“Coalition 2.0 is not going to happen,” admitted a senior cabinet source. “We have realised that governing is more than just passing legislation. We really need to focus on ensuring they [the laws] work so we can go to voters with proof that we have made a difference.”

While I understand that undertaking such an exercise is tough – especially politically –  the strategic benefits of agreeing Coalition 2.0 would outweigh the tactical pain. The world has changed a lot since May 2010.  New energy needs to be given to the growth agenda. There are some very strong ideas emerging, such as the way forward presented by Nick Boles at the TRG Macmillan lecture. (Fiona will blog more on this later). Leaving aside the observation that governing is harder than had been imagined, Coalition 2.0 does not have to be about producing rafts of new legislation.  It is about building on what has already happened and ensuring that there is a consistent and quality way forward.

When the Coalition was formed David Cameron and Nick Clegg said that they were putting aside party politics for the good of the nation. The Government needs to reflect and assess before charting the best way forward. To ignore such an exercise because it is politically tough today risks creating a stagnant future.

But then my phone gave up (as usual) and I realised that despite all my ‘no bigger than it needs to be’ ideas about the state, I was in fact over the moon that there is money for better mobile phone coverage – Orange are rubbish.

When I finally got home, all I thought was this:

So this is a bit late (delayed train, much-needed nap + vegetables) but - that speech said, we ARE on your side; we DO care for all.

5 October 2011 7:57 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite

@PlatformTen

Platform 10

24 hours later, I am remembering Matthew Parris’ article from, I think, this time last year which postulated that the key to assessing speeches was to wait until you’d done some other things and then come back and see what you remember. So here goes…

I remember the big, punchy announcement that this is a One Nation party running a One Nation Government. That we are recasting our economy and making these cuts for a reason – which is to be in a better position afterwards. That we are ‘consulting’ on proper gay marriage (why we have to consult, I don’t know; just get on with it). That we’re going to change the laws on adoption to make it easier. That we’re going to remain committed to sustainable development (objectors, please note – ‘sustainable’. Which includes social, environmental, infrastructural and all those other things you’re currently worried about. What it does not mean is that you, having moved somewhere lovely, can refuse to let other people live there). That we’re still committed to making the Big Society work (it was great to see the focus given to it in the pre-speeches), and opening up to ideas and leadership from those who aren’t politicians. That we’re committed to ensuring our place in the world, with development, foreign and defence policies working together to promote our interests and that of democracy and freedom. And crucially, and as I’ve said again and again in recent years, that we’re going to have to work hard but if we make the effort it will be worth it.

To be fair, what has stuck with me is probably also a reflection of my own priorities. In delivery terms, in the hall it felt good, easy, intimate, conversational. But I saw some bits on TV last night and it didn’t really – I’m not sure why.

The two things that are the most important, however, are these. That we HAVE to sort out the economy, and that we HAVE to ensure we govern in the interests of all. I wrote a piece for the CWF magazine in which I noted that we cannot continue to have 70 per cent of people believing we are not ‘for them’ or 23 per cent of people thinking we need to be ‘moderated’ by the Lib Dems, and I’ve also heard a stat from YouGov for the IPPR that 42 per cent of people will simply never consider voting for us. This speech really went to town on the second point, and backed up the argument made by George in his speech that fixing the economy is not a simple thing, nor will it be achieved by one government lever. It requires boring, solid, incremental work. But it has to happen, and it will. Because if it doesn’t we cannot deliver our other priority – governing in the best interests of all and delivering services that people need and value.

I’ve been pondering for a while that the government should have cut, in effect, from the bottom up – ie, that they go back to absolute first principles, and identify what is necessary and valued and only preserve those things. I am very fortunate and haven’t really been badly affected by any cuts. I do, however, stick to my conviction that the government should do no more nor no less than is necessary. I’m not sure that giving mobile phone companies more money to improve their coverage is necessary (nor even desirable if you stick my principle of no more, no less) – but it might just be one of those boring, unflashy things that does actually make a difference.

Those boring, unflashy things that provide a solid basis for sustainable, fair and good growth are going to be vital in proving that we govern in the interest of all. It’s not about making announcements and failing to DO anything. It’s about governing properly, making sure we keep our promises, ensuring that we deliver the changes that will prove that we are a One Nation party once more.

The legitimacy of Parliament as a whole rests on it being representative of the people and serving the people.  This lies uneasily with an upper chamber comprised of peers appointed on the basis of parentage, party-political usefulness, wealth or personal friendship.  There is no place for a wholly unelected House of Lords in British politics.

Changing the House of Lords is a Conservative action because it is part of a slow evolution.  The relationship between the two Houses has been changing in small ways for the majority of the 20^th century – in 1900 Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, yet by the time of Sir Alex Douglas-Home it was unthinkable that a peer take Number 10, and today the circumstances by which he became Prime Minister are inconceivable.  Now is the right time for further change to the House of Lords.

The question of whether the upper chamber should be wholly elected or partly appointed rests on the characteristics and purposes of both Houses.  If the House of Commons asks “what must be done?” then the House of Lords asks “how can we do it”, thus fulfilling the roles of proof-reader, scrutiniser and editor.  A hybrid House with a small appointed component would relish this role and create a workable upper chamber, while an entirely appointed Senate could threaten the balance of Parliament.

A cross-bench group within a mainly elected chamber would benefit Parliament as a whole – the appointed cross-bench peers would bring expertise, broaden representation and strengthen independence.  While it’s certainly not the case that elected peers would necessarily lack these skills, appointment enables individuals to be chosen specifically for such qualities.

Expertise, experience and representation are vital for a chamber of scrutiny.  Appointing someone who has expertise in, for example, disabilities policy, can ensure that these issues are properly covered during debates.  The nature of expertise is often oversimplified or rejected by those who wish to see a completely elected House of Lords.  Unlock Democracy have suggested that experts should be invited in to consider specific bills, with the general argument often being that expertise is a narrow field.  The counter argument is that expertise in one field requires an intellectual curiosity and determination which is invaluable in other subjects.  Furthermore, few subjects stand completely alone, and while an expert in physics may not have the same level of expertise in education, such scientific knowledge can be applied to many areas of debate.

Cross-bench peers serving long terms can be independent of political advancement in a way that party-political members of the Commons are not.  Some individuals with much to contribute will not feel able to join political parties – such as those who gave their service to the country in military or civil service, or those who lead faith groups.  Elected representatives receive legitimacy through the democratic process, while appointed peers receive legitimacy because of past successes in the community or in their professions, or in a long career in the civil service.

If members of the upper chamber have no constituency pressures comparable to those of the lower house, they will not champion particular policies in the same way.  They have the space to carefully consider legislation solely on its own merits.  Peers, it could be argued, could come closest to perfect law-makers; while knowledge of a subject is valuable, self-interest is dangerous.

In 2008 the Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties broadly agreed with the Labour Government’s white paper suggestions for reform.  The differences, such as they are, lie in the details.  While all parties support elections by thirds (much like many two-tier and all metropolitan districts) Labour and the Conservatives favour combining these with general elections, while the Liberal Democrats suggest the 2011 devolved national cycle.  The Conservatives proposed elections held by first past the post in 80 new constituencies comprising the counties and cities.  (An interesting suggestion, as it prioritises the community boundaries which the House of Commons constituencies will be moving away from.  It’s also worth noting that elections are run by districts rather than counties.)  Liberal Democrats prefer a single transferable vote in 24 roughly equally-sized constituencies.  While Labour and the Liberal Democrats suggested a total between 400 and 450 electors, the Conservatives recommended a smaller chamber of 250 to 300.

Labour promised to reform the House of Lords, and while they did much to demonstrate the need to do so, they ultimately failed.  This is an opportunity to prove that this Coalition Government is progressive and keen to support the right changes.  If the Government waits, it will be guilty of adding yet another link to the messy business that Professor Philip Cowley called “a compromise followed by a hapless white paper followed by a U-turn followed by a farce followed by another U-turn”.

The Coalition Government is right to be pressing forward with this issue.  The House of Lords can act as a veil of ignorance, but it needs careful reform to ensure that it contains enough independence, expertise, representation and legitimacy.

After all, there is still a lot of work to be done. In the last year, the Coalition and particularly the Conservatives have begun the process of getting some radical Bills through parliament – the Localism Bill, the NHS reforms, the Welfare Bill, the Education Bill and the Police Bill are the best known examples.

All of these Bills propose radical changes to their respective systems, and they are integral to David Cameron’s vision for his time in government. It is important that the attention of the Party and the wider Coalition now turns to these Bills, and the work that needs to be done to them to tweak them and make them as good as they can be.

This is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is important as the Bills have already been placed in the public domain, and any backtracking of them will look like the Conservatives are not able to push their own proposals through. Once something is suggested in politics, it is extremely difficult – and embarrassing – to retract it. The nightmare the Party had over the proposed selling off of forests is a perfect example, and an all too recent reminder for Mr Cameron of the fallout when things go wrong.

The issues surrounding the NHS reforms have also shown that there is a need for Cameron to steer the Conservative ship through some rough waters at the moment. The Prime Minister needs to show authority, leadership and a desire to achieve over the next few weeks, to ensure that not only his party but the public see he is a leader willing to reform and reshape British politics.

Last night’s Police Bill defeat in the Lords is undoubtedly a setback for Cameron, and is not the start to the Coalition’s second year that he would have wanted. It is another situation from which the Conservatives must dust themselves off and move on.

Secondly, it is important because the Conservative Party needs a boost – a piece of legislation or a policy that speaks strongly of traditional Tory principles and reminds the Party of what they believe in and why they are in government. Entering into Coalition has been difficult for many Conservatives, and whilst many have accepted that it is a necessary concession to being in power, it still does not sit comfortably. If Cameron can claim some victories on his key policies, it will reassure his party and the public.

The Coalition has had a tricky first year, and has come out well overall. As George Osborne said on Sunday, it’s a sign of how well they have done that the conversation at the moment isn’t all about the deficit crisis Britain finds itself in. A financial crisis has been avoided, and the plans that the Conservatives have put forward have a real and genuine chance of changing a lot of the broken systems that are a legacy of Labour’s thirteen years in power.

Now is the time for the Coalition, the Conservatives in general and David Cameron specifically, to reassess their situation and to make a concerted push to get policies through and Bills passed. If they can do so, public perception will continue to improve and the Coalition will be regarded as a genuine success. If they fail, then the rough waters will continue to get worse, and it will be Cameron who has to answer the questions as to what went wrong.

The 1922 Committee have been particularly vocal in their criticism of the Prime Minister, complaining that he does not consult backbenchers enough and that he is walking away from the traditions of the Tory Party. Many are also frustrated that senior Government positions went not to Conservative members but to Liberal Democrats as part of the Coalition deal. Some Conservatives who felt they were due a place on the front benches still find themselves looking on from the back.

The elections and AV referendum on Thursday are an important day for the Conservative Party, and in particular the relationship their leader has with his backbenchers. Mr Cameron has in the last week or so seemed to have become more Conservative in his tone, making more explicit Tory claims and standing against the Lib Dems more. This all seems to be a way of him aligning himself with his party once again ahead of a big test on Thursday.

If the AV referendum brings in a No result – which seems more and more to be the likely outcome – then the Party will be happy. It will be a big victory for many backbenchers, who have campaigned strongly for a No vote and who believe that the concession of a referendum to the Lib Dems was a bad move by Cameron. A No vote would close the door on that period of the Coalition, but there is concern that Mr Cameron will offer some sort of consolation to Nick Clegg if AV is rejected. If he does so, any sense of a resorted relationship between the leader and his party would risk being lost, as many would feel like Cameron’s main concern is with keeping the Lib Dems happy, not the Tory faithful.

If the referendum surprises everyone and ends in a Yes result, then there will be serious questions as to whether Mr Cameron can regain the trust of his party. It would probably not lead to him being forced out as leader, but it would require him to do some serious thinking about how his party is working. There would be strong opposition from the back benches, and it would not be impossible that one or two more vocal members would raise the question of no confidence.

There are also the results of the local elections to contend with. Whilst the Tories will suffer, Mr Cameron is surely hopeful that they will not record too many losses. If they do, the associations with the Liberal Democrats will be blamed by many; calls for Cameron to distance himself from Nick Clegg and his party will increase.

It is impossible for a leader to lead his party when those behind him are unwilling to follow. Mr Cameron is dragging some of his followers along at the moment, and May 5 is a crucial day for both the leader and those being led. Cameron and the Tory Party will either come out of it stronger and rejuvenated, or battered, bruised and asking serious questions about the next step. For Mr Cameron, the latter is the only option he will be hoping for.

Alongside the national elections, the Government is also trying to keep control of a rapidly escalating situation in Libya. The announcement of Liam Fox’s trip to Washington to discuss the military intervention is surely a sign that we are not going to see an end to this conflict for a while. What was promised as an intervention that would last a short amount of time is looking more and more like a long-term commitment, something which almost everyone would say we don’t want or have the resources for. The situation in Syria is also becoming extremely volatile, and there are questions beginning to emerge as to what involvement Britain should have there, if any.

Internally, the Coalition also faces a tough test. The honeymoon period was never going to last forever, and it seems as if things are beginning to unravel between the Tories and the Lib Dems. Tuition fees, NHS reforms, internships and AV are the policies grabbing the headlines, but behind the scenes there is unrest aplenty. Chris Huhne’s inflammatory comments at the weekend may be toward the extreme end of the spectrum, but they show that there is serious unrest in the Coalition. Nick Clegg’s claim that he and Cameron are “not mates” seems incredibly far removed from the press conference in the garden in Number 10 last summer, but that is a sign of how things have changed.

In the midst of all this, David Cameron needs to show some serious leadership, not just of the Coalition but of the country as well. The Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons to announce the intervention in Libya was statesman-like, delivered with the right amount of gravitas, severity and credibility. However since then, a lot of Cameron’s time has been spent making off-hand comments about his Liberal Democrat partners and stoking the dangerous fire that is growing under the Coalition.

At a time when the country is becoming more involved in conflicts in the Middle East, when the electorate are about to decide on the voting system of this country, and when the effects of the spending cuts and the plan to reduce the deficit are beginning to hit home, David Cameron needs to show strong leadership.

He needs to be clear about Britain’s position with Libya, how far we will go and what parameters are in place for the potential situations that could arise over the next weeks. He needs to have a plan for Syria, and that plan needs to be not only explained but stuck to. He needs to be focused not only on the elections on May 5, but on what will happen afterwards. If – as is looking likely – AV is rejected by the voters, Cameron should move on, but without giving huge concessions to the Lib Dems. They should be left to sort out their own internal misgivings and issues. If Mr Cameron gives out consolation prizes by the dozen, it will look like he is apologetic about the result of the vote, which he should not be.

One of Cameron’s strengths is his leadership. When he really shows it, he is a true leader of this country. Now is not the time for half-hearted leadership. Now is the time for Cameron to show his true colours.

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.

I’d like to chew over a little history before I come back to Bruce’s article. In 2005, before the leadership campaigns got going, there were broadly two views in the party – firstly, that David Davis would win, and secondly, that David Cameron was the right choice but then a subsection that thought perhaps he should wait for another Conservative defeat and run for the 2009/10 campaign. Even I, huge Cameron supporter that I was and remain, did wonder whether it was possible to go from where we were in May 2005 to victory in 2009/10. But because David Cameron is, for me, the person with the right ideas and values, I thought – you know what, I want this to work. I want him to be Prime Minister. Let’s be ambitious.

So here we are, nearly six years on, and he is Prime Minister (although in coalition). And I think he’s doing a pretty good job of governing. I’ve written before (a lot) about my concerns over communications; but in broad terms, I think this government is doing well in what is important – the governing.  I’ve also written before about my frustrations with consistency – I worry that in losing little battles, such as over school milk, they run the risk of losing the overall narrative of what this government set out to do. And finally, I’ve also written about why I think people are understandably concerned over the breadth of ambition of this government – but why I think they have to do a lot, in a short space of time.

Some thoughts on the above first: this government (and particularly the Conservative bit of it, as I don’t hold a torch for the Lib Dems), has to deliver the things it promised. It has to remember as well that – whatever is seen as the short-term imperative – we as a Party need to stand for re-election in 2015. Now it IS years away, and there’s many a slip betwixt cup and lip, and all that, but, as I’ve argued before, the Conservative Party today is a centrist, liberal, progressive one, and we should not simply hand off all our achievements to someone else and suck up all the bad bits. And finally, as I’ve also argued before, talking is not enough – it is about doing, so they actually need to tell people what they’re doing, then do it, then say, yes we did that.

Sorry this has turned into a bit of a greatest hits of my musings, but, I do have a point and I am returning now to the Telegraph article.

Let Cameron be Cameron was the cry during the Election debates. I’d argue that we need that even more strongly now. Part of Bruce’s 2005 article says this: [my emphases]

“He thinks that, in normal circumstances, the state should own a lower proportion of the nation’s wealth year on year and spend a lower proportion of its income. But he would never support a slash-and-burn approach to public expenditure. He knows that Britain’s wealth is created by its people, not its governments, and he thinks that as the wealth grows, the creators are entitled to a dividend. He also accepts that a lot of them would only be happy to receive a tax-cut dividend once they are reassured that the public services are properly financed.

“He would agree that Tony Blair was right to increase the percentage of gross domestic product which is spent on health and education. Thereafter, agreement would end. David Cameron is scornful of Mr Blair’s inability to ensure that the additional money is spent wisely. Indeed, Mr Cameron believes that New Labour’s bureaucratic procedures have guaranteed waste. He also thinks that Tony Blair has given up the effort to obtain value for money in the public services, and that this will be one of the most important tasks for the Tories’ first term.

“So will Europe. David Cameron has always been a Eurosceptic, though never a Europhobe. He believes in a Europe of free trade and political co-operation; he abhors federalism. But he is far too intellectually honest to lull his fellow Tories into the fantasy of an à la carte Europe achievable instantly. He knows how much hard and prolonged diplomatic work will be necessary to move Europe in the right direction…

“[Some] have forgotten the need for relentlessness, detail, small print and incremental successes… “

As Bruce says in the Telegraph article, this IS probably the most radically reformist government since at least Attlee, if not before.  He also mutters a bit about whether or not the Prime Minister should wear morning dress at the Royal Wedding (yes), and whether he should hunt (on balance probably not), and whether the Royal Succession is something that should be considered now (absolutely yes – I can’t believe we still have such ridiculously outdated laws as a first-born daughter comes behind a son).

But his overall point is a clear one – David Cameron, and this government, need to articulate why radical Conservatism is right. And I completely agree – does it all come back to communications, narrative and delivery? The article seems to say that ‘all’ that the government needs to do, as well as all its reforms and activity, is look competent, caring and in control. Again, I reiterate, this is a really huge task. But it’s also a necessary one for the long-term.

He’s got a point. I’d add that Norman Lamb’s threat to resign and the Lib Dems’ sudden vocal opposition (their MPs did, after all, vote the Bill through its first stages) smacks just a bit of taking an opposition mindset into Government – which can’t help.

Except, if Lansley’s had a raw deal, it’s important to place it in context.

He might feel poorly treated by No.10. But this understates just how far Lansley has alienated healthcare professionals, health bodies and the health policy world at large. He might feel entitled to support from the upper echelons of both Coalition parties – but surely they are not the only groups he should have to listen to (leaving aside the general public, for the moment).

Of course health reform meets opposition at every turn – read any memoir covering the early Labour years and it’s clear senior Ministers being given a kicking by public service unions and conferences isn’t a new phenomenon. Any reformer should expect booing from vested interests.

But there’s a big difference between creating manageable dissent (which is probably inevitable), and taking a course that dismantles any support for reform, antagonises the agnostics, and gifts ammunition to opponents (which is not).

To take one example, have a look at the DH’s consultations from late 2010. They’re dangerously vague – which is fine if you’re consulting on blue-sky proposals, but is not if it’s for a Bill, due a few weeks later, that proposes major changes to the NHS which are (literally) life and death.

Or the publication of the Bill itself: delayed, delayed again, and then published while the consultations were still ongoing. Or the review of arms-length bodies, which was perceived as abolishing or merging bodies without any consistent logic.

This is the nitty-gritty of health reform. None of it inspired confidence, and it gave the impression that ministers were fuelled by a toxic cocktail of intransigence and naivety. A creeping dread grew across the autumn that these reforms just hadn’t been thought through, or developed with appropriate input from health experts.

That might be inaccurate, and painfully unfair on Lansley, given this has been gestating for several years – but the process of enacting the reforms has only cemented this impression. It was entirely avoidable, and the fact the Bill’s pause comes with a ‘listening exercise’ surely betrays that not being seen to listen is recognised as the problem.

So, it might be correct to say that Lansley got a raw deal from No. 10. The problem is, that’s exactly what many people in healthcare think they got from Lansley.

I’m going to leave aside the Lib Dems for now, apart from to say that their presence in government as responsible partners is the thing that may rescue them in 2015.

But for the Tories, the discussion cemented my belief that stopping talking about why we had changed in 2008 went some way to explaining why we didn’t win outright last year (though I also underline that the task was immense), and that there are problems ahead if we do not start pushing it again.

I’m probably showing my age here, but remember this passage in Bridget Jones’ diary:

“If I voted Tory I’d be a social outcast. It would be like turning up at Cafe Rouge on a horse with a pack of beagles and Charles and Camilla in tow or having dinner parties on shiny tables with side plates… Labour stands for the principle of sharing, kindness, gays, single mothers and Nelson Mandela, as opposed to braying bossy men … going to the Ritz in Paris then telling all the presenters off on the Today programme.”

That’s what we’re up against. I’ve talked before about a group of friends, who are all classic target voters for the Tories, not one of whom will vote for us, ‘because we remember what you did in the 80s’.

There are two dangers for the Tories in today’s politics. The first we can’t do much about – we are being forced to do things that we don’t necessarily want to (though I would argue that part of being a Conservative is wanting to ensure that we have balanced budgets, a sustainable economy and that people control their own lives). But quite apart from that, as I’ve mentioned before, the perception that the Lib Dems are the only thing stopping us from slashing and burning is being allowed to take hold. It is simply untrue but there is a long-term problem – if we don’t stand up and take ownership of the many progressive and socially-good things the government is doing, we run the risk of allowing that ridiculous caricature to become even more entrenched.

There is always a difficulty in that governments tend to focus on the governing, and on the short-term; the party, on the other hand, can and should take up the challenge of how to ensure that in the long-term, voters can see that this has been a responsible, careful and caring government which they want to see re-elected.