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.

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”.

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?

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. 

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.

18 months later, and we can again see some light between press releases from the business lobby and the speeches made by the Conservative leader. On two critical issues, David Cameron has put the Tories in opposition to the CBI. He has all but ruled out the expansion of Heathrow Airport (wanting a “better not bigger” airport) and continues his opposition to key elements of the planning bill.

This difference with big business will not be lost on the strategists in CCHQ and – now – California. They know what they are doing and it shows the Tories commitment to the “post-bureaucratic age”.

Let’s unpack this a bit further. All organisations, be them NGOs or corporations, have agendas. They ruthlessly push their view of the world. In our media-led world, with paid lobbyists inside every organisation, they will position themselves in the best light to get the results they want. But this doesn’t mean you should accept everything they say. The CBI set themselves up as the “voice of business”, trying to sound like an independent reasonable commentator on events. In fact, they will ruthlessly lobby for the interests of their members (it is what they are paid to do after all); and if they don’t get their way, they will paint a picture of doom and gloom for industry designed to send a shudder through the spines of politicians.

The CBI is a good organisation, and you should listen with absolute respect to what they say, but that is not the same as doing everything they ask. Likewise, I accept that Cameron won’t do everything I lobby for in my professional capacity. The trick is to listen to what you are told, by business or NGOs, and map it to your political ideology.

That is all Cameron is doing. He is not trying to make the UK uncompetitive, nor does he want to stop companies making money. He is simply showing that in the “post-bureaucratic” age things might be done differently.

Bold stuff, when many commentators say green is a dead political issue. They declare the downturn is a definitive reason to ditch policies they find inherently distasteful. But problems of the environment and sustainability won’t disappear just because the housing market is in trouble.

In fact the science tells us things are even worse than many people dared think possible, and that carbon reduction targets we need are even more ambitious. The world continues to move inexorably towards a global deal on CO2 emissions, something which will directly effect our position in international trade; and whatever we think of the EU, there are ambitious legally binding targets coming on renewable energy and emissions trading. 

This is a subject which will dominate politics over the next couple of decades. Cameron can no more ignore this, than he can pretend we don’t have soldiers dying in Afghanistan. It is a reality which he has to address.  

If he is to lead on the subject, and not just follow, then he will be aided by what I see as the fundamental themes of green Conservatives. 

Firstly, Green-Cons (if I may coin a phrase) recognise that environmentalism is not just about climate change. I don’t want to understate the importance of tackling CO2 emissions, but sustainability means so much more. Just consider the global perspective. Population growth could see 10 billion people on the planet within a few decades. If everyone consumed as we do in the UK then we would need three planets to live on. Being sustainable doesn’t just mean reducing carbon (although that can be a direct benefit). It means reducing waste, looking after the natural environment, curbing activities which damage biodiversity, and – yes – planting more trees.

Secondly, they understand the need for localism as part of the solution. Too much climate policy is set by political elites locked away in international conference rooms and Whitehall departments. It is no surprise that individuals are suspicious of new costs imposed from remote authorities with no reference to local conditions. It is much better to work with local councils and community groups to discover and deliver the schemes themselves. When it is made easy – such as Wandsworth’s recycling scheme – then people want to take part. 

Finally, they are clear that incentives rather than penalties are the best way to encourage changes in behaviour. Too many policies are built on punishment rather than inducement. For example – Council Tax rebates for energy efficiency measure is better than stealth taxes dressed up as green taxes.
Today’s speech shows that Green Conservatism hasn’t gone away. This is a grown-up recognition of the reality of the world.

Last week I said that this vote could be Brown’s “put up or shut up” moment; today the papers are reporting Labour whips talking up this possibility:

“All sides admit the vote will be tight – with the government possibly having to rely on the nine Democratic Unionist MPs – prompting Labour whips to warn rebel MPs that they could be responsible for ending Gordon Brown’s premiership. Some senior whips are even said to be telling rebel Labour MPs that defeat for the prime minister on Wednesday could set David Miliband on the way to No 10 by Thursday.”

When the Prime Minister depends on the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party it’s hard to see how Brown ends up the victor. If he wins the vote with DUP support – and a massive backbench rebellion – he will have done nothing to secure his position. He will still look out of touch with his party. If he loses (as he may) then clearly he will be even weaker. It is politically inept to get into this position.  

How did it come too this? Brown probably does believe it is an important part of the war on terror. He must have been doubly delighted to discover it was a popular policy (re-enforced by the Sunday Telegraph’s recent ICM poll which showed 65% of the public support increasing limits). A popular policy that was also the right thing to do!

But politics doesn’t work like that. The Tories learnt this on immigration. Simply calling for ever tougher immigration schemes (as seemingly popular as these were) didn’t do anything to help increase the party’s political appeal. It was if, despite the polls, these policies (and the tone with which they were presented) didn’t reflect the values of the British people. Somehow, they went against the grain.

The same is true of plans for 42 days detention. Pollsters will tell you to be careful about taking headline numbers out of context, and I think the ICM figures of 65% need to be carefully judged. After all, the same poll shows that more people think the Tories are tough on terror than Labour, even though the Party opposes the 42 day policy.

Whatever happens on Wednesday (and I bet he wins in the Commons before it goes to the Lords for more trouble), it is hard to see how Brown can really win. He is basically out of touch.

“… I am no longer prepared to tolerate the present situation. In short, it is time to put up or shut up.”

Today, Gordon Brown is basically doing exactly the same thing. Having delivered a series of concessions to his backbenchers he now sees the need to face them down and actually win on the issue of 42 days detention.

It is – of course – a shame that he is choosing to play vicious party politics with a measure we simply don’t need; but it is more telling of his politics that he is reduced to playing dare with his backbenchers.
If he flinches first then he is politically dead. To that end, I am not sure I agree with Nick Robinson’s assessment of Ed Ball’s comments this morning. Politics has a way of ascribing its own importance after the event.

If he wins, he will probably win back enough authority to struggle onto a General Election.
When will someone open a book on this?

This puts the Conservative front bench under a new set of pressures. In opposition it is all too easy to see serious policy making as a luxury which must be subverted under the daily pressure of the media battle. But heading into Government means policies must work for more people than just the editor of the Daily Mail. They must stack up against the Civil Service and NGOs.  

The Civil Service is a venerable institution, and in the UK we can rightly be proud of our mandarins. They work on areas of detail and implementation which leaves most completely cold. While they are politically independent, they obviously hold a collective view on the right solutions to problems. They operate at a level of detail which can undermine all but the most coherent policy proposal. Meanwhile, NGOs will increasingly look at the real consequences of policy announcements and not simply welcome policies that apply political pressure to the incumbent Government.

The Tories now, perhaps more than ever, need to ensure their plans are ready for implementation. They need to be able to walk into Government departments and convince the most senior civil servants that their policies will work. This means thinking through the implications and – of course the costs.

Politics is just getting harder for David Cameron.