We need to stop talking about Margaret. It doesn’t help win the common vote. Those who loved Thatcher are unhappy that there isn’t a clone in charge, those who hated her transfer this feeling onto every other Conservative, and those who don’t care wonder why we harp on about the past.

The problem for the Tories is that the disgruntlement goes beyond party definitions. The Hansard Society’s audit on political engagement found that only 41% say they will definitely to vote in 2015. Only 20% of people can name their MP. There is perceived to be a chasm between the world political class inhabit and everyone’s everyday experiences. There is no point in joining one of the established parties. It would only give legitimacy to the buggers. Anyway, how would you explain it to the neighbours? The shame.

John and Joanne Doe are concerned about the present, disgruntled about what the future offers and despondent because no political party is fighting for them. Government is impotent when tackling the rising cost of living. Bankers keep enjoying their riches, even though the country is struggling because we had to pay for their recklessness. Bosses of the utility cartels raise prices on essential commodities to ensure their bonuses. Fixing the market only leads to a slap on the wrists. Social mobility has been downgraded from a reality to an aspiration. “Politicians” – those guys in Westminster who were caught wringing out every possible pound out of the expenses system – can’t offer justice. Rather than all of us being in it together some are more in it than others.

Now for the good news. As Lord Young might put it, every crisis presents an opportunity. If the Conservative Party shows itself to be best equipped to deal with the wide spread disgruntlement it can win voters. There is a strong cost-of-living caucus amongst the 2010 intake. Examples include Robert Halfon’s campaign on fairer petrol prices, Laura Sandy’s work on food prices, Dominic Raab’s push to lower energy bills and Matthew Hancock’s promotion of apprenticeships. (It is also worth noting Boris Johnson’s support for the Living Wage.) These are Conservative backbenchers who put pressure on the Government in a good way, campaigning on issues that resonate with workers’ everyday struggles.

Blue Collar voters will give the Conservative’s a hearing if they see us campaigning for them. To do this we need to tackle today’s vested interests. CCHQ needs to organise in the way those who are interested in politics do. Nationalising the message doesn’t work. Common Conservatism needs to come from these communities.

David Cameron has always known that a) Europe is like cat-nip on steroids for Tories; b) it is quite the opposite for most voters but c) it is important. So his approach should always have been softly softly, delivering and working behind the scenes.

The withdrawal from the EPP, the veto in December, the reduction in the Budget and the Speech in January were all completely rational and thought-through ways to campaign both at an EU-level and domestically for the changes that – let’s face it – must come to the EU in order for it to survive.

So far, so good. But if he was ever going to give in to the incessant demands for a referendum NOW, the time to do so was in a Big Bang when he gave the Europe speech. As he had done over MPs’ expenses and in the aftermath of the 2010 election result, those big and imaginative suggestions ARE the ones that work both tactically and strategically. Being dragged kicking and screaming by a small(ish) number of backbenchers and external forces smacks of disorganisation, a lack of insight and a failure to understand that what people want is not necessarily this or that policy but a government that is willing to do the radical stuff because it believes in it.

I am one of this government’s strongest supporters. I think David Cameron is in lots of the most important ways a great Prime Minister (one of the things I most like is his calmness). But I am completely taken aback by just how badly it operates on a day to day basis.

Of course the day to day doesn’t – in the end – matter to voters all that much. Individual events and decisions are rarely as significant as they seem at the time. But they matter because they confirm or feed a narrative – often through the media – about the personality of a government which is much, much harder to change than any one policy but which is an enormously important part of how people feel about a political party.

Frank Luntz, an American polling expert, visited Downing Street and addressed a group of advisers.

The friend said: “The pollster asked them what kept them awake at night and they didn’t even have the wit to understand that he meant it was the electorate.

“When the pollster pointed that out to them, they literally said, ‘Nothing keeps us awake’. How can you be advising people and nothing keeps you awake? Then someone said ‘school fees’.”

That is an absolute disgrace. I almost can’t believe it’s true, even if exaggerated for journalistic effect, but unfortunately I have a horrible suspicion it is basically what happened.

The most important  issue in Britain is the economy. That is why this chart, from YouGov, is the single most important piece of information that anyone in Downing St needs:

That this is moving in the right direction and that people are getting more confident is vital. As important is that people have confidence in their leaders.

Leadership is not about being relaxed. It is about being purposeful, clear and deliberate. I think the government is doing lots of things that are valuable and which in the long-run will make a huge difference to our future. But it has got to talk about them, and it has got to make sure that people understand what they’re doing, and why, and where it will get us to.

The Conservatives in government can make a rational, compelling case for that. I think the way that the announcement of the EU referendum has been handled has some interesting parallels with the overall situation.

The long-awaited EU speech was, as I said at the time, a complicated, sensible assessment of the situation, with a conclusion that, as Michael Gove said yesterday, brings together the full spectrum of opinion. The EU as it currently operates is not going to continue; it will change and if we are serious about the global race/aspiration nation argument, we should have the confidence both of our ideas and of our ability to win that argument, do the work and offer a real choice once those discussions have been had.

In the meantime, though, in order to have that referendum and deliver those changes, we need to win the next election, and that needs more than a single silver bullet (which does not exist). We need to show people that we are on their side, that we want them to be confident about their future, that we understand what matters to them.

There are some hugely interesting ideas within the Tory party – for example, Laura Sandys’ work on the cost of living and transparency; Jesse Norman on transparency and community; Robert Halfon and the cost of living; Charlie Elphicke on mutuals; Gavin Barwell on integration and community; Douglas Carswell on accountability; Charlotte Leslie on accountability… The list is nearly endless. Yet these very grassroots, local, salient campaigns are not making it through to the national conversation.

They should. They have far more bearing on the things that people care about. A while ago, I suggested that we should consider the Lib Dems’ way of utilising their backbenchers in a productive way and have teams of non-government spokesmen who can work on and articulate ideas for the future. The new Parliamentary Advisors Board in Downing St goes a tiny way to delivering that, but I think there is far more to be done in demonstrating and delivering a broad, competent and compelling Conservative offer.

The Queen’s Speech was another clear sign that many of the palpable achievements that stem from detoxification are likely to be hushed up rather than championed on the doorstep.

Chief amongst this is international development and the move towards spending 0.7% of GNI on its ring-fenced budget. There is no prospect of a U-turn on aid, which would confirm that the commitment was only skin deep and that Tories don’t care about development unless it suits them electorally. And in any case, the commitment is real at the top of government and supported widely enough amongst the influential 2010 intake that it won’t change.

But don’t expect it to feature on any pocket-sized list of Conservative achievements come spring 2015.

The same can be said for the less bread and butter proposals of the pre-government years. There is no chance of the words ‘big’ and ‘society’ featuring together on a billboard near you anytime soon, for instance.

Of course there is nothing wrong with focusing on the bread and butter issues. Indeed, that is where the election is going to be won and lost. And, despite what anyone says, no-one is really going to vote Conservative in 2015 because of the introduction of same-sex marriage.

But the point of proper, deep-rooted modernisation is that the effects cannot be measured by the performance at the next election. One of the limitations of the detoxification process was an underestimation of just how long it would take to complete. A recession or two in the middle of that process has understandable caused it to stumble in the face of a reversion to good old fashioned fiscal discipline, but those who say it has failed or became irrelevant after 2008 are missing the point. It was never going to be complete by the end of the last parliament and it was never likely to bear electoral fruit straight away.

Modernisers have to accept that the cuddly stuff will inevitably take a back seat as we approach a ‘cost of living election’ where the fuel prices of today will be of greater importance than the energy solutions of tomorrow. But we shouldn’t feel the need to muzzle ourselves when the usual stereotypes are wheeled out about uncaring Tories.

Similarly, liberal conservatives should be smarter and slightly more insistent than they have been about ensuring UKIP don’t get a free pass to effectively dictate the party’s policy positions on immigration, Europe and crime.

Naturally there are core voters and potential swing voters who either couldn’t care less about the modernising agenda or who will be actively turned away by it. But those groups who wavered and ultimately decided not to trust the Conservatives last time around will be more susceptible to the gradual softening that comes from the achievements we can and should be trumpeting.

There is no prospect of these achievements jostling their way to the front of the queue of policy boasts in two years time. But those who believe their medium and long-term effect is still worth something should not be afraid to make their voices heard.

Even if on the basis of this week’s Queen’s speech it won’t get them very far in the short term.

There are plenty of people within the Conservative Party who share UKIP’s views and voice. There are Cabinet members who will campaign for the UK to leave the EU. The Conservative Party already contains a plurality of Conservative views, many of them well voiced. The Party can become more democratic and more comfortable with opening up the internal debate.

If the Conservative Party partners with UKIP then you’ll get the mad situation where certain members have a better chance of promotion if they take their Conservatism elsewhere. Offering UKIP a coalition is the quickest way to split the Party, decimate the base and solidify four party politics.

*Rachel Sylvester in the Times today is a must read on how the Conservatives should deal with UKIP.

“The driving force behind UKIP’s rise is not anger with Brussels but anxiety about modernity, as myth and reality merge in people’s minds. The Tories will never deal with this by getting tougher on crime or immigration. Lynton Crosby — who helped Boris Johnson to victory in multicultural, socially liberal London — has been convinced that a more sophisticated approach is needed than that advocated by some right-wingers.

“In Eastleigh, we tested to destruction the idea that we can win by trying to outbid Nigel Farage,” says one strategist. “We had the most UKIP-y possible candidate and fought the most UKIP-y possible campaign and still couldn’t stop the flow to UKIP.””

This is a generic Ed Miliband quote. It doesn’t matter when or where he said it – it could have been last year or maybe it will be in six months time. It is not true, there is another choice – the “meh” choice. The Westminster bubble struggles to understand those who do not vote or join political parties. This ever increasing number of souls gets plonked into a political apathy box. The reality is more people are more politically active. What professional politicians don’t understand is that the apathy is towards them, the inhabitants of an out-of-date system.

Angela Eagle MP wants a People’s Politics Enquiry. Christopher Clarke wants a National Conversation to “engage people with politics once again”. Both these attempts will #fail because the top-down approach is irrelevant. Angela and Christopher are dictating the terms of what politics is and telling others that they should join them. Instead politicos should go to where politics is. Watch, learn, participate, and then help to enable.

Politics is doing something that improves your environment. Voting for or joining a political party is no longer the best way to do this. The democratisation of information and data means people have access to the same quality of information as experts. The decreasing cost of technology means more of us can process this information. The one area where professional politicians and civil servants have an advantage is time; they get paid to investigate civic maters while the rest of us earn our living. The rest of us have an advantage in that we are more numerous. Modern government is about shepherding those who can improve the landscape. The Economist recently highlighted how American cities giving residents the resources to find solutions:

“(Publishing raw data) has been particularly successful in Chicago, where computer nerds have used open data to create many entirely new services. Applications are now available that show which streets have been cleared after a snowfall, what time a bus or train will arrive and how requests to fix potholes are progressing.”

Those people who created these Apps were being political. There is no need for an enquiry or conversation. They just used the tools available to improve life.

It’s only normal that as society changes so do political structures. Please don’t confuse the death of the 20th Century political party model with the death of politics. Go with the flow.

Have a UKIP strategy

For many years the Conservatives have treated UKIP as an irrelevance. They now need to treat them like they would Labour or the Lib Dems. This means formulating a strategy about how to deal with them and persuade UKIP voters to vote Conservative instead. The lack strategy has led to a confused and incoherent approach.

That quip is still damaging

“UKIP is sort of a bunch of … fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists, mostly.” David Cameron is never at his finest when he uses humour to make a political point. The problem is that many Conservative foot soldiers have friends who have defected to UKIP. They sympathies with their grumbles and share some of their concerns. Not least that the leadership has no interest in them. Nigel Farage’s retort, that UKIP are “the Conservative Party in exile” strikes a nerve. Cameron has started mending relationships within the Parliamentary Party, he needs to do the same with the wider Conservative movement.

Understand why people vote UKIP

Lord Ashcroft’s research into UKIP voters motivations is illuminating. It’s not about the EU, which is why the commitment to hold an in/out referendum had little impact. Immigration is the most common concern, but “in the mix of things that attract voters to UKIP, policies are secondary.” UKIP are the anti-politics vote. When Ken Clarke or William Hague is disparaging towards them they are just reinforcing the UKIP voter’s choice – to annoy the establishment.

Treat UKIP (i.e those thinking about voting for them) with respect

Finding the fringe candidates who are fruitcakes and closet racists makes good copy, but it’s a distraction which UKIP are comfortable dealing with. Highlighting laziness in the EU Parliament won’t change the minds of those who think the institution is a waste of time. The biggest challenge for UKIP will be to do politics. Farage’s has struggled most when talking about policies, most notably the flat tax. Other UKIP officials often contradict each other or come up with unpopular policies, such as allowing employers to refuse to employ women if they are of child bearing age. The excuse that they are a work in progress will only explain their discrepancies for a while.

Have a clear message

The Conservatives need an attack line which chimes with people. I would favour: “UKIP are more economically irresponsible than Labour”. People are most concerned about the economy. They know that tough choices need to be made, which is why they don’t have confidence in Labour’s borrow more idea. UKIP want to cut taxes – raise spending on Defence, pensions and many other things.

Timing

Vehicle of your message

Carrier of your message

Substance of your message

I would, however, add a fifth and make it the first one: that the aim of your message is equally important.

If your policy is just about micro-targeting, then it is, as Stephan Shakespeare says, likely to miss its target and indeed put off others. The aim must be a broad, coherent offer, not a jumble of contradictory and inchoate buy-offs.

One of the (many) problems that UKIP has (and this is, really, one for those of us who work in politics, not so much for voters) is that its manifesto is a stupid mish-mash of reactionary and contradictory knee-jerk clap-lines. But that is only a problem for those campaigning against them, because the reality of their manifesto and beliefs will not only never be tested, but more importantly is irrelevant because their overall tone is so clear.

That overall approach is the first thing that the Conservatives need to work on. The finer details can come later. Last weekend I was at a conference and ended up (slightly randomly) discussing the Built to Last process.  Someone else also mentioned that Bolivia and South Korea had had, maybe fifty years ago, very similar sized and shaped economies. South Korea had invested heavily in education; Bolivia had bought the very latest agricultural technology.

South Korea is now the 12^th largest economy by purchasing power parity; Bolivia is 87^th.

I think there is a very clear lesson to be drawn between the principles (the education) and the policy expression of those principles (the agricultural equipment) and the need for us to look again at how we can express those values and principles in policy terms, rather than trying to squeeze individual, targeting policies into some sort of whole. Built to Last didn’t, I confess, set the world alight but there is greater value in remembering some fundamentals and being able to make a broad offer than in trying to put everyone in little boxes and making it too transactional. Making a strong case for something you believe in – even if your target voter doesn’t agree with your policy – can often garner more respect than if you try to bend to every contradictory whim that passes.

The Guardian frontpage, 1 May 2013 (via @suttonnick)

The Guardian this morning is running an ‘exclusive’ about the Ministry of Defence asking the Department for International Development for contributions to the cost of delivering overseas development assistance via the military (things like transporting DfID and NGO staff and materiel, operational costs of peacekeeping, or transitional support in demobilisation and reintegration).

I’m entirely supportive of the DfID budget being used to fund the essentials of development – a huge part of development is establishing stability and if that requires military skills or support, I’m fine with that (and indeed think that much more can be done in this sphere – the World Service, for example, or accountancy training, or business development skills, or climate change programmes… there’s a long list of areas where our national interest coincides with the interests of other nations, and it doesn’t just involve the MoD).

But my point today is not the discussion over the spending per se. It’s that we have already had this idea floated, this ‘exclusive’ today adds nothing to what we know or – most importantly – what will be done.

Daily Mail, 27 April 2013

It’s the same with that hardy perennial of householders’ capacity to use force if their home is broken into. I think that the announcement of ‘you can kill burglars’ has been made pretty much every year since I can remember. And yet somehow it seems that the law (which for the first time has actually been changed) still doesn’t match with the rhetoric.

Similarly, Daniel Finkelstein’s article in the Times this morning points to the same problem – politicians keep saying things that they either cannot or will not deliver on and sometimes more pertinently, should not deliver on.

I am all for politicians explaining what they will do, want to do, aim to do and ensuring that we all understand what that means. But it’s essential that rhetoric matches reality; we are, as they say, where we are, and no amount of complaining that ‘If only we were a majority government’ will change the fact that promising something now which we have no prospect of delivering in the near or medium future just means that voters get ever more fed up of politicians’ broken promises. They don’t hear ‘If x, y, z’ they just hear ‘We’ll do this. Except actually no we won’t.’

I came across this Guardian piece about Chinese officials and their extravagant banquets. The key phrase? “He posted both the photo and video online that night, and they quickly gained traction on Sina Weibo, China‘s most popular microblogging service. Taizhou officials began investigating Zhang over the weekend.”

The information was made public, it had a context (the enormous gap between the elite and ordinary Chinese) and the government was forced to react.

In the same way, a piece in the Times this morning (and an older piece about Australia from the Guardian) points us towards much greater accountability for multi-national companies. There is, as we all know, well-founded resentment at various multi-nationals who seem able to pick and choose how much tax they pay and to whom, rather than abiding by the same rules as the rest of us. As I wrote about Jimmy Carr (but which applies to all sorts of other people), the rules are the rules and they should be the same for everyone. And if we don’t like them, then make the case and win support for changing them. Similarly, it’s why I think dropping the proposals to change the charity tax exemptions was wrong – you shouldn’t be able to choose how much tax you pay (which is why, I’m afraid, Starbucks’ £10m donation was so badly received).

Multi-national companies have to publish all sorts of information about their revenues, profits, write-offs and so on for their shareholders and the relevant stock exchanges. It is entirely appropriate that as well as their costs, their returns and their investments, we should have knowledge of the contributions they make to the countries (and those countries’ citizens) in which they operate. It allows for greater choice and individual control. I do accept, however, that it might require all of us to exercise some self-control in understanding investment and legitimate costs (as Eric Schmidt of Google has been arguing this week).

I do a lot of work on anti-corruption and good governance in developing countries. Time and time again, one of the systemic problems we come up against is that multi-nationals have negotiated absolutely stellar deals with a host government, usually involving massive discounts on the cost of the raw materials (or whatever) being agreed on, and including big tax reliefs, special rates or indeed no tax at all – and which sadly all too often involve an enabling payment to a member of the host country’s elite. This is bad for the rule of law, bad for accountability, bad for the business environment and bad for the citizens of the host nation (as well as the rest of us).

There are discussions going on about the post-2015 Development Goals at the moment, and there is a great desire to make one of them about open government. The work that David Cameron and George Osborne have been doing on accountability for multi-nationals (with pilots about to start with France, Germany, Italy and Spain) could well be a great basis on which to build a see-through future for us all.