When I read this morning about Brown and his failed attempt to appear on Match of the Day I tried hard to feel the contempt for his cynical PR ploy that the newspapers suggested I feel. Instead I felt a strange kind of admiration for such blatant opportunism and the willingness of the PM and his PR team to grasp at anything to hitch a ride on the political zeitgeist of popular-cultural integration. As we all know, this is a technique pioneered by Blair and elevated by Cameron in his early years as leader of the Conservative party to a fine art. Despite the cynicism of parts of the media, it has been very successful in winning over the ordinary punter – something that both parties need to be doing to turn around a legacy of low turn-out in UK elections.

The fact is, I admire Brown in this case because, rather than seeing it as a desperate stunt, I believe that in politics the counter-intuitive often works. Sarah Brown’s stewardship of London Fashion Week was completely unexpected when it first took place a couple of years ago. But in the opinions of many it has turned her into Brown’s greatest asset. If Samantha had done the same thing, it would have made no impact at all on David Cameron’s reputation.  Although the Match of the Day attempt may not have worked, more broadly this approach is where Brown might have the edge over Cameron. Brown is perceived as impersonal and awkward, but what if Brown’s faltering style and capacity for PR blunders make him the perfect candidate to build a campaign around his ‘everyday life’? I wouldn’t be surprised if we see at some point during the campaign another Match of the Day style PR attempt for Brown suddenly strike the right chord and have a real impact on his hither-to un-glittering profile as a figure of public empathy.

Based on the counter-intuitive premise, it follows that Cameron’s excellence at using this technique in the past might make the public more cynical about any carefully choreographed PR moments he is planning in the next six weeks. The air-brushing accusations and the android connotations all make this ground trickier for him in the future and my feeling is that Cameron should be careful that he is not seen as trying to emulate his success of a few years ago when he was seen as a star-in-waiting rather than as the possible Prime Minister in a few weeks time. Cameron may well therefore be sensible to steer away from a very ‘lifestyle’ focused campaign and concentrate on winning over the doubters with a serious straight campaign that delivers some really meaty policies – and indeed recognises the public as having the intellectual metal to deal with these.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Isabella Sharp

What do the Tories stand for? The charge that the Conservatives have not made clear what they stand for has been slowly gathering momentum ironically ever since the Conservatives started their ‘one a week’ policy series. Right wing commentators who are fearful that a Cameron Conservative government will not govern in an appropriately conservative enough way have fanned this criticism. A few weeks ago Simon Heffer clarified this view when writing “the problem for the Tories is this, succinctly put to me by a close observer to the party of the day: if you board a bus anywhere in these islands, sat down next to a passenger at random and asked what it stood for, he or she could not tell you”. This got me thinking. Does Simon Heffer ever use public transport? Who is this sage observer who bothers random people on buses? Is the assertion true? I grabbed my Oyster card and went to the bus stop. In the interests of polling methodology I should reveal that I live what Alistair Campbell may describe as a ‘bog-standard’ middle-class London lifestyle.

I won’t lie to you. At first I was a bit apprehensive about approaching people, but I was glad to find that most people do not mind being asked about their opinions. The instant response was ‘umm not sure’ which was then followed by an opinion of what the Conservatives stood for. The two most popular answers were that the Tories would:

• Cut the deficit
• Promote the family

A couple of people said that they would protect the interests of the rich and one lady said she was not sure but they had to be better than the current lot so she would vote for them anyway.

It is only fair that I answer my own question. For me the Conservatives stand for opportunity, which they will facilitate through governing by trust. A Conservative Government will trust local groups to decide what needs doing and how plans should be executed. Labour’s obsession with mechanical control has been both expensive and stifling. It has lead to the ID card debacle; massive increase in state monitoring and situations such as a 64.4% increase in NHS managers. The Conservatives will also focus on the important task of regaining the public’s trust in politicians and Government. This will be done through the transparency agenda, which will allow people greater choice in deciding how politicians should be accountable.

Since I started my little experiment there has been a media frenzy over the Tory poll-acoaster. Most pundits have been asking the question ‘Why are the Conservatives slipping?’ and then answering their own question by saying ‘I told you so, you’re not the right type of Conservative’. This sort of analysis loses sight of the bigger picture. For me the real question should be ‘Why were the Tories so far ahead in the first place?’. This election is the antithesis of 1997. The electorate is not in the mood to place the same amount of trust and hope in our elected representatives as they did with Tony Blair in the great political love-in of 1997. There is an underlying feeling that no prospective government should be given an easy ride or have its promises taken at face value. The people I spoke to could tell me what the Conservatives stood for but this was not the same as them believing that the Tories would make a positive difference. It seems to be that the deal can only really be sealed once a new Government has proved that they are governing in a new way. Many people will enter the voting booths begrudgingly. This will lead to certain amount of electoral volatility, which will manifest itself in some odd results. The polls should be taken with a pinch of salt, and should not distract us from working hard to promote the benefits of a Conservative government.

My conclusion after a week on the bus is that this country is complex. It is full of people with differing needs and beliefs. While a couple of consistent themes did emerge no one gave me exactly the same answer (apart from the two people who looked at me as if I was a madman before declining to answer). The truth is that the question Simon Heffer poses does not have a single right answer. The Conservative party itself is a complex coalition which contains people who can both strongly agree and disagree with each other depending on the issue being debated. What I hope we can all agree on is that the future of this country is best served by electing the strongest possible Conservative Government. The rights and wrongs of certain policies can be discussed after 6 May. As Tim Montgomerie puts it “this election isn’t a choice between a perfect Conservative Party and an imperfect Conservative Party but between a strong government led by David Cameron and the chaos of a hung parliament.”

George Osborne was right when he said, “We are all in this together”. We need to work together to ensure that there is the best future for all.

PS I want to give a shout out to www.futurefairforall.org I often consult this treasure trove of information before I go out canvassing. It has a lot of evidence, which shows that 13 years of Labour has spectacularly failed to create a ‘future fair for all’.

For a while now, all we’ve heard from the Tories has been a bit gloomy. And with good reason – that second look at Gordon Brown is not a happy one.

But this afternoon in Brighton, it seems to all be coming together. William Hague’s speech was a classic tour de force. He set out the very stark choice we face: change or ruin.

Audible gasps of shock in the audience accompanied his revelation that Britain was 4^th in the world for tax and regulation – and now is 84^th and 86^th. This is not something people can vote for.

But crucially, instead of merely bashing Brown and setting out the dire state we are in and the dire measures needed to fix the problems, William, Andrew Lansley, Oliver Letwin, Phillip Hammond, Ken Clarke and most convincingly George Osborne then laid out just why those measures are needed – because there is a point to all the pain. There will be an end to it. And when we are at the end, we will have a far better country. One where life will be improved, where our NHS can do its best, where our schools can beat the world, where our environment can be saved, where our government does its job properly and gives people value for the money that they hand over to it, where the energy, resourceful inventiveness and essential good nature of our fellow countrymen can flourish.

No-one would want to vote for a party that simply gives up and says ‘all is lost’. People want to vote for something, and the only way to persuade people to vote for the frankly unpleasant task ahead is to give them a reason to do so. That message of hope is what David Cameron does best.

It will not be easy. But the message coming out from this weekend is simple: we are a country worth fighting for. The party that has the ideas to change the country is the Conservative Party. It is not going to be easy but the change will come, and the effort is worth it.

I have a question. During an election campaign, and let’s be honest it already feels like we’re already in the middle of one, is it acceptable for one party to adopt a policy which has been proposed by one of their opponents? This post argues yes, especially for a Party that has serious aspirations to govern.

One of the major strengths of a democratic system is that it creates a market place where ideas compete for the blessing of citizens. It is churlish to believe that one person, one institution or one philosophy has a monopoly of knowing what the best solutions are for the problems that this country faces, especially when all Parties, pressure groups and institutions compete for our support by producing what they consider to be the best solution.

Gordon Brown’s brand of political chauvinism is an example of what can happen if you believe the answer to my question is no. He searches for dividing lines that can be used to beat-up his opponents. The desire for instant victory over opponents who are viewed with hatred trumps any concern over how these victories are achieved. It is this type of attitude that breeds instances such as the Damien McBride/Red-Rag scandal. This intransigent outlook has not just damaged the country, it has also stunted the Labour Party. By crushing any possibility of there being a leadership contest post-Blair, Brown was telling his party he would not tolerate competing views. He did not allow Labour the breathing space to conduct a debate about its future direction. He denied the general public a chance to hear the case for him being our Prime Minister. It is no coincidence that the most promising Labour thinking emanates from those who do not share his mentality thus consider ideas from wide variety of sources.

The trigger that started my thought process was the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax to £10,000 pa. They claim that this policy will mean that 4 million low paid workers will no longer have to pay income tax. This policy instantly appealed to my Tory gut. It neatly ties together the Conservative philosophies of low tax and achieving social justice through promoting aspiration. If the Tories adopted this policy they would not need to move a political inch. The tax threshold idea compliments existing policies such as abolishing tax on new jobs and reducing tax on small businesses will help to encourage companies to employ more people, the commitment to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and fund 10,000 extra high-tech university places so that the unemployed can play an active part in the new economy. From a social justice angle the £10,000 tax policy stands on the shoulders of much of the work done by the Centre for Social Justice. Since 1997 three quarters of a million more people are classed as living in severe poverty. Despite what Labour propaganda would have you believe the Conservatives want to help people get out of this situation. Unlike the Labour Government Tories understand that this cannot be done by just throwing money at the problem.  A sense of aspiration and reward needs to be built into the system in order to encourage welfare dependants to take their first step onto the working ladder. Labour can criticise Tory tax cutting beliefs as being something that just benefits the rich but raising the tax threshold shows that tax cuts can benefit us all.

Politics being politics, if the Conservatives did add the Lib Dem idea to their programme for government they are bound to face some hostility. In anticipation of this I have answered the three most obvious charges which may be flung at them.

You have stolen that idea!

To quote my political philosophy lecturer “There is no such thing as an original idea.” The Conservative Party have a fine history of encouraging the poorest in our society to generate, accumulate and use wealth. The Lib Dems’ idea builds on the work of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne to put aspiration back into the welfare system. The Tory Party is not afraid to adopt ideas which will benefit the country, wherever they emanate from. We welcome the fact that the Lib Dems have spent time on issues which we have consistently highlighted as being important and we already have a wide-ranging governmental programme to solve. Raising the tax threshold to £10,000 is a Lib Dem cherry which has been put on top of a Conservative cake.

This is proof that you have no good policies yourself. This is a Tory endorsement of the Lib Dems. Voters should forget about the Tories and just vote Lib Dem.

Labour has plunged Britian into the longest and deepest recession on record. We face the largest budget deficit of any major economy. The Conservative Party has a full economic programme which will firstly ensure that Britian maintains its place as a major economic power and secondly wenches our nation back onto the path to prosperity. We will create a national loan guarantee scheme to underwrite bank lending to business, to save businesses and protect jobs. We will tackle debt, we will create 100,000 new apprentiships that will create a qualified workforce for the high-skill economy that Britain needs to develop. We will cut the cost of Whitehall and Quangos, freeze Council Tax for two years, and abolish tax on new jobs. If you would like me to go on let me know. The point is it is only us who has the right strategy for fixing the problems that face this country. If another Party, pressure group or individual creates a good idea that fits into our strategy we have no problem adopting it. Our decisions are based on what is best for the British people, they are not driven by an abstract political agenda.

You are only adopting this policy because you want the support of Nick Clegg’s mob.

The Labour Party has dramatically failed in its promise to raise the living standards of the lowest paid workers in our economy. Stateist solutions have lead to greater inequality partly because they have taken away pride, aspiration and responsibility from those they feel the need to protect. The Tories have been highlighting this broken promise for a number of years now and we have many progressive policies which will encourage improvements. It is unsurprising that the Lib Dems are also trying to solve the mess Labour has created. We have no problem working with others to solve this issue. A Conservative Government will concentrate solely on making Britain a better place to live.

Adopting others ideas, when they are good and are consistent with your programme, shows the electorate that you posses political maturity, confidence and leadership. Maturity because you ignore yaa-boo politics in favour of the greater good. Confidence because you will do what is right even if it opens you to criticism. Leadership because you are open to considering many ideas before deciding which direction to take.

Great fun interviewing David yesterday – though I’ve never been to Birmingham and turned straight round to come home before… The article will be in April’s edition of Company magazine which will be on sale in mid-March.

One of the things we talked about was how politicians are using new media. I came across this website today (thanks to the Coffee House) which is just great.  At the moment the first interview that starts playing is Zac Goldsmith’s but that will change as more candidates upload their videos.

Along with Derek Wyatt’s iPhone app, this got me thinking… Can technology ever win an election? Should it? Is it only politics geeks who go reading political websites, and watching political videos, and searching out political information? How do most people decide who to vote for? Is face to face engagement with either the prospective MP or their hard-working canvassers and leaflet deliverers the most effective way to reach out to people, or are tv, radio, newspaper and internet interviews and spots enough?

The WinkBall website is clearly based on the premise that face to face is better than just leaflets. But it is still after all only on a computer screen, and there’s no knowing how interactive it really is.

I think the real genius of blogs, websites, forums, Facebook and so on is not that it is ON A COMPUTER so you can do it from home, but that you can answer back. Politics used to be all about the politicians telling you what they thought and then you would vote for them and then you might, if you were lucky, see that they delivered what they said. But the way people use the internet means that politicians are much more accountable than they used to be and it looks terrible if they ignore questions or issues that people raise.

That’s why the transparency agenda is so important. Instead of waiting until it’s dragged out, piece by piece, under Freedom of Information or because it’s leaked, the Conservatives’ plans to publish government contracts, data and other information is, as I’ve said before, probably the most radical thing they will do if they are elected to government. It will completely change the relationship between politicians and voters – which, as things stand, can only be a good thing.

So my conclusion, such as it is, is this. These sorts of applications are important because they offer a different and sometimes eye-catching way to communicate. But they are most important because they break down the barriers between politicians and voters in the same way that meeting in person does. It’s not the fact that you can see the person that makes the difference – it’s the fact that you can talk back. In our ever-less reverential society, this is what makes us all accountable to each other.

As an aside, I heard a terrible story about a very well-known Labour MP this week – apparently she does all her surgeries in her local council offices… from behind the bullet-proof glass that the cashiers sit behind. Why she thinks this is in any way appropriate is beyond me – it’s nearly as bad as Harriet Harman’s flak jacket on a constituency tour...