Daniel Cohn-Bendit demanding refurbishment of tramways

I’m only going to write about the first of my ponderings today: that there is a growing democratic deficit around the EU. It is not the Parliament, nor even the Council which is deciding on where next – it’s national ministers coming together in what are also confusingly called councils but supposedly making decisions for some greater good, not in their national interest. That means that Europe as an issue is becoming ever-more present in domestic political discourse – which is probably a good thing, given that it IS part of our lives – but it’s always seen as something to be fought against, or which is fighting against we the people – which is a bad thing, and should not be the case.

Crucially, the problem is getting worse, because it feels like the crisis just goes on and on, that no-one is doing anything about it, and that everyone talks about it in a bloodless, technocratic way, with no sense of urgency, and faceless beings demanding new elections until people give the ‘right’ answer.

The first event I attended last week was a discussion of this democratic deficit. Most of the speakers largely identified the problem, but completely failed to understand the scope of what is required to resolve it – most clearly shown by Daniel Cohn-Bendit’s insistence that the EU ought to raise its own taxes, which it should then spend on grand infrastructure projects (particularly trams in Eastern Europe, apparently), which would *obviously* generate growth so we could spend more and tax more in the future. Sadly this shows the two great fallacies the EU currently labours under.

The first is that government spending on infrastructure is not a silver bullet to generate sustainable growth. Good infrastructure is only part of what encourages private business to invest, people to flourish and economies to grow; it is not an intrinsic good of itself. Too much debt, too much spending on inessentials and inefficiencies and not enough confidence – these are the things that are really damaging.

The second is a more general point about the attitudes held by European institutions, politicians and mandarins – particularly a general assumption that ever closer union is obviously a good thing and the argument in favour never needs to be made. I think this is wrong; I don’t think ever closer union is a good thing in most areas, but more than that – I have no idea why anyone else thinks it is. That is what is really difficult about the EU: the sense that we have no say, that no-one listens to us, and that all the EU political class wants to do is take our money and spend in on things IT supports rather than on the things that are necessary and important to us.

I do think that the European institutions have a strong role to play in many areas (and should be doing more in some of them) – a (real) single market, free trade, climate change, international relations, aid and development, spreading democracy… But they must remember that they are supposed to be accountable, and they are supposed to be representative, and that they – as every governing entity – must make the case for what they are doing. And crucially, not get involved in things which are best left to individuals, communities or national governments.

The EU could and should be a great force for good. But as things stand, it often doesn’t seem like it wants to be or is able to be. And that is where the real democratic danger lies – because if the leadership, proportionality and purpose we expect are absent, voters have a tendency to either disengage entirely or turn to overly-simplistic and short-sighted arguments instead.

I don’t mean the sort of thing introduced by Harriet Harman that required us all to consider ourselves as part of a minority of some – any – sort (though some of what was introduced in that Act remains a good idea). I mean the sort of thing that treats us all as individuals, asks the best of us, understands that we all have different needs, but is rooted in the fact that we are all equal before the law.

Throughout my schooling, university and most of my adult life, I have absolutely expected to be treated the same as anyone else. I hold doors open for people, they hold them open for me (a tiny example, but an instructive one – simply being polite rather than seeing it as a power-play). Many of my friends have had children – and almost without exception, even when the woman has a better job – it is she who reduces her hours, moves to a more flexible role, looks after childcare, food shopping and cleaning, and organises their diaries.

The government cannot and should not be the sole driver of equality. Indeed, equality is much more of a social construct than a legal one. But what it can and should do is offer the same opportunities to all. I think equal marriage is a good start; I think shared parental leave should be the norm; I think assuming that those of us who don’t have children also have other things to take care of is vital.

One of the great distinguishing features between the Ken and the Boris mayoral campaigns was over this issue of identity. The Ken campaign wanted everyone to find a grievance and nurture it to gain special treatment. Boris’ great strength is that he ran a campaign that fundamentally treated everyone the same, rather than seeking to set people against each other because of some perceived difference.

A central part of my political creed is that what makes people contented is control over their own lives. People should be able to make free choices over how they live their lives and expect the government to offer real equality of opportunity. What we then make of it is of course up to us.

“In the old days, it was said we listened to the party membership but not the public. Then it was said we listened to the public but not the party. The truth is that by the time we left office, it seemed like we had stopped listening to both the party and people.

• On the 10p tax.
• On the pace of immigration.
• On excessive rewards for excessive risks at the top.

Party members were getting these concerns but the leadership wasnât listening enough. But we also know that there is more work to do to ensure that Labour in every part of the country understands the community it seeks to serve. I saw that in Bradford West where we lost the by-election badly.

That is why we need more change not less in our party. To reach out much further and much deeper into every community in Britain. And that means changing the way we do things.

Let me give you an example. In Battersea, when the CLP organised their first meeting after the 2010 election, only two people turned up. Andy Fearn and Mark Rowney. They started canvassing as usual, but half way through, feeling a bit demoralised, they decided they needed a new approach. They phoned all the new and inactive members and asked them for a chat over a cup of coffee. Without a script, without an agenda. Just to listen.

Then they asked those people to come to a meeting to talk about the local issues that were on their mind. They got 35 people to their first meeting, and 60 to their second. Those people called other new people and soon, many people started to campaign with them for Labour.”

The old political mind-set, based on central command and control does not work in the modern world. Listening exercises are meaningless unless you are comfortable with members making choices. The political party who fully embraces this change will be the one who is best prepared for the 21^st Century. Change is of course hard.

“In the 20th Century, we pioneered standing up for workers against unaccountable private employers. Now, in the 21st Century, we must lead the way in standing up for consumers, citizens, small businesses against unaccountable concentrations of private and public power.”

How do trade unions fit into this model? One of the major blocks for change in Labour is the power block that Ed Miliband owes his leadership too. The old way of doing things is comfortable, everyone who is already in the system has bought into that system. Letting go of power is hard, but the only alternative to devolution and plurality is shrinking relevance.

“People want to know that we’re not just a bunch of accountants trying to turn around the British economy…”

If this is what people want then Government representatives need to stop sounding like accountants. The public knows that the Coalition wants to cut the deficit because senior ministers often talk about nothing else.

As I watched the Coalition’s relaunch on yesterday’s 10’o’clock news all I herd was the continuing need for financial pain. “There are economic difficulties in the Eurozone”. “We are going to push ahead with plans to reduce the deficit”.

We get it. If for the next year no Government official every mentions debt we would all still know that Cameron and Clegg believe it is important to cut the deficit. Clegg may not be far wrong when he says that Francois Hollande’s economic programme is not radically different from the Coalitions. The difference is that British people believe the Prime Minister and his Deputy prioritise deficit reduction while French voters believe Hollande values growth first.

In 2010 there was much rhetoric around cutting the deficit, but this was balanced by focus on the Big Society, nudge theory and the Happiness Index. Now all that we seem to get is some vague commitment to concentrate on implementation. But implementation of what? Saying that you are focused on “delivery” is meaningless unless you talk about what is being delivered and who it will benefit.

No more excuse, lets talk about the details of growth, growth, growth.

Think of all the firsts: Planning guidance has been slashed from over a thousand pages to fifty. Local charities have new ‘community rights’ – live in most places for the first time only this week  -  which permit them to save,  run and buy assets which would otherwise be lost to local control.  Liverpool, Leicester, and Salford have executive Mayors, Bristol wants one and even Birmingham which voted ‘no’ to a Mayor now has a leader for four years , rather than one subject to his group’s whims, thanks to the Localism Act.

 ‘City Deals’ which give new powers to local leaders push this logic much further still, and so will create the conditions for new growth in the West Country and the North of England even before Mayor Boris asks for fresh powers for London.  For the first time Manchester will now get to reinvest some of the economic returns it generates from beefing up its transport infrastructure without the Treasury taking it all back to London. The English economic renaissance was never the subject of a single ‘PM’s plan’ or quick fix but comprises a portfolio of methods and opportunities by which localities can regain powers to drive growth as many once did.

A conviction that local people know best how to drive economic growth runs deep across the Coalition partners. Weaning central departments, rooted in Fabian evidence based policy making that looks backwards ,  from their distrust of real innovators and entrepreneurs who create new history going forwards, is consequently one of the government’s greatest challenges.  Its success will be crucial for ‘Team Cameron’ and needs more than exhortations to ‘cut red tape’. And this is where the radical step is required.

The government needs more senior members who are both from, and will champion, the North and other regions beyond London.  It needs at its heart those that will argue trenchantly for a dispersal of power to free up the niches in which public, civic and private innovation can collide to drive more value from our economy. It needs fresh policy thinking.  And in seeking these it  needs to have the courage to stay on its progressive course rather than default to the financial miscalculations of Ed Balls, or  the political enthusiasms of Nadine Dorries. There is everything to play for now and fresh voices from diverse backgrounds will help.

But there is a radical task for the future also. The Conservative party  needs strategies to invade professional social welfare, the North and Britain’s minority communities . It needs to behave as if it is a ‘one nation’ party ready enthusiastically to govern the whole country and not just its heartlands. :  To put it bluntly there has not been anyone in a Conservative cabinet from a professional social welfare background since Virginia Bottomley stepped down.  This makes enthusiastic ‘social action’ trips led by MP’s look well-intentioned but could be seen to lack enduring commitment by  those who graft away at the coalface of care in Northern hospitals, neighbourhoods and prisons with little public praise. A Conservative leadership network for the North could address this gap but also reach out to the emerging generation , less tribal than their forbears, open to becoming engaged,  but who may still lack the confidence  to speak ‘the Conservative’ or even ‘the Coalition’ name. Such a network could run trips to the South (and help Sussex visit Solihull and St Helen’s too).  And, as Downing Street’s polling shows, these new takers will often be found in the Sikh, Chinese and Hindu communities whose position is now well established in many towns.

The four crucial calls of jobs, growth, decentralisation and strong local governance go hand in hand.  And as the Coalition sets about its task with a new vigour it ought to celebrate the successes it has secured, but also name  the more radical cutting edge that its needs to pursue them further. A new cutting edge that refreshes its current top team and builds a fresh one for the future.

  Tom Lomax is a North West  based journalist specialising in social affairs.

In undemocratic systems, where the people are suppressed by the brutality of a dictatorship, dissidents who go the whole way and speak bravely against the regime are heroes. They often pay a very high price.

In a democratic system, politicians in a political party need to be a bit more selective about dissent. They have to balance their principles and views with loyalty to their party. Just as an army should not turn its guns on its own Generals at the first sign of defeat in battle, so a political party in a democracy should retain a sense of collective loyalty. Politicians must weigh up whether, when and how to speak out against their party and judge the line to be struck between dissent and discipline.

Dissidents, or ‘mavericks’ as they are sometimes less respectfully called, add value to a democratic system if they pick their battles carefully. Politicians who are clearly their own person, rather than a cog in a party machine, win respect. They make a refreshing change from the cardboard cut-outs that fill many of the benches on both sides of the House of Commons. Boris Johnson’s re-election as London Mayor is proof of that, as was Ken Livingstone’s election before him. Ann Widdecombe and Tony Benn are both celebrated as national treasures. Frank Field is respected. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman are American politicians I admire. Lord Alton, who broke with the Liberal Democrats over abortion, and Baroness Cox, who speaks out strongly on international human rights and radical Islamism, are inspirational role models.

But a true dissident judges the tone, the timing, the manner and the issue of their rebellion carefully, and embarks on rebellion armed with substance. If you speak out occasionally, on a relatively few policy issues or matters of conscience, at odds with your party but in a principled rather than personalised tone, you gain respect for having your own mind and can be taken seriously. If you speak out every day, as a perpetual, vulgar and banal headline-seeker, making ill-thought-through inane personalised attacks on your leaders, you give the impression of either being slightly unhinged, or loving the sound of your own voice through the microphone, or both.

A while ago someone told me that Nadine Dorries was trying to become the new Ann Widdecombe. Well, the famous words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Senator Dan Quayle in the vice-presidential debate in 1988 come to mind. After Quayle compared himself to President John F Kennedy, Bentsen replied: “Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy – Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” To Nadine I would say: “Nadine, I know Ann Widdecombe, and you are no Ann Widdecombe.” Nadine is more of a George Galloway, without such powerful oratory or ability to arouse. Populist, headline-grabbing, narcissistic and embittered.

A few of the remarks Nadine has made recently contain a grain of truth in them, but she has gone about it in entirely the wrong way. Attacking the social backgrounds of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, making personalised and snide remarks about them, and threatening a leadership challenge is degrading to her, the party and the policy debate. If she had serious concerns about the style or direction of government, she should first raise these concerns, repeatedly, in private – through the whips, the Party Chairman and with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other senior ministers themselves. If she tried to raise concerns privately, and constructively, repeatedly, and still failed to get through, she might legitimately offer some ideas in public, in an article or an interview, but she should have focused her interventions on policies and values, not personalities and background.

That there is a need for some change is clear. The local election results sent the government a clear message, and the Party would be unwise to ignore it. Some of the policies of recent months – the granny tax, the charity tax, the pasty tax, to mention a few – need be re-thought. House of Lords reform must be reconsidered and put on the back burner. Many sensible, loyal Conservatives are saying this.

The government must focus on addressing day-to-day concerns of the British people – the economy, jobs, education and crime. Above all, we need to recover a reputation for competence. Someone needs to get a grip on the ridiculous fiasco of immigration queues at Heathrow, without compromising security. Just two months before we host the Olympics, unacceptable airport queues and the London Mayoral count debacle hardly fill one with confidence in the capability and efficiency of our public services.

It may also be true that the Prime Minister needs to do more to engage with his parliamentary party and grassroots members. There is a danger that his privileged background can be used against him, and he has not helped that image by surrounding himself with old school friends. The circle around him is perceived as a clique, and he needs to break out of that by bringing in fresh blood to the Downing Street machine and the ministerial ranks. It may be as much about perception as reality, but it needs to be addressed.

Most importantly, where is the narrative for the government? Beyond deficit reduction, what is our driving ambition, our purpose in office? David Cameron started out with the ‘Broken Society’, ‘Big Society’ theme and it appeared that this was what really fired him up. Yet since the riots last summer – the most tangible illustration of Broken Britain ever – we have heard little more about it.

Cameron is at his best when he is talking about social justice, and he should return to this theme and put flesh on its bones. ‘Big Society’ was handicapped by the fact that nobody quite knew what it meant in practice, but as a narrative it was powerful. The government should revive social justice, big society, compassionate conservatism, to show that we’re about more than just cutting the deficit, more than just money, and that we have a story to tell, a goal to pursue, a purpose in politics.

Our commitment to better public services needs to be communicated clearly. Michael Gove’s education reforms are the most exciting transformation to our schooling system in decades. And while the NHS reforms were botched, no Prime Minister or Health Secretary has shown as high a personal commitment to the NHS as David Cameron and Andrew Lansley. I remember the days in opposition when it was the Conservatives who launched an “NHYes” campaign. The Prime Minister has a deep personal experience of the NHS, and is at his most convincing and moving when he speaks about it. The Health Secretary has a lifelong involvement in the NHS, and held this brief in opposition longer than anyone in recent years. We have a good story to tell on public services – we need to tell it better.

I gave my support to David Cameron very early on in his leadership bid in 2005, because I felt he had the imagination and passion to change our party for the better, in order to change our country for the better. I still believe that, but I share some of the criticisms that are now being made. I believe he could do more to remind us of what he is about. He should disregard the twitterings of the unhinged, but he cannot afford to ignore the criticisms that come from friends and from the sane. He has been under pressure before, and has fought back successfully. Now he needs to launch a fight-back that will last.

Watching the BBC’s turgid and often confusing late-night coverage (subject for another blog), viewers were treated to the views of an exclusively Westminster set – lobby reporters and MPs. Their comment and analysis amounted simply to speculation about what difference the emerging results made to party prospects at the next General Election. The audience was being told that it is the impact of these results on Westminster which really matters, with the House of Commons held up as the single end-game for all political activity.

We should not be surprised to hear the results framed in this way by Westminster lobby correspondents and Westminster politicians. All the parties were at it. When Simon Hughes and his Lib Dem colleagues were asked if this amounted to a “blood-bath” for the Liberal Democrats, his response was that mid-term polls aren’t a good predictor of general election results. This the equivalent of Chelsea losing the  FA Cup final and Frank Lampard coming out to tell us in a post-match interview that “this result won’t have any bearing on the Champions league”. Fair enough Frank, but you’ve just lost the FA Cup.

A lot of this is perfectly sensible politics, but we shouldn’t forget that local elections matter in and of themselves. Councillors oversee large budgets funding vital local services, and their leadership arguably makes a far greater difference to local people than most parliamentary seats. This is even more important when money is short and the value-judgments of politicians taking tough decisions have a huge impact on citizens. The whole purpose of a political party is to exercise power according to a set of values to improve people’s lives. In which case every local election is an end in itself, and losing the power to improve the lives of citizens locally is more than just a “mid-term protest” or a “message to the government in Westminster”.

Suggesting that these results only matter in insofar as they impact on national politics reflects a longstanding Westminster village disconnect with the wider world that in part explains these appalling turnout figures.

A Boris in every city?

The idea that elected Mayors will be the genesis for the transformation of major cities looks in pretty bad shape today.  Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham have all voted No.  As has every other city other than Bristol (Doncaster voted to retain their Mayoral system).

I’ve made clear that I support the idea of elected Mayors as they decentralise power, provide a big figure to stand up for cities in the North and Midlands and help shake up sclerotic  and anonymous civic leadership.  But it’s obvious that the reform once trumpeted as a once in a generation devolution of power has hit the rocks.  The campaign has been shambolic and it’s time to ask where it all went wrong for elected Mayors.

1. The campaign for elected Mayors was too little, too late.

Supporters of elected Mayors (particularly those supporters who were based in London) seemed to think that a Yes campaign would just happen.  There was a real sense of complacency about the campaign.  At a dinner in London last week, some people expressed amazement when I predicted that a series of No votes were a distinct possibility. Ironically, the Westminster bubble, which elected Mayors were supposed to be puncturing, didn’t realise that people outside of London weren’t as enamoured to the idea of elected Mayors as they were supposed to be.

The campaigns failed to build a compelling vision of what an elected Mayor would do for cities and regions and failed to build any sense of excitement about the idea.  Early complacency ignored the fact that party machines in big cities were always going to be reluctant to lose their grip on power and last minute speeches by Westminster based politicians were never going to make the difference.    Nor was an attempt to sell the idea of elected Mayors to the North with an appeal for a “Boris in each city.” The early complacency has been punished with a series of No votes.

2. Elected Mayors were seen as ‘more politics’ not ‘anti politics’

One of the most compelling arguments for elected Mayors is that they will pass power from the hands of a handful of politicians and transfer it to the people.  It would weaken the party machines and give more a chance to independent minded candidates.  At a time of anger with politicians at all levels and a rising mood of anti politics, such a message could have fed into the anti politics narrative.  Instead, elected Mayors were successfully portrayed by opponents as an attempt to create more politicians.  The Yes campaign didn’t learn at all from the rejection of regional assemblies a few years ago and didn’t effectively tackle public opposition to creating “another layer of politicians.”  Rather than portraying the referenda on elected Mayors as a potential to make a protest vote against the political establishment, elected Mayors became perceived as a part of the establishment they were supposed to shake up.

3. A broad coalition of supporters wasn’t assembled in time

At the last minute, the campaign in Newcastle made clear that it had the support of a big hitter in David Miliband and a successful local businessman in Sir John Hall. It was, of course, too late in the day to make any kind of difference. The Yes campaign needed a broad, high profile, cross party coalition of supporters from an early stage – this kind of coalition was never really assembled.  The Yes campaign would have been much more successful if it promoted businessmen, community leaders, trade unionists and other major local figures as the face of the campaign rather than politicians.  In failing to build a broad coalition, the Yes campaigns sowed the seeds for their defeat.

4. There wasn’t enough effort to cultivate or create interest in the local media

The local media in some of the cities where a referendum was being held behaved as though a vote wasn’t even happening. In many cities, the referendum was a non event – hardly discussed locally, barely mentioned on regional news programmes and getting next to no prominence in regional newspapers.  The job of the campaign should have been to build a sense of excitement around proposed reforms – making it the big talking point of the regional media and ensuring that the case for change was heard on a daily basis.  The campaign failed to generate that and the turnout for each referendum was very small.

5. The boundaries and powers were ill thought through

In making the case for elected Mayors, David Cameron talked about having a “Boris in every city.” However, in truth, the attempt at devolution was fairly half hearted.  The powers proposed for elected Mayors weren’t comparable with the power that the Mayor of London has.  And whereas the Mayor of London is a spokesman for a Mayor who crosses local authority boundaries, the proposed elected Mayors were pretty parochial in scale.  Take Newcastle as an example.  It would surely have been sensible for the Mayor to cover Newcastle-Gateshead at least, rather than just Newcastle.  Restricting the proposed Mayors to such small boundaries made it more difficult to argue that elected Mayors would benefit whole regions.

By being unambitious and half-hearted, the proposals for elected Mayors completely failed to capture the public imagination.  The Yes campaign was complacent and lackadaisical until the very last moment.  The political establishment was in Northern cities was keen to hang on to the cosy status quo. The sadness is that the failure of the elected Mayoral scheme, if handled with more energy and imagination, could have been a real opportunity to boost Northern cities.

Sayeeda Warsi in Ashby

The traditional mid-term jitters of a governing party – lived out through the high-drama and low-politics of local elections – appear to be focusing on our co-Chair, Baroness Warsi.  For months now there has been a steady stream of critical pieces about the Lady, attacking her for everything from perceived laziness to political misjudgment.  The combination of a poor showing in council elections and her remarks on the BBC on Thursday evening (of which more later) will only intensify this rumbling animosity.  But the Lady’s critics are wrong and David Cameron would be wise to continue ignoring them.

First of all, let’s tackle those questions about Lady Warsi’s work-ethic.  There were shrill complaints about the Baroness’ lack of media appearances during the Cruddas-scandal – the party fielded Michael Fallon and Francis Maude to carry out most of the rebuttal.  But the idea that this quietness was out of either laziness or fear on her part is absurd.  Lady Warsi is the co-Chair of the party with responsibility for campaigning and promoting the party’s grassroots – she isn’t in charge of our central fundraising operation and wasn’t Cruddas’ boss.  I didn’t see her co-Chair on Newsnight either.  Keeping her distant from the sleazy stories being peddled in the Sunday Times was a wise choice and was not her choice.  She is the front-guy for promoting a Conservative (as opposed to a coalition) agenda in Britain – to tie her into a toxic tale of dodgy promises and dirty cash would have been a strategic disaster.  What’s more, day-in day-out Lady Warsi is trooping from local party to local party – raising money, knocking on doors and lifting morale while her colleagues with departments to run are tied up in Whitehall – lazy she most certainly isn’t.

And why is she the go-to-spokesperson for the Conservative Party’s political advocacy?  Because she is refreshingly, bracingly and attractively straightforward.  Lady Warsi is not known for mincing her words and nor is she perceived by the public as a standard politico (or, worse I’m afraid, as a classic Tory).  Her northern tones, colloquialisms, powerful ability to laugh at herself and the excesses of politics and her obvious conviction are all huge assets to a party that is too often perceived as manned by ex-SpAds, aristocrats and smooth communication executives.  What is more, her kind of conservatism fits neatly with her presentational skills.  I don’t always agree with Lady Warsi (some of her comments about homosexuality or Islamism have, in my view, been misjudged) but the vision of Toryism that she battles for is at once inclusive and traditional, orthodox and accessible.  If we are ever to win a majority we will need to speak to voters in Britain’s cities and ethnic minorities much more effectively, without losing our identity as a conservative movement, Lady Warsi is one of few senior Conservatives naturally capable of walking that tight-rope effectively.

Which leads us to the latest controversy surrounding the Baroness – her remarks about Ukip to the BBC.  Lady Warsi suggested that it was interesting to note that the decline in BNP candidates almost exactly matched the increase in Ukip ones.  Not that the two parties were the same but that one fringe political movement had been replaced by another.  The reaction from Ukip was predictable if offensive.  From many Tories it was unforgivably disloyal and overblown.  It is Baroness Warsi’s job to be hyper-partisan, to support the Conservative Party and to attack and undermine our enemies.  To criticise her for that is akin to attacking a baker for making you bread.  And her critics cannot all be right all at once, Lady Warsi can’t possibly be the work-shy wet without the killer instinct at the same time as the brutal and misguided assassin.  The fact that many who accuse her of being the former also wheel out the latter shows an inconsistency on their part which suggests the reasons for their animosity are more personal than they are political.

I’m glad we have a ‘campaigning Chairman’ – a woman who travels up and down the country lending her support and her firepower to constituency parties rather than relying on the media to get her message across.  I’m glad we have a Chair who ‘speaks human’ (to use an ugly but accurate phrase).  I’m glad, too, that our Chair is a woman and an Asian (not that those are qualifications in themselves, but they are the icing on the impressive cake of skills possessed by the Baroness).  And I’m glad to have a Chair who understands that as well as seeking to steal Ukip votes we must attack them as we would any other threat to our electoral success.

If a reshuffle is to come, and if David Cameron feels he must do something to appease a jittery party, then Sayeeda Warsi may well be on the No 10 hit-list.  But it would be a mistake to lose such a powerful, forceful and effective advocate for mainstream conservatism.  We should all lay off the Lady.  She’s doing a fine job.

As so often is the case the media did nothing to help raise the quality of the debate. Jeremy Paxman has a lot to answer for. Rather than trying to battle politicians, interviewers should try to elicit information by asking insightful questions- and then let the audience decide.  The introspective bickering that we see today just reinforces the collective disillusionment. (David’s blog for Labourlist is very good on this)

The story of Thursday’s election is peoples’ rejection of democracy being able to improve their lives.  We may mock Greece and Italy for having technocratic administrations but our trajectory is not so different.  We may not have the revolutionary, instant change but the public is consistently evolving away from politics. Just look at the voter turn-out figures. In the mayoral referendums voters rejected having ‘another politician’ built on top of all the pre-existing layers of bureaucracy.  Unsurprisingly, the idea that the solution to our problems was another politician didn’t sell well.

Like the frog who sits comfortably in the pan of simmering water, those who live in the Westminster bubble have clasped each other in a death grip. Politics needs to go where the people are. By this I mean understand how people today consume, communicate and interact, and then build a structure to fit this. Many of us appreciate the devolution we have in our lives – i.e greater choice of products, accessing more information before making a decision, companies making life easier for us. They do not see political parties and democratic systems mirroring this. Giving power away is hard, but there is no other option. Legitimacy is draining away.