Thousands of Labour party members, trade unionists, and those in the parliamentary party have been receiving their leadership voting forms. Their collective decision will have a big impact on UK politics and possibly on Britain itself. Last night, Channel 4 held the last TV debate between the leadership candidates. David Miliband most impressed with his talk of redistributing power, wanting to talk about the future and acceptance that Labour needs a credible debt reduction plan.

David Miliband: The ‘Red Tory’ candidate

By previously criticising New Labour’s “paternalist authoritarianism”, where government is promoted as being the only possible problem solver, Miliband has offered the sharpest Labour analysis of his government’s greatest failure. The logical next step to this critique is one that is at the heart of Red Tory thinking: the redistribution of power and responsibility so that we all have a part in achieving a better society. He took this next step during the Keir Hardie Lecture in July:

“We need a creed that could combine solidarity with responsibility, freedom and equality. Without community ethics, lived and upheld, it is difficult to generate the civility we value. I take Big Society seriously.”

As the rhetoric in the leadership race has lurched left-wards David Miliband has not felt comfortable enough to develop his “Good Society” theme, but neither has he rejected it. The other candidates have fallen into the comfortable trap of violently rejecting everything the coalition does, and using the same bitter tone towards the Lib Dems that a jilted lover would use to describe her cheating ex. This type of yah-boo politics is emotionally satisfying but it does not appeal to the electorate at large.

David Miliband for Leader

On 25 September I want David Miliband to be crowned Labour leader.  Cameron is rightly concerned that David Miliband has the best chance of making Labour a real alternative government. Tim Montgomerie in yesterday’s Times pointed out by signing-up to Alistair Darling’s – a Labour politician who is still very well thought of by the public – debt reduction plan, it’s harder for the Tories to paint a David Miliband-led Labour as deficit deniers. In politics, as in life, the best results are achieved when there is strong competition. Would Thatcherism have been a more rounded ideology if she faced a credible social democratic opposition who supported economic reform, but also the inclusion of a caring hand in the free market? Could Tony Blair have gotten away with his attention-deficit sofa style government – or authoritarian streak – if the Tories had picked someone of Ken Clarke’s calibre?

For me Cameron’s red TORY ideas will always be preferable to Miliband’s RED tory vision, but I look forward to the argument. The tectonic plates that represent UK political consensus are shifting. Let the proper political debate begin!

As the dust barely settles on one of the most extraordinary chapters in British history, we enter  yet another remarkable political phase as the leaders of the country’s political parties try to form a stable government against the back drop of an extreme cocktail of economic crisis at home and in Europe. Let us be clear,  Labour has lost its mandate to govern and the Conservative party have achieved an enormous  advance but the results of the election were unclear and there have been vast regional/national variations.

Britain is on the brink of a possible huge economic crisis, it is at serious risk of losing its coveted triple A credit rating amid fears that the hung parliament will trigger a domestic debt crisis. The markets concern is growing that a weak goverment will not be able to tackle the record budget deficit of £163 billion.

A friend of mine who lives in Paris asked me yesterday ‘what’s to become of the UK?’ It was a poignant question, and I reflected to myself on the tragedy that just as the country’s desparate economic situation cries out for a strong and decisive government, the election has delivered a decisively unclear result .

The media obsess about the possible outcomes: a Tory minority government (backed by some sort of supply and confidence arrangement), a Tory-Liberal coalition, a Lib-Lab minority government propped up by the smaller parties and Uncle Tom Cobley. Clearly for the Conservatives the first two options offer different attractions, the preference of the party might be for a stable Tory-Liberal coalition, but key strategists will be asking at what cost?

Whilst for many of us on the progressive wing of the party, the prospect of a stable coalition with a party to the left of the Conservatives is not one that frightens in – there are many activists who are clamouring for a minority Conservative government. The huge problem of plumping for the option of a minority goverment is that we are living through an unprecedented ecomonic crisis that has to be faced down and we need a strong government that is capable of facing the issues and that can last the course. The so called ‘progressive partnership’ of a Lib-Lab coalision would be anything but, an agreement  to do no more than to keep a party out of power that has won the largest number of votes and which the voters clearly see as part of the solution.

Whilst any of the options that are presently being discussed may cause the activists to baulk, the voters have delivered their verdict and in some respects perhaps they are calling for something more than a coalition government? Perhaps, they are calling on members of our political class of every hue to work together to address the critical problems we face.

Lets just turn the clock back to 1931 for a moment as I quote from history:

‘The Wall Street Crash had heralded the global Great Depression and Britain was particularly badly hit. The then Labour government was trying to achieve several different, contradictory objectives: trying to maintain Britain’s economic position by maintaining the pound on the gold standard, balancing the budget, and providing assistance and relief to tackle unemployment.

In 1931 the situation deteriorated and there was much fear that the budget was unbalanced, which was borne out by the independent May Report which triggered a confidence crisis and a run on the pound. The Labour government agreed to make changes in taxation and expenditure in order to balance the budget and restore confidence, but the Cabinet could not agree on the two options available: either introduce tariffs, or make 20% cuts in unemployment benefit. When a final vote was taken, the Cabinet was split 11:9 with a minority – including many political heavyweights – threatening to resign rather than agree. Due to this unworkable split, on 24 August 1931 the government resigned.

The political crisis generated much concern and the leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal parties met with King George V and the Labour Leader, Ramsay MacDonald, at first to discuss support for the measures to be taken, but later to discuss the shape of the next government. On 24 August MacDonald agreed to form a National Government composed of “men from all parties” with the specific aim of balancing the Budget and restoring confidence. The government would then dissolve itself and a general election would be held on party lines. A small Cabinet of just ten Ministers was formed to take emergency decisions, with ministerial posts divided as proportionally as possible between the three parties.’

In some form or other National governments remained in office until 1940.

Whilst we cannot expect HM The Queen (yet!) to personally broker agreement, what is clear is that there is another option for our political class with strong historical precedent. This is not merely some sort of  beefed up Tory Government of All Talents but a government that would be formed by agreement with the Leaders of all of our main political parties to govern in the national interest  and sail the ship of state through perilous waters for a limited time.

The major drawback of two party coalition governments is that the junior partner (often the third in the election) wields a disproportionate amount of power, holding a gun to the head of the lead party and extraordinary as it may seem, there are many people in the Conservative party who feel that they have much more in common with members of the Labour  party than the Liberal Democrats and would have far less fear of a government that included Frank Field as Minister for Welfare Reform, Kate Hoey as Minister for London, Jack Straw as Lord Chancellor and dare I say it, Lord Mandelson as Leader in the Lords.

These are not quite unprecedented times and there is real precedent for a political class agreeing to govern in the national interest for a limited period and tackle fundamental problems. David Cameron clearly has won the right to lead that government and if by next week there is no agreement with the Liberals the case for a National Government should be made and perhaps the political class could prove once and for all that it is capable of sweeping aside narrow, tribal allegiances to govern in the interests of the nation we love.

Marcus is Chairman of Conservative City Future

LORD NORTON OF LOUTH “I spend half of each week in Hull teaching about the British constitution and the other half in Westminster trying to save it.”

The Conservative Party, despite myths to the contrary, has always been a driver of constitutional reform. In 1979, the departmental select committee system was one of the measures that we introduced to hold our ministers to their decisions. An executive with uncurbed power makes people feel powerless, and this Labour government has always attempted to centralise even further, and if re-elected will drive it into the ground. Labour has been crushed by the overwhelming dominance of political authoritarians – the state is the answer to all our society’s woes, and nothing will stand in their way. Labour’s constitutional vandalism has crippled parliament, and now it’s up to us to save it.

A Conservative government constantly asks two essential questions: Does this action enhance personal freedom? And does it advance political accountability? Alienation from our political institutions has led to the rise of the fringe extreme which have infiltrated our communities, and spread false ideas, despite evidence proving the opposite. So this is hopefully (if I can find the time between my upcoming exams!) the first in the series of articles examining how our radical reform agenda can save our political institutions.

Firstly : A British Bill of Rights.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has strongly recommended the adoption of a British Bill of Rights. Gordon Brown said he supported one in the past, but has now fallen back onto spinning a line that the Conservatives want to take away the rights of our citizens which is nonsense. That he can backtrack on such serious reform in order to play party politics shows how shallow his commitment is.

The main Conservative suggestions for additional rights in a BBOR are the right to trial by jury, and the placing of strict limits on administrative penalties without due process of law. Other possibilities are rights for victims, habeas corpus, equality before the law, and good administration, all of which have been eroded.

The HRA is not entrenched, save for the obligation to interpret all legislation, including future legislation, compatibly with Convention rights. It thus entrenches the ECHR rights against implied repeal, but leaves Parliament free to pass incompatible legislation if it makes clear that is its intention – all of which Labour have done mercilessly.

Dominic Grieve has stressed the importance of creating a document with greater public resonance than the Human Rights Act  one which can be owned by the British people. We must seize that chance.

The man at the beginning of Labour’s party political broadcast is out of breath. To be honest, he looks lost. I don’t know his name but for ease I will call him ‘Appealing Gordon’. Good-looking Gordon is on his own, marching along a lonely road in the middle of nowhere. He needs some fellow hikers. Does Appealing Gordon have any signal on his mobile? Maybe his phone has been broken in an unfortunate accident?

So far there is no mention of any political party. If a viewer has just flicked onto the broadcast they would be forgiven for assuming that they were watching a British version of ‘Lost’ or a sequel to a Danny Boyle horror movie, which may or may not be titled ‘13 Years Later’.

The voice in Appealing Gordon’s head starts speaking. “You know my father always said don’t give up. Show resolve he said. He was so right.” We then hear about how not so long ago our country faced potentially one of the worst ever economic crises. Now that sounds interesting. Can we hear more details about that please? Who was in charge and allowed this to happen? No information I’m afraid. Appealing Gordon has swiftly moved on, telling us how Gordon Brown went to the G20, clutching a folder full of recovery plans, and saved the day.  Can we have more details of what these recovery plans are? No. Appealing Gordon does tell us though that these plans have been implemented around the world. It’s unfortunate that Absent Gordon couldn’t appear in the broadcast to tell us about those countries who have taken up his ideas. I suspect he was probably busy. As anyone who watched The New Adventures of Superman would know saving the world from disaster is a time-consuming business. Dean Cain never had any hobbies or friends. There is still no mention of who the Credit Crunch causing baddy is. Let’s just hope he is not around making decisions which could put this country back in the mud.

Appealing Gordon has now made it to a town. Hurrah. He begins to tell us how the Conservatives opposed all of Absent Gordon’s world saving plans. Appealing Gordon is actually spending a high proportion of his journey telling us how wrong the Conservatives have been.

He has now left the town. It is obviously not the place he is trying to get to. It’s a shame that Appealing Gordon didn’t stop to ask the way. You would have thought that local people would have known the best, quickest and most effective way to help him reach his destination.

Appealing Gordon then reaches a cross-road. He stops. He ponders the options. Does Gordon continue along the road he knows or does he divert onto what seems to be a more difficult path. If only he had asked some of those nice folk in the town, they might have told him which way to go. Appealing Gordon decides that this is not the time for a change, thus he should continue on the path he has been following. I hate to be critical of his decision-making, especially as the poor sod looks knackered, but I don’t follow his logic. While the steep road may seem more difficult it may actually help him to get to his destination quicker. I wonder what Absent Gordon would do?

Appealing Gordon is now marching along, telling us how the Conservatives would have made decisions on the economy which economists would have gahuffed at. No specific economists are mentioned so I assume all economists laugh in the face of Tory finance plans.

I am now worried. Appealing Gordon has told us that the recovery is fragile. But I thought Absent Gordon had saved us from disaster. Has he temporarily patched-up the wound?  Apparently it is only Labour who have the experience to get British families and businesses back on their feet. I can’t wait for Appealing Gordon to tell me why British Society is on its knees and who is responsible for this knee-capping. Unfortunately he doesn’t.

Appealing Gordon carries on walking, off into the sunset, along what is possibly the longest and most directionless road in the country. I imagine he is still walking now. Please, if you have the chance to help Gordon out, send him to a place where he can rest. Or give him a sat-nav.

The Post-bureaucratic age (PBAge) is not a technological innovation. It is a philosophy for government. It is about trusting people to know what solutions best fit their daily lives. The PBAge is about state institutions opening up resources so that individuals and communities can choose how they use them. The relationship between government and governed will shift from a directing one to an enabling one.

As David Cameron has said, by harnessing the PBAge mindset the Conservatives will “take away some of the hassle involved in doing the right thing”. Politicians will not tell us how they should be held to account; instead, in the name of transparency, they will set free a variety of information. It will then be up to each voter to decide how to assess a politician’s performance. Every item of central government and quango spending over £25,000 – including every contract in full – will be published. There will be no more hiding behind the lame excuse of ‘commercial confidentiality’. Those who tender for government contracts must accept that they are recipients of British taxpayers’ money. To build on the definition of my Platform 10 colleague, Fiona Melville, the Conservatives’ vision of the PBAge is that under a Tory Government, if you want to do something positive, you and your friends will be able to. The state will provide encouragement and support but it will be up to you to make it a success.

Last week Gordon Brown gave a speech where he tried to promote Labour’s PBAge credentials. Unfortunately, he missed the fundamental point of it being about people empowerment. Like an old man trying to ‘get down’ with the kids, he used many of the right phrases but missed the basic context, thus amplifying how far out of touch he really is. One of his main pledges was that a Labour Government would lead “the next generation of the web and internet”.

No, no, no – this is the wrong way round. The government should be led by those who are out there, innovating in order to make life better. The Government and the Civil Service cannot replicate the techno-organic growth model. Internet innovation works because it embraces uncertainty and the unknown. Ideas are released early and released often. They get tested, adapted and improved by a loose network of interested cyber-bods who figure out what their audience wants and how best to give it to them. This dynamism stems from the ‘baby’ being handed over again and again. In the PBAge a government’s job is to enable these innovators to produce by giving them the right government data and opportunity. These developments can then be harnessed for the benefit of us all.

One of the many centralising measures that Brown proposed was to spend £30 million on creating a Institute of the Web, which will apparently help place the UK at the ‘cutting edge’ of web development. This idea, that the best way to encourage internet technologies is to house a few big brains under one roof, is completely disconnected from web-reality. In public policy terms this money would be better spent funding worthy start-up projects that have already survived an initial amount of testing.  Maybe the Government could take a small stake in the enterprise, and then if they have helped to facilitate the next ‘Facebook’ some of the profits would be reinvested into this funding scheme.

It would not be a Gordon Brown speech if it didn’t try to create political dividing lines. Hence his attack on leaving the internet to “unbridled market dogma”, “unregulated markets”, and “crude laissez faire economic theories”. Never mind that this description does not bear any relation the Conservative programme for government, Brown seems to have missed the fact that the internet is a free and fluid community. E-bay, Facebook, Google, Pay-pal and many other transformative businesses, including Martha Lane Fox’s lastminute.com, advanced because of the free nature of this community. It is Brown who is crudely trying to crowbar his dogmatic, bureaucratic agenda into the PBAge message. For him an initiative has no merits unless it can be used to bash his opponents.

Gordon Brown’s speech was about how only Labour can create, lead and regulate the future development of internet technology. It mentioned numerous times how they aspire to achieve the mystical and meaningless prize of making Britain a “world leader” by 2020. When Cameron speaks about the PBAge he talks about how he will, from tomorrow, encourage you, me and everyone to find the best solutions to the problems we face. Cameron often details how existing innovations can be harnessed to improve governance, and specifies what enabling measures his government will enact for us to succeed in tomorrow’s high-tech world.

Some commentators criticise modern democracy for ditching ideological debates, making voting no more than a choice between managers.  Even if this is true, we still do not have an insignificant choice ahead of us. Especially when the choice is between one manager who wants to delegate and another who is incapable of loosening his controlling grip.