There are discussions all over the place about the threats to the Coalition itself. All anyone I speak to wants to discuss is how long it will last. Labour seem to think if they are nasty enough to the Lib Dems, they will eventually see ’sense’ and return to the fold.

So what are the ingredients for the Coalition to last? I’ve already discussed the structural and emotional elements, but there’s something else – just enough dissent from the memberships of both parties, and just enough uncomfortable concessions on policy from the leaderships of both parties, and just enough disagreement between everyone to ensure that voters still see the two parties as separate entities.

Hence, for example, Nick Clegg’s declaration that the war in Iraq was illegal. Hence the public discussions over a graduate tax. Hence as well Simon Hughes’ comments that David Cameron was only floating the idea of changes to the way council tenancies work.

This is all to the good. Firstly it is important that discussions be had on the big issues of the day – I don’t want a bunch of sheep who don’t think about anything, I want politicians who are prepared to be radical and argue their case. And secondly, it’s important that difficult decisions are seen to be taken in the public interest.

So like Goldilocks and her porridge, there needs to be not too much but also not too little friction so that voters understand that the Coalition is there to change things, there to argue the case for their own views, but – crucially – willing and able to come to the right decisions in the national interest.

It won’t always be comfortable – even Goldilocks burned her mouth – but in the end, we need to acknowledge that not everyone is right all the time, and it’s better to come to a conclusion after frank discussions than to steamroller through with no thought for the consequences.

The other day a friend who was over from the US asked me: “What’s the story with this new British Conservatism?” Here is my interpretation of our recent history.

The Nasty Party

For close to twenty years the British Conservative Party was tainted by being tagged as the ‘Nasty Party’. The Tories had a “nasty, narrow” image and appeared to be “unrepentant and unattractive”. This harsh assessment was offered up by the then Conservative Chairman at the 2002 party conference. Three big defeats at the polls between 1997 and 2005 proved that the party, which had traditionally viewed itself as being the natural party of government, was no longer connecting with the values of the British people.

The Conservative Party had become a narrow echo-chamber populated by people who were more interested in venting their spleen. It rejected the notion of creating a policy agenda which evolved with society. The 1997, 2001 and 2005 election campaigns were driven by doomsday scenarios and negative messages. There was a distinct lack of desire to embrace the place Britain had become, and as a result, the Tories could not present an uplifting vision for where the country should go next.

Cameron’s arrival

The old instinct of prioritising the need to win power kicked-in at the end of 2005. The Conservative members picked a fresh-faced leader, David Cameron, who was untainted by their previous stretch in government. The party gave him the mandate, and responsibility, of re-energising and re-orientating British Conservative politics. When accepting this challenge, Mr Cameron signalled his intention to modernise the Tories by saying, “I love this country as it is, not as it was”.

Promoting values for everyone

In politics there is an important difference between promoting values and making moral judgements. Pre-Cameron, the Conservatives had the reputation of being castigators of single mothers, scolders of homosexuals and neglecters of the poor. Modern Conservatives have exchanged these judgement-driven attacks for promoting long-tested values in a language that resonates in the current climate. The fundamental principle is that good values and the benefits which flow from them should be accessible to everyone. Strong families, however they are constructed, are important for a stable society which is why gay couples who enter into civil partnerships should be entitled to the same benefits as those in heterosexual marriage. Conservatives should not blindly reject the fact that government has a key role to play in shaping society. Having a positive attitude to what the state can do does not automatically translate to giving handouts; instead the public sector can foster a better environment by giving people responsibility through devolving resources to those who need – or want to – help.

Broadening the message and the messengers

The Winston Churchill quote: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject” is a good description of the Tory party from the late 90s onwards. The Conservatives were seemingly obsessed by two subjects, integration into the European Union and immigration, at a time when the public’s primary concerns were the economy, education and health. One of Mr Cameron’s first acts as leader was to head off to the Arctic and ride with huskies, putting the environmental agenda at the centre of the party’s platform. The none too subtle message to voters, and just as importantly party members, was that the Conservatives had changed and were in touch with modern concerns. Cameron and his team developed a set of positions to show everyone how modern Conservatism would manifest itself. This included giving decision making powers over the use of resources to locals, promising to protect the National Health Service budget and linking fiscal discipline with creating a stable, sustainable and productive economy.

Political parties that want to win national elections should resemble the nation. If when a political movement looks in the mirror all it can see is one segment of society staring back at them then they have to recognise that they will find it harder to change society as a whole. In 2005 only 9% of Conservative members of Parliament were woman, 98% were white and 60% were educated at private schools. This situation was viewed as being unacceptable by the leadership. To rectify this, the apparently very unconservative method of positive discrimination was introduced into the parliamentary selection process, to the uproar of many grassroots members. Changing the composition gave the Conservatives an opportunity to show that the party was changing by diversifying its face. Of course, the great irony here is that Mr Cameron and many of his tem arrived in Parliament from privileged backgrounds, having attended some of Britain’s most exclusive schools.

A successful transformation?

Different people/groups have differing views as to what success looks like. David Cameron is now Prime Minister, but as the Conservatives failed to win a majority of parliamentary seats he leads a Government containing members from another party. Is there a desirable Conservative influence on the way Britain is governed? That is a whole other conservation, but what is not in doubt is that the Conservative party needed to change to become, once again, a relevant force in Britain.

Yesterday after PMQs, I had a text from a VERY non-political friend who said she thought that David Cameron’s description of Raoul Moat as a ‘callous murderer’ was outrageous and went far too far for a Prime Minister.

Today, the Facebook page which caused so much of more of the outrage has been taken down – not by Facebook but by the creator of it.

I was in Starbucks today and saw a woman – I would have said pretty well-off, she was buying sandwiches and coffee and lollies for her children – put a lolly in her handbag, pass one to each of her children and say to the barista that ‘Oh I have two lollies as well.’ Well no she didn’t, she had taken three. The person in front of me in the queue pointed out that she had also taken one and put it away, and the woman laughed off how ditzy she had been.

How many of us would have thought, it’s only 40p, Starbucks make plenty of money, they factor that in? But that’s not the point. The point is that it is not acceptable to steal, and part of how shoplifters can be stopped is if those who see them step in.

It is important that people speak up when they feel something is wrong. It is also important that people feel able to speak up when they feel something is wrong.

I think my friend was wrong when she said the Prime Minister shouldn’t have got  involved in the saga of this Facebook page. I think it’s absolutely right that our politicians lead from the front, do the right thing, and encourage the rest of us as well.

There are plenty of things politicians get wrong but on this, David Cameron is  right: societal pressure – from all sorts of different directions – is what will change society. Simply passing more laws isn’t the answer, and always expecting someone else to do it isn’t either. We all have to be prepared to think about what kind of society we want to live in, and be prepared on top of that to be part of making it happen.

“We are all in this together” George Osborne told us in 2009.

We now know that ‘this’ is a £156billion black hole. It’s the equivalent of more than £31,000 for every person in employment. Every household will pay £1,896 this year, just to cover the interest. Let’s just stop and think about what that actually means. People have a tendency to worry about relatively small problems, while conveniently ignoring the nasty bigger picture. As Joseph Stalin pointed out: “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic”. 

David Cameron today delivered a speech on “transforming the British economy”. But he did not mention the finance sector.  He said that there are problems, such as the fact that we borrow one pound for every four that we spend. But there was no talk about how the government could stop a future financial collapse. Ideas were floated, including cutting red tape and rebalancing the economy. But there was no vision as to how to reform the British economy as a whole. While, earlier in the week, Osborne had discussed the necessary cuts, I was hoping that Cameron would deal with the necessary reforms. 

Superhumans don’t exist 

Those with responsibility should always be publicly aware of the weaknesses in a system and their associated risks. All institutions, whether they are banks, ministries or churches, are run by humans. All sectors, whether finance, groceries or government, are made up of people making decisions for the benefit of a certain group of people.

If an institution or sector forgets that they are human, thus fallible, they start to believe that the rules and constraints which govern our society are not applicable to them. When this superiority takes hold it’s cetain that a big fall will happen.

When Gordon Brown claimed the current financial system had achieved the end of boom and bust, he laid mental foundations that inevitably led to the biggest financial crisis for generations. Why bother fixing the roof if it’s never going to rain? Why should we limit speculators as their actions always lead to prosperity? Why shouldn’t we have an over-reliance on one sector, at the expense of others, as that sector will always provide sunshine?  

No sector should be too big to fail us 

Labour, continuing the trend started by Thatcher, put all of our eggs into one basket, and that basket was the Square Mile in London. Tony Blair was so starry-eyed towards those who he considered to be the masters of the universe that I suspect he always considered being PM a stepping stone towards becoming today’s international business gigolo. I am encouraged that Cameron said: “Our economy has become more and more unbalanced, with our fortunes hitched to a few industries in one corner of the country, while we let other sectors like manufacturing slide”. 

Reorganising our economy will hurt those who are used to being worshipped but it is worth putting up with their howls of protests in order to improve our country, as a whole. 

A year ago Simon Johnson analysed the US in the same way that the IMF would look at a failed banana republic. He found that US finance industry leaders had become oligarchic, and had captured the government and its regulatory functions. This supremacy was based on the premise that the interests of the finical sector were the same as the interests of the country, hence if you did anything to restrict or harm the financial sector you were automatically harming everyone. The coalition government has to loudly consign this mindset to the dustbin – otherwise meaningful reform is impossible.  

Apply moral standards to finance 

Reform of the financial services sector should inject moral obligations and public service principles into the greed-infested veins of the banking system. The banking system is a part of our society. A government’s duty is to defend and promote us, not to prop up the finance system. Finance should be considered in the same way as one looks at a regulated utility. Our society depends on the flow of money as much as we depend on water and heat. Rather than using this as a reason why governments should not say boo to those who operate in this area I believe that this necessity means that the financial sector should be watched over carefully. Banks should have to prove how their actions are compliant with public obligations. These obligations, which must be clear, transparent and achievable, need to be defined through a consultation process. My starter for ten is:

• Banks must prove that they can cover the risks they take.
• Banks’ liabilities should be made public so that consumers can compare the risks each institution has taken on before choosing a product.
• Bonuses should be calculated and paid five years after they are earned.
• If the mechanics of a financial product cannot be understood by the regulator then it cannot be sold.

 Strength of vision 

Just before the election campaign Cameron talked about how he would challenge vested interests. This is important because you cannot change a system unless you make life uncomfortable for some of the current beneficiaries. To do this you must be a strong leader. 

Today’s speech did not contain the necessary vision, strength and leadership which are needed for the predicament we are in. The public know that mending our economy will be painful in parts. But they won’t accept the hurt unless those responsible feel their fair share of discomfort and people believe that the government has a strong vision about how to create a better future. Today’s speech didn’t come close to suggesting that either of these goals will happen.

As a Conservative activist, I have spent much of my time fighting the Liberal Democrats. A well known joke emphasises the dislike between the two parties; two councillors are standing at the top of a cliff, one Labour and one Liberal Democrat, which do you push first. The answer is the Labour councillor, business before pleasure.

In large parts of the country the fiercest fighting in election campaigns is between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In 2004, as the electoral agent for Ipswich, I helped mastermind a successful campaign which allowed the Conservatives to remove Labour from power on Ipswich Borough Council for the first time since 1979 – the year I had been born. Yet just 3 months later I resigned my position with the Conservatives, objecting to their coalition with Ipswich Liberal Democrats to take over and lead the Borough Council.

As a Conservative who had spent many years in trench warfare against the local Liberal Democrats I could not see that such a coalition would be good for Ipswich. I am pleased to be able to say I was wrong. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition in the town has worked extremely well for the people of Ipswich. The current leadership of Ipswich Conservatives has been able to overcome many problems, not least the number of very left wing Liberal Democrat councillors who would perhaps more naturally align themselves with Labour.

It is with the same natural concern that many Conservatives will view the new coalition Government. It is against Conservative instincts to trust Liberal Democrat politicians. We recall only too easily the number of misrepresentations that appear on their Focus leaflets. Yet you cannot deny the feeling of hope that comes with the sight of a Conservative Prime Minister walking through the door of Number 10.

There will be many Conservatives who have doubts about the strength of this coalition, who doubt the sincerity of the Liberal Democrats, who abhor the concept of AV. Yet all those with doubts will be able to look back in four years time and see that it has worked, and worked well.

Whilst the national media focuses on the aspects of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that we are implementing in Government, it is vital that doubtful Tories remember that it is a Conservative Chancellor, a Conservative Home Secretary, a Conservative Foreign Secretary, and best of all, a Conservative Prime Minister.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Paul Norton