All the while people are taking note. Not just the requisite opposition researchers and the politico’s, but members of the public.

The danger is that it will give the game away, reveal the plan and perhaps crucially reveal a lack of confidence in the leadership. Say nothing and you remain anonymous in the public eye, say something about campaign strategy and you risk revealing your hand too soon.

For this is what Chris Bryant did earlier this week. Writing in The Independent on his predictions for the issues facing Labour in the coming year he cited specific regions that needed to be targeted; changes in messaging, and pontificated about Party philosophy and methods of pilfering disaffected voters from the ruling Government.

What was the point of his message? Possibly to energise activists or perhaps to gently nudge the Labour leadership. Or simply profile raising?

Research by Hanover Communications revealed that Tom Watson, Murdoch grand-inquisitor, had a higher media profile in 2011 that every shadow minister apart from Messrs Balls and Milliband. The democratisation of communication, the pull of the Twitter argument and the lure of the unchecked, unrestricted blogging platform is surely hard for natural born politicians to resist.

There is always danger in writing or speaking publicly; the audience forgets that you too are human and that elected representatives are occasionally allowed to have opinions of their own. But does the fast paced nature of the web help to connect party political figures to ‘realBritain’?

We must remember that, at present, the majority of the non-affiliated electorate that hold the balance of power in elections are not on Twitter, and whilst the numbers who consume using blogs is slowly increasing, there is still a huge silent majority that require real channels for outreach that aren’t necessarily powered by electricity.

This is where some of the outreach work that the Conservatives are doing really is starting to impress. The re-launched Conservative Policy Forum is beginning to generate real interest from members of the public. Its purpose speaks to the heart of what the Party is about: listening to the grassroots. In creating a clearly defined policy feedback mechanism, activist views are passed up the chain where they can truly influence the direction of the country. It’s exactly this sort of valued, relaxed yet influential approach that will help secure future faith in the party and the political process more widely.

When we focus our efforts on communicating the ease and speed with which everyday folk can input their ideas into the system, and crucially demonstrate how readily they will be listened too, the return for societal engagement is immeasurable.

We should never just accept that an active member of society is one who simply votes – we should always expect more. Through demystifying the engagement process and developing projects like the CPF, we make the entire process less daunting and the Conservatives more accessible.

It is remarkable to consider that only a few decades ago, the Conservatives still had a major presence in many major Northern cities.  Liverpool was, at times, a Conservative stronghold.  Leeds and Manchester both had considerable Conservative representation.  Up until 1987, Newcastle had several Conservative MPs.

Now, in all of those cities, voting Conservative has effectively become counter cultural.  Great cities in the North, such as Liverpool (once a bastion of working class Toryism), Manchester and Liverpool don’t have a single Conservative on their Councils.   The Conservatives have been pushed back to third place in a number of parliamentary seats that they actually held a couple of decades ago.  Despite making some inroads at the last election, the North remains a largely Tory free zone.

Becoming a marginal actor in many parts of the North (with an even starker collapse in Scotland) has made it considerably more difficult for the Conservatives to win an overall majority.  A decline in the Tory voted in the North and Scotland has had an inevitable knock-on effect on their national vote share.  Harold Macmillan polled 49.4% of the vote in 1959, compared to John Major’s 41.9% and David Cameron’s 36%.  If the Party cannot turn around their Northern decline, the Conservatives will face an uphill fight as they look to govern alone after 2015.

There is little evidence that any corner is being turned by the Conservatives in the North as a result of the coalition.  A You Gov poll on 25^th October, which gives Ed Miliband’s party a lead of 4% nationally, gives Labour a commanding 29% lead in the North.  Some 69% of people polled in the North disapprove of the Government’s record to date – that is considerably higher than in any other part of the UK.

Is it possible for the Conservatives to turn the situation around in the North?  What do they have to do to move from being a party dominated by the South of England and part of the Midlands to being a truly national party again?  It is clear that efforts in recent years have made little headway and that steps must be taken beyond merely beefing up campaigning operations and seeing the North as an appendage to a national campaign.

One of the main elements of Conservative modernisation was that the party should put themselves in a position where the party gained position, from the voters, to be listened to.  Whilst that permission has been granted from voters outside of the North, it seems that many in the North are still refusing to countenance listening to Conservatives.  And the Tories must take steps to change that.

A start would be for Conservatives to acknowledge the historical reasons that have created a cultural anti Toryism in many Northern cities, towns and villages.  Many in the North still associate Conservatives with deindustrialisation, unemployment and the social problems that followed in their wake.  Memories of the Miner’s Strike and subsequent pit closures still provoke anti Toryism in certain parts of the North, with some regarding the Conservatives  as uncaring and enabling Labour to label the Tories as the “party of unemployment.”

A realisation from Conservative politicians that, whilst economic changes were necessary, social consequences of those changes damaged communities and social cohesion.  Whilst Conservatives have issued a mea culpa around policies towards gay people and some other groups, gaining them greater credibility within those communities, they have still to address discontent in the North with the social consequences of policies in the 80s and 90s.

Conservative strategists also need to consider addressing the fact that, despite a series of changes, the Conservative Party still looks and sounds like a Southern party.  Despite the presence of Yorkshiremen, William Hague and Eric Pickles, in the Cabinet, the Government still has a gilded, mainly Southern feel.   This Southern feel could partly be ascribed to the Conservatives retreating to their South Eastern base during much of the past two decades.

Polls show that the Conservatives are still viewed as a “party of the rich”  – this perception is particularly damaging in many parts of the North.  To address this perception, which continues to hold the Party back electorally, the Conservatives must look to broaden their social base, so that people in the North can relate to people representing the Party.  It is crucial that the Government is able to put up spokesmen and women who people in the North can identify with and who can relate to their personal experience.

The Government can also take proactive policy steps to turn around their decline in the North.  It needs to make clear that it understands that the North has unique problems (parts of the North suffer using most economic, public health and education metrics), which require unique solutions.  An added headache for Conservatives is that the North is more dependent than other parts of the country on public sector jobs and, as such, is likely to be impacted most by public spending cuts.

This means that the Government’s efforts on delivering growth and creating private sector jobs must be redoubled in the North and the Conservatives must go out of their way to emphasise particular steps being taken to build infrastructure and create jobs in the North.  They must make clear that they aren’t prepared to accept high unemployment and are taking real measures to encourage the private sector and job creation.   Measures to reform welfare, enhance state education, cut energy bills and rebalance the economy will also play well with lower and middle income earners in the North.

For some in the Conservative Party, the North still represents an electoral no go area.  However, such a view leaves the party hamstrung and facing an uphill electoral climb at each election.  They have struggled for a variety of reasons, historical, social and economic, but they should not accept that continuing to struggle in the North is inevitable.  The Conservatives must do more to properly address reasons for past poor performance in the North and set out positive reasons for Northern voters to back the party.

“Despite this month’s dismal growth figures, most at the top of government believe the deficit will be dramatically slashed in time for the election… Some believe the Tories will let it be known they want to cut the top rate of income tax but are being blocked by Lib Dems… Lib Dems won’t object to a cut in the 50p tax rate, I’m told, if it’s done at the right time. But only if the tree bears fruit for their own people.”

If what is reported above is correct I fear that the Conservatives are walking into a trap. Gordon Brown may have long since departed plant Parliament but his trap still remains a trap. The 50p tax rate is not about economics. In the majority of people’s minds it’s about blame, morality and dividing lines.

• Blame – The financial crises was caused by a certain section of rich society, who are still rich.
• Morality - Those who caused the debt should failed to act responsibly and make a bigger contribution to paying it off.
• Dividing lines – The country has to tighten its belt, which means there are less resources to divide up between different interests groups. Do you choose to help them (the bankers) or us (the squeezed middle)?

The latest YouGov poll (h/t the excellent Mark Gettleson at the Political Pulse) found that 76% of people opposed abolishing the 50p tax rate, including 62% of Conservative voters. The Lib Dems are setting the ground for their message at the 2015 election: “We kept the coalition focused on you, while the Conservatives wanted to help their brothers in the City board rooms”.*

We conservatives talk a lot about detoxifying the Tory brand. It does not matter how many wind farms are built, how fast high-speed trains travel, how many lives DfID saves or how big society becomes. The image of the party will only be “detoxified” when a majority believe that Conservatives are interested in serving everyone, rather than helping out wealthy friends.

If the Conservatives want to lift the 50p tax rate then they either have to win the argument or lose the next election.**

 * I’m still amazed as to how far away Labour appear to be from offering a reassuring counter narrative on this. Their ideas on the economy still come across as Balls…

 **As James Forsyth points out the same principle can be applied to banking reform.

Yesterday’s economic figures were not brilliant, but they were not disastrous either. In itself the 0.2 statistic does not justify the adoption/abandonment of a particular approach. As Adam Bolton pointed out, it takes time to get to the top of steep climbs.

 “…according to our National Institute for Economic and Social Research, it generally takes about 5 years for an economy to get back where it was after a significant recession. Measuring from the middle of 2008, that point should be reached in the second half of 2013.”

You only have to look at the problems in the USA and the Euroland to see that there are no easy fiscal choices or quick economic fixes.

I suspect that the majority understand both that:

• we are in an economic mess, and
• the Coalition’s main focus is on resolving this.

My reading of the latest polling is that people instinctively do not like cuts in public spending (in the same way they instinctively do not like tax rises) but are aware that the economy is in trouble thus suspect some austerity is necessary. Labour are currently losing out be ignoring the last bit. As ever, Anthony Wells provides a good summary of the figures.

“A majority of people (53%) think the cuts are being carried out too quickly (27% about right and 8% too slowly), 46% think they are too deep (27% about right and 10% too shallow), 48% think they are bad for the economy (36% think they are good). However, despite all this 57% of people think they are necessary, and people are still more likely to blame the last Labour government than the coalition.”

What is less clear is what Cameron and the Conservatives stand for, away from the Coalition and the Credit Crunch. Currently this is less clear because the non-politically obsessed majority are focused on paying their rising bills. As we move towards 2015 being able to provide an understandable answer to the question in the title will become ever more important.  I will write a full blog on this next week but before then I will leave you with my first though on the subject. Conservatives believe the State should be as big as is necessary but as small as possible. We encourage plurality by working to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Is this statement correct? Is it clear enough? Does it suffer from being too policy wonky?

One the great debates amongst political geeks is whether Prime Ministers Question Time actually makes any difference. This week’s evidence suggests that it does. Ed Miliband’s woeful performance, when he had the choice of a high number of subjects that would have embarrassed Cameron, may have been the final nudge that convinced doubters to stop biting their tongues and start anonymously briefing.

As a Conservative I can’t help but have a mischievous feeling of pleasure, watching our opponent’s self-combust. Tim Montgomerie reports that a Cabinet minister cheerfully told him the Coalition just had their best week.

“We’ve dumped two policies that could have caused us enormous problems, he said. We suffered 48 hours of bad publicity but we’re now closer to the public on the NHS and crime. We can now focus on the core tasks of the economy, welfare, schools and immigration. At the same time, he continued, Labour are in meltdown. Labour’s Number 2, Ed Balls has been proven as a liar. It’s now obvious the Shadow Chancellor was plotting against Blair. The people around David Miliband – if not the former Foreign Secretary himself – are becoming more brazen in their attempts to undermine Ed.”

More and more friends are starting to draw parallels between Labour’s current problems and our bleak years in the wilderness. But before we assume that Labour will be out of power for a generation we must remember that there are key important differences:

1)    In 1997 Labour had a majority of over 100 MPs, and many of these had a decent personal majority. The current Conservative party is 19 short of a majority and many of our MPs are within striking distance. On current boundaries Labour only needs a small swing at the next election to become the biggest party in the Commons.

2)    In the decade after 1997 the economy was on the up, pay awards on average increased healthily each year, property value rose and rose, people felt financially secure. These conditions made people less interested in change.

3)    Back then a significant number of people disliked the Conservative party and viewed us as being “nasty”. These people did not want us to succeed. In my opinion Labour is currently viewed with pity but people will be willing to give them the chance to improve.

Let’s not allow the current difficulties of Labour to make us complacent. As David Miliband’s speech shows, they do have the ability to become more centrist. The Conservative Party still needs to work hard and work smart if we are going to have a chance of winning in 2015.

This seems to have had somewhat of a damaging effect on David Cameron’s leadership. There seems to be a sense, coming from Number 10 particularly, that it is better to hold back on major policy changes until 2015, when the hope is that the Conservatives will have won that much coveted majority.

There are two ways to look at this, and consequently two ways the situation could pan out. The first – the ideal situation for the Tories – is that they win a majority in 2015, shed the Lib Dems who are holding them back and push forward with serious reforms. All the policies that currently have the start date for change set for 2015 will come into force, and the party will push reforms on multiple fronts. Cameron will be hailed as a great reforming Prime Minister, and will help to reform some of the country’s most incomplete policies and systems.

The alternative is that, come 2015, the electorate have run out of patience with a Prime Minister who promises great reform but never delivers because he is tied into a Coalition, and is afraid of rocking the boat. Cameron’s five-year reign at the helm of the Coalition will be remembered as a time when he promised a lot but delivered little; when he became too tied down with Coalition debates to push on with important reform; and when he over-confidently thought he would be granted another term by the public.

It is, of course, impossible to tell at this stage which way the next election will go. There are still four years, and a lot could happen. The Coalition has promised great reforms, but to be effective it needs some of them to happen sooner rather than later. Whilst spending cuts are becoming more noticeable, the transforming reforms are still a future event, much lauded but not much seen.

The move from inside No.10 to hold out for a majority in 2015 is a gamble, and one that has a strong chance of backfiring. There are four years to go, not one. There is a lot of governing still to be done, and a lot of time for things to change. Tory backbenchers – not afraid to speak their minds – will become more and more frustrated and impatient. Rebellious votes within the Tories are already extremely high, and as frustration grows, these will become more frequent events.

David Cameron must not assume that he will win in 2015. He must make decisions and changes now. The proposals the Coalition are making are far-reaching and transforming – transforming systems that are desperately out of date, and have slipped far below where they should be. But as long as Cameron holds off on the big changes until he has a big majority, he will look weak and afraid. He is – Coalition or not – in charge. He is the Prime Minister, and he has a majority, even if it is not as strong as he would like.

For the sake of Cameron’s reputation and the Conservative Party, it is important that the next four years are a time of reform and of progress, not of stagnation and of treading water. Leaders who tread water for too long sink quicker than they expect. The time for David Cameron to act is not, not in 2015.

Barack Obama listens to David Cameron during their joint press conference this week

The event is also highly significant because, for the first time in decades, a US President has crossed the Atlantic in an urgent quest for policy ideas. After years of British politicians and thinkers looking across the pond for inspiration, the UK has now become a well of inspiration for Americans.

At the heart of this lies the growing American crisis about the size of the US national debt and budget deficit. No longer is a US President able to take the relaxed demeanour of President Reagan when he suggested that, “I don’t worry about the deficit. It’s big enough to take care of itself.”

But the US national debt now stands at a staggering $14 trillion, by far the highest level ever. The US budget deficit is now at the highest level since World War II. The IMF has warned the US of the need to take decisive action to cut their level of debt, warning, in unusually decisive tones that, “the United States needs to accelerate the adoption of credible measures to reduce debt ratios.” When a ratings agency downgraded the US government’s debt last month, it was a further wakeup call to the world’s only remaining superpower.

Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a brutal battle over what spending to cut. Republicans in congress launched one plan. President Obama tore into it last month, proposing a completely different plan. Both sides are miles away from agreement. In fact only a last minute deal reached between the President and the Republican leadership averted a shutdown of the federal government.

How can the divide be bridged, and what can Obama learn from the UK? Here the government is trying to get our galloping debts under control with a mix of tax rises and spending cuts.

The government has also moved to put the public finances on a more sustainable basis by changing the way that the state pension works, and how benefits are uprated in line with inflation. The UK is also introducing a series of innovative reforms in schools, hospitals and the police, which will allow better public services to be delivered for less money. For example, in London we now see police officers patrolling individually, rather than in pairs – meaning twice as many patrols for the same money.

Many of the reforms being carried out in the UK have emerged from think tanks, such as Policy Exchange, and for the first time in a generation the new ideas in politics are flowing from the UK to the US, rather than the other way round.

At present, US politics is stuck in a rut of polarization and partisan insults. Despite our famously aggressive political culture, the current coalition government does at least show how people with big political differences can learn to work together.

Amidst the fanfare of a big Presidential visit, Obama has been here on serious business. He will have been looking for ideas to capture the imagination for election year, in an attempt to pull the US from a perceived national malaise. It is a tribute to the energy and vigour of British political thinking that he has been looking for these ideas in the UK.

A further clue about how politicians should look to appeal to voters at the next election was contained in research conducted for Policy Exchange by YouGov recently. The research confirmed the importance of meritocracy and aspiration in the British psyche and how aspiration provides the basis for the British public’s approach to “fairness”. The findings of the survey suggest that, for the vast bulk of the British people, fairness and meritocracy are the same thing.

The polling shows that the British people consistently expect “something for something” across a wide range of issues and their outlook is fundamentally aspirational and meritocratic. Politicians from all parties should take note of this resounding finding.

We gave respondents three options of what fairness means to them. Some 85% supported the idea that in a fair society “people’s incomes should depend on how hard they work and how talented they are.” 63% agreed with a free market concept of fairness (fairness based on what the market will pay) and only 41% believed in an egalitarian concept (equal rewards regardless of effort or ability). Despite the success of books such as The Spirit Level in recent years, meritocracy has more than twice the appeal of egalitarianism. Throughout the polling, there is a clear emphasis that voters believe in hard work, effort, ability and ambition being rewarded. Whilst compassionate about poverty, they also believe that “something for something”, rather than “something for nothing” should be the ongoing motto.

The results confirm that the key to electoral success in British politics is appealing to aspiration and emphasising opportunity, particularly amongst the C1s and C2s of market research jargon. At the last election, the Conservatives claimed 37% of C2 voters and the Labour vote collapsed from a high of 50% in 1997 to 29% last year. The most successful electoral politicians of the past 50 years, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, both gained their considerable electoral success through an appeal to meritocracy and aspiration. It is clear that both political parties have more to do to appeal to those “strivers” who can be the decisive factor in British elections.

The Conservatives failed to persuade enough voters that they understood aspiration to make crucial breakthroughs in key marginals, whilst Labour seemed to increasingly lose touch with aspirational voters. Both parties have work to do to appeal to enough of the crucial aspiration working and lower middle class to gain an overall majority.

The findings of our poll suggest that belief in meritocracy is stronger than ever and that the political party that successfully taps in to the well of aspiration will be rewarded with electoral success. As all parties set out to shape the policy agenda leading up to the next election, they should have the meritocracy and aspiration at the forefront of their minds. Connecting with aspirational voters will be the key to electoral success in 2015, just as it has been key in every election in the past 50 years.

Indeed every time I’m out campaigning I always wonder why any political party spends money on spin doctors, since the electorate seems so able to see through their sorcery.

In Southbourne we have a mixed electorate ranging from social housing to Georgian residences situated behind pristine gardens with the spring blossom making them stand out in this unseasonably fine weather – a broad spectrum of opinion which is representative of a wider canvass. This being my first election in Sussex I wondered with some trepidation how the cuts and the Coalition would play out. But thus far I’m pleasantly surprised.

No one welcomes the deficit reduction, but almost everyone I’ve talked to on the doorstep sees it as a regrettable necessity with many having their own suggestions for government savings (mostly far beyond the powers of a prospective District Councillor!).

There is a resounding NO to AV -the Yes campaign has clearly called this one badly. I’m hearing a consistent message that FPTP is tried, tested and safe and even natural Conservative voters acknowledging that the result in 1997 was a clear and decisive message to a tired and divided government. Of course I far prefer the 1979 and 2010 examples!

AV comes across as confused, complicated and unnatural on the doorstep with the referendum as unnecessary and in the four figure “focus group” I’ve so far addressed I’ve yet to hear anyone believe it would make any impact on MPs expenses.

For those sufficiently enthusiastic to follow in detail (which I have to say isn’t many) the Chris Huhne threat to take legal action is viewed as laughably absurd.

Ed Miliband plays very badly – “the one who backstabbed his brother isn’t he?” if he is mentioned at all.

Overall I’m seeing an electorate who whilst not entirely happy are absolutely realistic about the challenges we are facing at present time. Indeed one of the most often heard calls is for more robust action on some core Conservative issues such as the Human Rights Act.

I’m also seeing a welcome enthusiasm from my Conservative colleagues (three of us are on the slate) with hard work and no complacency in engaging the voters whose trust we hope to earn. Indeed I often hear “oh you’re the only politician I’ve seen” which seems amazing given that we are one year into a government making radical and very necessary, but potentially very unpopular, changes.

Whilst there are some gripes (forests didn’t go down well) the message I’m hearing is for our Conservative-led government to stick with it, a unanimous thumbs down to AV even from the generally politically uncommitted and a refreshing desire to have a short chat over the garden gate before going back into carry on with their lives whilst this enthusiastic candidate moves on in the spring sunshine to see if their neighbours agree.

The parallels between David Cameron and Barack Obama are often unseen. Too much of the time, people focus on the differences rather than the similarities. Yet as Obama prepares to get his campaign off the ground for the 2012 election, it would be worth David Cameron keeping a close eye on how his American counterpart fares.

Both came to power on the back of a failing incumbent. In America, the frustration of having George Bush in power for eight years was one of the biggest momentum shifters for the Obama campaign. What the Democrat team did extremely well was take advantage of the fact that at large majority of Americans had had enough of George Bush, and expand that to the whole Republican Party. As soon as the lines were drawn between Bush and his party, the GOP stood little chance of retaining the White House.

In Britain, the fact that Gordon Brown’s government was so unpopular by the time an election was called was a huge boost for Cameron. Had Brown called that snap election in 2007, rather than pulling out at the last minute, he would almost certainly have won, and we would still have a Labour government. As it was, he allowed other politicians – notably Cameron – to get themselves into the game. As Brown’s premiership self-destructed over the next few years, Cameron solidified his image as responsible, trust-worthy and the man to rescue broken Britain. He told the country that ‘We’re all in this together’, and used the Labour party’s massive implosion to re-enforce that message.

However, whilst Cameron and Obama owe a lot of their political success to the failings of their predecessors (as to a certain extent all politicians do), this route to power becomes, over time, a dangerous one.

Coming to power on the back of someone else’s failure is not what any politician wants. Politicians want to be able to show that it is by their merit, charisma and policies that they have been elected. David Cameron is the perfect example of this. People were fed up with Brown for sure, and wanted a change. Yet the Conservatives could not secure a majority government and were forced into coalition. This raises the suggestion that people did not so much vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat because they believed passionately in what was on offer; more that they voted for them for the simple reason that they were not Gordon Brown and Labour.

This means that, on wining power (eventually), Cameron was faced with the expectation of the nation, but the lukewarm support of the majority. Hence why the eleven months he has so far spent in charge have been quite tough on him. People were fed up with Brown, and expected Cameron to change things – even though many only voted for Cameron because he wasn’t Brown.

Obama has fared little better in America. His policies have come under attack, he suffered heavily in the mid-terms and lost control of the House of Representatives. Yet as he gears up for the 2012 election, he is still the favourite to win, and enter the White House for a second term. This is because, despite having low ratings in the opinion polls and having had a relatively uneventful first term, Obama still faces no real threat from the Republicans.

David Cameron should therefore be watching events on the other side of the Atlantic with interest. Whilst he might not share political agreements with Obama, he can learn a lot from his electioneering, his organisation and his ability to connect with the electorate.

David Cameron faces a tough few weeks. May 5 will be a key moment for his premiership, and will either be a huge boost or a major setback. The paused in NHS reforms, increasing British involvement in Libya, anger over tuition fees and coalition splits are all starting to take their toll on Cameron. He should not be completely disheartened, as polls today show that the Conservatives are equal with Labour on 40% if there was an election tomorrow. There is still a lot of work to be done, however, and David Cameron could do much worse than learn from Barack Obama.