The Conservatives have just launched a big recruitment campaign, which includes many policy posts in CCHQ. This is good news. A month ago Tim Montgomerie raised concerns that the Tory Party was not giving enough thought to its own agenda or how the Conservatives will position themselves at the next election. Running a government and running for office are different activities that call for different skills. The risk of not having an effective party machine is that we stagnate, thus allow other parties, including the Lib Dems, to gain momentum before polling day. Hopefully the re-staffing of CCHQ will address the risk.

The job that most caught my eye* was Social Action Manager . The biggest problem for me in the 2010 Election was that the Big Society message was disconnected from those who were delivering it. Cameron’s centrepiece theme was rendered almost meaningless because the words were not backed-up with action. Big Society is ultimately about the ‘doing’. Many activists did not understand the idea because they had never been asked to participate in local projects, thus they couldn’t sell ‘Big Society’ to a sound bite weary public. In the 2015 election us Tories can’t just be the Party of the Big Society idea, we must practice what we preach and become a Big Society organisation.

The Social Action Manager will attempt to forge links with the not-for-profit sector and encourage constituency associations, local councillors and candidates to engage in Big Society activities. Unlike in the US, we Brits tend to be cautious about mixing politics with other activities. This attitude has helped to disenfranchise people, especially the young, from political parties. It is a lot more satisfying to put your efforts into a specialised pressure group where you can focus on achieving a specific good, compared to delivering leaflets or attending ‘talking-shop’ branch meetings.

Volunteering is often a fun, rewarding, educational and social activity. Politics in action reminds people why we need politicians and why it’s important to campaign to get good ones elected. The Social Action Manager, with the support of Baroness Warsi, should aim to redefine what being a Tory foot soldier means.

* Dear readers, if you decide to apply, please mention me on the application form so I can demand a generous headhunters’ fee from CCHQ…`

Perversely, the fiscal crisis strengthens the chances of Cameron’s modern Conservatism surviving and possibly becoming a model for Conservative Government.

The combination of coalition government and economic breakdown encourages a reformist administration.  With the public finances in such a mess the time is ripe for reform and acting tomorrow is viewed as inappropriate and irresponsible. During the election campaign one of the Conservative’s central arguments was that excessive government spending had made the state obese. This profligate way of running the country was both unnecessary and unsustainable, thus reducing public spending would be the priority for any new Conservative administration. At the heart of new conservatism is a desire to deliver a smaller state through positive delegation.

The Coalition government strengthens Cameron’s reinvention of Conservatism because the Liberal Democrat’s naturally support the ‘new’ ideas. The Big Society agenda, with its promotion of localism and individual responsibility, effortlessly brings together forward thinking Tories and centrist Lib Dems. Cameron’s modernisation would have been under greater threat if the Conservatives had gained a tiny majority, forcing him to negotiate with the outer reaches of his own party, many of whom are dismissive of the chosen direction of travel. If the Party forces Cameron to retreat to old Conservatism the Coalition will crumble.

The economic situation created a strong adhesive between the coalition partners, fostering a feeling of togetherness and joint ownership. Coalition negotiations took place against the backdrop of a burning Greece, which focused minds and, ultimately, led the Lib Dems to embrace fiscal Conservatism. Unity on economic policy is crucially important to ensuring the coalition lasts the full five years, giving Cameron enough time to implement the Big Society agenda.

In Cameron’s first 100 days his administration has enjoyed a political honeymoon. Attacks have been easily brushed off; mistakes forgiven and the tough choices agenda has not led to public outrage but this mood can’t last. It’s easy for people’s rational minds to support the concept of cutting spending to balance the books, however, it becomes a different and emotional issue if ‘my child’s school roof can’t be mended’ or ‘my contract is cancelled’. Mistakes will be portrayed by the media via a ‘cuts are hurting’ narrative. Nothing sells papers like a good old scare story, especially if blame can be heaped on those in high office. Groups, both left and right, who are wary of Cameron’s agenda will use the change in mood to attack the Coalition. Strong leadership will be needed when making decisions that may be right but not instantly popular.

The new Conservative ideas are about resolving the structural problems that created the fiscal crises. Cameron will make it work because it has to work. There will be no mandate for a second go and no money to spend on a second agenda.

This post was originally published at The Frum Forum – http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-honeymoon-over-for-cameron-clegg

It was never going to be easy.  The coalition Government has faced a set of challenges largely without parallel in post war history.

In May the Government was faced with a record deficit; an economy gradually getting back to its knees following the deepest recession since records began; plummeting faith in the political system; widening inequality; stalling social mobility; and seemingly intractable social problems.

100 days is always a slightly arbitrary time to judge a Government’s record.  However, it is actually crucial – the political capital of any Government is at its highest at the beginning.  It marks the perfect time to get things done.

Unlike other blogs, we at Platform 10 have always been enthusiastic supporters of the coalition.  On May 9^th, I called for a ‘coalition of the progressive centre.’ I argued that:

“With the support of the Liberal Democrats, a Conservative-Liberal coalition of the progressive centre can deliver the radical economic, political and social reform the country needs.”

I believe that the coalition has, so far, lived up to those lofty expectations.  It has governed in a progressive and radical manner.  Already, in 100 breathless days, the coalition has:

• Dealt with one of the biggest fiscal catastrophes the country has faced since the war.  Faced with a choice of setting out a credible plan to pay down a record budget deficit or letting our domestic policies be placed at the whim of global financiers (as Greece, Spain and Portugal have found), we wisely opted for the former;
• Laid the framework for renewed growth and renewed job creation;
• Placed as a priority delivering social justice and enhancing social mobility;
• Created a bonfire of restrictions on civil liberties.  Even after 100 days, this Government has claim to be the most civil libertarian since the war – a welcome change after New Labour’s social authoritarianism;
• Set out the biggest programme of constitutional change for decades.  House of Lords reform is, after a century and more of dithering, set to be achieved.  Governmental transparency looks set to improve both visibility and performance of Government.  Ideas of recall and referenda (albeit slightly too limited at this early stage – as Douglas Carswell argues) have at last been injected into the body politic.  Indeed, the cooperation across party lines in itself is something that most people outside of the political class have welcomed;
• Already decentralised power to local people to an unprecedented extent.  Hopefully more decentralisation will follow;
• Instituted a Great Repeal Bill – with the aim of repealing unnecessary legislation that impinges on freedom;
• Unveiled an evidence based policy on prisons that has more in common with traditional Conservative views than the authoritarianism of recent years.

After thirteen years of small ‘c’ conservative Government, it comes as a breath of fresh air to have a Government prepared to make the brave and radical decisions that are in the national interest.  Despite the heckling from nay sayers, it is the coalition that has made this possible.

The Economist has described the Government as a “radical force.”  I am confident that 100 radical, progressive days will become five radical, progressive years.

I have already posted on here that the appointment of Alan Milburn as social mobility ‘czar’ is one to be welcomed.  Improving social mobility is one of the biggest challenges facing British society today and it is a good thing that somebody as talented and passionate about the subject as Milburn feels ready to  continue to contribute to the subject.

As Peter Bingle said in his excellent blog:

“Politics was the loser when Alan Milburn stood down from the House of Commons at the last election. One of the few genuine stars of the New Labour Project, Alan was the most radical Health Secretary since Aneurin Bevan.

A former member of the hard left, Alan had all the conviction and passion of a convert. He embraced the market in a way that no other Labour Cabinet Minister dared to do. In the end he was thwarted by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown and left the government …

In the dying days of the last government, Alan Milburn was asked to chair a commission into social mobility. It is an issue about which he cares passionately. From a poor background himself he believes (and has said so publicly) that nowadays it would be almost impossible to achieve the social mobility which he has achieved himself…. The commission’s recommendations were largely ignored by Gordon Brown to the intense irritation of its chairman … I was therefore not surprised to learn that Alan had accepted an invitation from the PM to become the Social Mobility Czar. I suspect that his political instincts are much closer to those of this PM than the last one.

Alan is the latest in a long line of senior Labour figures to accept a role advising the coalition. They all deserve our thanks and support for putting country before party.”

Like Alan Milburn, I come from a North Eastern working class background and share his passion about the importance improving life chances for people from low income backgrounds.

What followed the announcement was a number of Labour figures abusing Alan Milburn in very personal terms.  This was John Prescott’s ‘tweet’ on the matter: “So after Field & Hutton, Milburn becomes the 3rd collaborator.  They collaborated to get Brown OUT.  Now collaborating to keep Cameron IN.”

Now I’m a fan of John Prescott.  One of the reasons that I like John Prescott is that he came from a very humble background to be a great success in politics.  Maybe before throwing the word collaborator about, Lord Prescott should consider that what Alan Milburn is doing is channelling his passion to help more kids from humble beginnings realise their dreams and aspirations.

Andy Burnham also attacked Alan Milburn for his decision.

Maybe people on the left attacking Milburn should consider what is more important – the kind of tribal politics that turns so many people off or ensuring that the life chances of people from lower income backgrounds are improved.  Milburn clearly believes the latter.  Throwing insults about a man who is channelling his talents to helping improve social mobility seems pretty unedifying to me.

And then there was Iain Dale on the right.  He had a blog paraphrasing Martin Niemoller’s remarkable poem ‘First They Came’ and suggesting that the job should have gone to a Tory.  First off, I reckon there are some pieces of poetry that shouldn’t be used for partisan slagging and this is certainly one of them.  Secondly, Milburn is a highly talented individual, hugely respected and an expert in the field.  He understands the issues regarding social mobility and cares passionately about them.  He would be, for most people on both sides of the divide, one of the first names that come to mind when you ask who should head up this kind of work on social mobility.

This is simply too important an issue to be reduced to tribal posturing and party political point scoring.  The snipers may think that tribal purity is more important than helping improve social mobility.  They are wrong.  Thank goodness that Milburn has decided to put country and improving life chances of lower income people ahead of tribalism.

In the short term, the Government will be judged by successfully dealing with the catastrophic financial situation left behind by its predecessor.  In the long term, the Government will be judged on making Britain a more socially mobile and open society.

Social mobility matters.

It matters that so many people are not fulfilling their potential or aspirations.

It matters that life chances are more likely to be decided at birth than at any time since the 1920s.

It matters that, although only 7% of children go to private school, such schools account for almost 80% of judges, 70% of finance directors and barristers; 55% of Tory MPs; and over 50% of top journalists.

That is why the appointment of Alan Milburn as social mobility ‘czar’ is to be welcomed.  At the moment, after 13 years of a Government that promised so much but delivered so little, Britain one of the least socially mobile countries in the world and less mobile than at any time since the war.

The report of the cross party commission (which I praised at the time) headed up by Alan Milburn for the last Government was a devastating indictment of the previous Government’s failure to act on the issue.  It said that, “access to the professions is becoming the preserve of a smaller and smaller part of the social spectrum.”  This is something that a highly talented man such as Alan Milburn feels strongly about and it is only to be applauded that he will be avoiding the tribal taunts of members of the opposition about the fact he wants to do all that he can to help improve the life chances of the poorest.

Social mobility is also something I care deeply about.  I went to a North Eastern comprehensive school (probably of the kind that Tony Blair would have derided as ‘bog standard’).  I saw so many exceptional people who were let down by the system and didn’t always achieve their potential.

There are some people who suggest that an attachment to enhancing social mobility is ‘un-Conservative’.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  It wasn’t un-Conservative when Churchill talked of creating a floor below which none could fall and a sky through which all could rise.

What is more Conservative than ensuring that each and every human being is able to fulfil their potential.    What can be more Conservative than raising people’s aspirations? A modern economy needs highly skilled people to prosper.  What can be more wasteful than seeing so many people not fulfilling their potential?