour merely had to look competent, and not mess things up, to keep their popularity.

Does that mean the fight is over? Of course not: nothing can be taken for granted in politics. It does mean, however, that Cameron should start to take his 21% lead out for a spin and explain again and again his vision for the changes needed to Britain.

We saw some of it over the past few weeks – especially the green speech a couple of weeks ago – but I wonder how much of it is getting through to the public. This process is going to have to continue if Cameron is to have a mandate to effect real change once he gets to Number 10.

The fractious relationship with the press comes into play here. The Tories must be very careful about playing to the prejudices of the national newspapers. Sure, they don’t want editorials condemning every speech from the Shadow Cabinet, but they must ensure the papers understand that change is coming.

It is about political space. Unless he marks out that space now, he won’t be able to do anything if he wins the next election. That will take guts and determination, and – just possibly – being seen as unpopular. Clearly he won’t want to jeopordise actually winning, but it might be better to win a majority of 50 seats with the space to make change, than to win a majority of over 100 with nowhere to go.