I struggle to understand why environmental politics are traditionally regarded as left-wing.  They are not.  The environment is the only place that we have.  The place where we live matters to us; in our local communities and in the wider world.  It is all about respect and stewardship.

Disputes about the science of manmade climate change may be rife, but they are entirely irrelevant.  It might be suggested that only a brave or very foolish person (or a publicity-seeker) would take issue with the consensual opinion of the world’s leading scientists – but in the end this too is irrelevant.

The point is this:  waste of any kind is a bad thing, so we must stop wasting energy, food and material resources.  Fossil fuels are finite, so we must find ways of being less dependent upon them, and sooner rather than later.  Natural resources are limited, not limitless as we in the West have implicitly regarded them for two-hundred years, so we must start trying to obey the laws of Nature.  If Nature goes bust, there will be no bail out.

Conservative-minded people can embrace our current environmental challenges wholeheartedly, passionately and with every confidence in a right of centre political inheritance and vision.

We believe in the merits of order and security: two benefits of civilisation, which are threatened by environmental disruption and the pressure of global population growth.

We recognise the responsibility of stewardship.  We respect the past, and hold the present in trust for future generations.  As Margaret Thatcher said: “Mankind has no freehold on the Earth, only a full repairing lease.”  We need to look after the place where we, and all other creatures, live; not just for ourselves but for those who will come after us.

We understand the need for global action and diplomacy in order to ensure advantages at home and around the world.  In world affairs the conservative approach is pragmatic rather than ideological.

We believe that local actions, in our own communities, rather than Big Government initiatives, can help make changes for the better. The environment is both local and global, and a passion for local solutions can help build and strengthen our communities.

Finally, the conservative understands that whilst politicians have a vitally important role in shaping the framework for action on green issues, only the market can deliver the results.   The paradox is inescapable; it was the power of the market which, through driving unsustainable growth, created the problems mankind now faces. But it now offers the only sure way out of them.

Meeting the various challenges presented by environmental pressures is already creating huge market opportunities for those with the vision, technology and access to capital to seize them. According to HSBC, global turnover in low carbon goods and services last year overtook the value of the defence and aerospace industries. This is no cottage industry.

An unhelpful tendency exists to lecture people on the need for “behavioural change”. Of course those who have made changes in the way that they live in order to reduce their impact on natural resources should be applauded; people who, for example, have determined to drive less, recycle more, buy ethically sourced products, install micro-renewable energy systems, or switch off the lights when leaving a room. I have tried most of these things myself; but we are part of a small minority which has, by and large, made a deliberate political or social choice.

Human behaviour will only naturally change on the massive scale required when change is cheaper or more convenient than sticking with the status quo. Most people don’t want to make deliberate political or social choices; and why should they? It’s what they elect politicians to do. If heroes are to emerge from the battle to manage and defeat environmental damage they will not be eco-warriors, but engineers, physicists, designers, inventors and entrepreneurs. The true friends of the Earth are gradually emerging, and they are not those who spend their time screaming at the capitalist system. They are those who respect our duty of stewardship over the natural environment we have inherited, and embrace capitalism as the most powerful tool for change on the planet.

You can visit the CEN’s website or join their Facebook group

On Friday, Ed Balls announced the Government’s response to the ‘Salt Review’ into the supply of teachers for pupils with severe and complex learning difficulties. Balls argued, and rightly so, that the Government needs to attract and incentivise graduates to specialise in teaching children with some of the most challenging needs.

However, children with severe and complex learning difficulties only made up 2.3% of all children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in 2009. There are 1.7 million children in England with SEN, 21% of all pupils, and the majority are taught in mainstream settings. Therefore, all teachers are working with SEN children but there is a shocking lack of focus on building the relevant skills and expertise, both at the initial teacher training stage and in ongoing training throughout teachers’ careers.

Despite this, buried within the Government’s 2004 SEN strategy (which probably remains the most comprehensive look the Government has taken at the area in recent years) is an eminently sensible approach to providing teachers with the appropriate expertise. According to this model allteachers would develop the core skills needed to deal with all children with SEN; some teachers, inall schools, would develop advanced skills; and there would be teachers with highly specialist skills, in some schools but available, where appropriate, to all.

Progress in implementing such a vision has been inadequate. Another recent Government report (the Lamb Inquiry) stated the case clearly, there is an urgent need:

“to build a better understanding of SEN and disability into every aspect of training; at every level of the system; in subjects and curriculum development; and for teachers with a range of different responsibilities.”

This should be the focus of any strategy concerning teacher training for SEN, putting its own model into practice, and thereby providing over a fifth of our children with the education they really deserve.

Ralph Hartley is a research fellow in Policy Exchange’s Education Unit

The BBC’s latest strategy report  - leaked in the Times ten days ago and released last week as a result – suggests that with a General Election looming ever nearer Auntie is at last waking up and smelling the coffee.

In January this year Policy Exchange published a major report on the future of broadcasting,Changing the Channel, which argued that the BBC had become an organisation obsessed with ratings first and quality second. In many ways this is understandable – though not acceptable. In theory everyone with a television pays the licence fee, so the BBC feels it has to prove that it is delivering something for everyone to justify its existence.

As a result we see the BBC forking out huge wodges of licence fee cash to do things that fall more naturally to its commercial rivals and their audiences, and which those rivals could almost certainly deliver more cheaply. Thus it splashes out on the FA Cup and Formula 1, which attract an under 40 C1C2 audience that doesn’t naturally flick to the BBC, despite the fact that these sports would end up on ITV or Five in much the same form if the Beeb weren’t to bid. Meanwhile it ignores test match cricket – because it has enough professional older men watching already.

And it reportedly spent £5.6 million a year on hiring Jonathan Ross in competition with Channel 4 and ITV, because where Jonathan goes, the younger audiences follow. The problem here is not so much what the BBC paid, or even how loathsome you might find Jonathan Ross as an individual. The problem is the fact that the BBC was bidding in the first place.

So we should be whooping with relief that two months after our much-publicised report, the BBC appears to have taken a long hard look at its own behaviour. Its new strategy focuses on the need for the BBC to be “significantly and demonstrably more distinctive” with services like Radio 2. It will scrap two digital teen services, and allow Channel 4 to take the lead in this area. It will axe half its websites and BBC 6 Music and the Asian Network.

Yet leopards don’t change their spots overnight. The Telegraph reported last week that the Beeb plans to ramp up its spending on Strictly Come Dancing, which it runs head to head on a Saturday night with ITV’s X-Factor. And of course it’s all about ratings, ratings, ratings. The BBC is making some of the right noises in a bid to protect itself if the Government changes. But we need a little more than noise.

Anna Fazackerley is Head of Policy Exchange’s Arts and Culture Unit

Most political news is about personality and politics rather than policy.  At the moment that’s particularly true – the big stories of recent weeks have been about Brown’s behaviour, Lord Ashcroft, what the polls say.  Next week promises more of the same – a Channel 4 programme on Cameron, and the court appearance of some of the people charged as part of the expenses scandal.

I’ve often wondered how much difference all this news makes.  Sit through a focus group, or speak to your least political friends and you will hear one thing time and time again: “they are all the same”.  So much of this bad political news is just reinforcing what people think anyway – it is “already in the share price” as they say in the City.

Danny Finkelstein made the point nicely in an article last week:

The cynicism about politics is so pervasive that it embraces almost all political activity. Use a statistic? It’s a lie. Cry on television about your dead child? It’s an election gimmick. Attack your opponents’ policy? You would say that, wouldn’t you.   And this cynicism extends to the media and our coverage.  So not only politics, but news about politics, is seen as a fiction inside an untruth wrapped in a piece of spin… Most of politics and most political coverage proceeds as if there was still a reasonable degree of trust. As if the messages were still getting through, still being listened to, still being weighed up.

For the government of the day the clear implication is that what really matters is not their spin but whether they can deliver better results on the ground (a point grasped by Tony Blair some time in his second term).  It is rather more difficult for the opposition to act on this insight.  However, at the start of his time as Conservative leader David Cameron did emphasise that he would always aim to “show, not tell” people that the party had changed.  And there was something of this in Cameron’s initial reaction to the expenses scandal – when he was prepared to take a stand unpopular among some of his MPs.

The big problem for Cameron is that the Government has managed to shift so much the real-world pain the public will feel until after the election by running up huge debts.  So right now the public services are still hiring away. On the ground, things don’t look so bad.  At least, not yet.

We know more or less what the Budget is going to say already.

The Government is thinking not about how to reduce the soaring deficit – but how to spend the receipts from the super-tax in a pre-election giveaway.  We will see mock “surprise” at how much the bonus tax has raised, and condemnation of those who “said it wouldn’t raise any money”.  We will see big figures for savings based around finally officially scrapping the disastrous NHS IT programme and merging a few Primary Care Trusts.  If Liam Byrne has his way (and he probably won’t) the government may even nod to the markets by stressing how “tough” it is planning to be on public sector pay post election (nominal rises less than 1%, meaning small real-terms cuts).  The one thing it won’t do is make any meaningful effort to control the vast deficit.  Instead the Government will try to keep the debate narrowly focused around the timing of cuts – not the content.

Ironically, this is where public cynicism might ride to the rescue of the Conservatives. The idea that politicians will spend now and cut after the election is highly plausible for most world-weary voters. In the 1974 election Willy Whitelaw accused Harold Wilson of going “round and round the country stirring up apathy”.  The Tories won’t need to go round “stirring up” cynicism about the budget.  But they will need to try and be in a position to exploit it.

Neil O’Brien is the Director of Policy Exchange

Last Wednesday saw the publication of the inquiry into the failures at Mid Staffordshire hospital where over 400 patients needlessly died.   The inquiry was ordered by the Secretary of State in response to the public outcry.  The recommendations are, of course, worthy and have been well received by both patient and professional groups alike.  But as there is still appetite for a further inquiry – relatives, families and the Conservatives are calling for a full public inquiry – what was the legal basis for the first?

Mid Staffordshire is a Foundation Trust Hospital.  Foundation Trust Hospitals were created specifically to be independent of the NHS, and of the Secretary of State. The creation of Foundation Trusts was one of the most bitterly contested NHS reforms introduced by Tony Blair. At the time they were opposed by Conservatives and many within the Labour party, now both political parties want to make every hospital a Foundation Trust.  But Foundation Trusts are different; they are accountable to their local communities, not to the Secretary of State.  So while the urge for politicians to interfere in these matters is intense, their powers are necessarily limited.

The policy of creating Foundation Trusts was designed to create a new set of structural relationships within the NHS.  The development of the new structure was, amongst other things, an attempt to create a new culture.  But the old culture of tight central control – the one that NHS managers and civil servants feel safest in – still remains dominant within the Department of Health,and within the minds of Government Ministers as well.

As we pointed out last week, the fundamental failings at Mid Staffordshire were those of the system of hospital oversight and scrutiny, not the policy of Foundation Trusts.  On the whole, Foundation Trust hospitals are much more highly performing than those remaining under tight central control.  So how do we create a culture where the NHS can adopt more of the changes that allowed Foundation Trusts to flourish?   Well, what if the architects of Foundation Trusts were to reveal all in a new Policy Exchange pamphlet later this week…

Henry Featherstone is Head of the Health Unit at Policy Exchange. “Future of Foundations: Towards a new culture in the NHS” will be out this week.