The Conservatives have just launched a big recruitment campaign, which includes many policy posts in CCHQ. This is good news. A month ago Tim Montgomerie raised concerns that the Tory Party was not giving enough thought to its own agenda or how the Conservatives will position themselves at the next election. Running a government and running for office are different activities that call for different skills. The risk of not having an effective party machine is that we stagnate, thus allow other parties, including the Lib Dems, to gain momentum before polling day. Hopefully the re-staffing of CCHQ will address the risk.

The job that most caught my eye* was Social Action Manager . The biggest problem for me in the 2010 Election was that the Big Society message was disconnected from those who were delivering it. Cameron’s centrepiece theme was rendered almost meaningless because the words were not backed-up with action. Big Society is ultimately about the ‘doing’. Many activists did not understand the idea because they had never been asked to participate in local projects, thus they couldn’t sell ‘Big Society’ to a sound bite weary public. In the 2015 election us Tories can’t just be the Party of the Big Society idea, we must practice what we preach and become a Big Society organisation.

The Social Action Manager will attempt to forge links with the not-for-profit sector and encourage constituency associations, local councillors and candidates to engage in Big Society activities. Unlike in the US, we Brits tend to be cautious about mixing politics with other activities. This attitude has helped to disenfranchise people, especially the young, from political parties. It is a lot more satisfying to put your efforts into a specialised pressure group where you can focus on achieving a specific good, compared to delivering leaflets or attending ‘talking-shop’ branch meetings.

Volunteering is often a fun, rewarding, educational and social activity. Politics in action reminds people why we need politicians and why it’s important to campaign to get good ones elected. The Social Action Manager, with the support of Baroness Warsi, should aim to redefine what being a Tory foot soldier means.

* Dear readers, if you decide to apply, please mention me on the application form so I can demand a generous headhunters’ fee from CCHQ…`

I’m a bit late to this but – why on earth all the ruckus about ‘free’ milk?

Firstly, it’s not free. Secondly, ministers have been asked to suggest ways to reduce costs and get better value out of taxpayers’ money. And thirdly, ‘because David Cameron isn’t keen on the idea’ is not a good enough reason not to do something.

The process by which we should be deciding what to spend money on goes like this:

1)      Is this an absolute life or death necessity? Is it something the government MUST provide, is it something that’s a nice thing to have, will someone else provide it better or cheaper?

2)      What are the benefits? Do sufficient people benefit?

3)      Can we achieve the same thing cheaper? OR can we achieve the same thing in a different way?

I’ve discussed before (YEARS ago) why we need to re-examine what the state decides to do with taxpayers’ money. But more than that, given the dire circumstances we are in, I think this government has an obligation to do this from the bottom up – so, not “What can we cut?” but rather “What must we maintain?”

Delightfully, the government seemed to want to try that when it launched the consultations on public spending. But rather disappointingly, every suggestion seems to have been met with either ‘we’re already planning that’ or ‘we aren’t interested in doing that’ so I do wonder what the point was.

As with this furore over school milk, if this government is going to live up to its rhetoric on devolving power, it needs to make some decisions about how it handles media coverage.

Either it cannot stand a word of criticism, in which case they might as well ditch localism, the Big Society, reducing the tax burden and empowering citizens. Or it’s willing and able to take a bit of a battering because it believes in those things. But it can’t have it both ways, and currently it is being damaged by being willing to float radical ideas but then unwilling to discuss them when a newspaper gets in a fankle about them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nasty Party

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

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

Cameron’s arrival

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

Promoting values for everyone

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

Broadening the message and the messengers

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

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

A successful transformation?

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

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, believes we are at a watershed moment in politics. The Big Society agenda is bringing to the fore the debate around how best to facilitate social good. For Williams, at the heart of this agenda is the conviction that for society to change the dominant individualistic narrative needs to be replaced. People must recognise how they depend on each other and realise what we owe each other. A Big Society is one where everyone is aware of the importance of interdependence.

The Archbishop was speaking at an event last Friday organised by the Charities Parliament, entitled “How should churches respond to Big Society?” The church’s interpretation and reaction to Cameron’s flagship policy is of great importance because, to use Big Society parlance, the church is a long-existing, large network of interconnected hubs, which are organised around social entrepreneurs who deliver enabling services to the community they live in. Or to use everyday language, the Church is made up of many active communities, consisting of good people, who are doing good things.

Big Society Values

The Church judges the Big Society idea against its values and spiritual beliefs. While politicians tend to tread nervously around the subject of collective values this is natural territory for religion. Rowan Williams explained how the New Testament tells Christians that the kind of society God is interested in is one where people have a keen understanding of others’ needs. The poverty of one person is an issue for everyone. Archbishop Williams used the analogy that if one part of the body is in pain the whole body suffers. For him common good in society is best developed in real empathy, so what is good for them is good for us and ultimately good for me.

Bob Reitemeier, Chief Executive of The Children’s Society, listed three fundamental values that will define the Church’s engagement with the Big Society agenda:

1) Love (or the obligation to care for others)

2) Justice/Fairness (or love in action through putting right wrongs)

3) Forgiveness (or casting aside the barriers, including prejudices, that impinge on doing good)

Whether you are religious or not you will only buy into the Big Society concept if you understand and support the values which underpin it. These values can be summed up in secular terms as broadly being personal responsibility on the one hand and caring for the disadvantaged on the other. A new political settlement based on these values is necessary because the former was undermined by the nanny state and the latter by free market capitalism.

Government’s Role in Society

Archbishop Williams took a swipe at both the statist side of Labour and the free-market obsession of some Conservatives. He described as poisonous the ideas that the only possible provider of good is Government, and that there is no such thing as society, just individuals. Labour’s over-controlling approach had disempowered and disconnected many people. Rowan Williams said: “If people are told that they have nothing to contribute to society then you won’t get very far. If you give people everything then there will be dependency.” Williams felt it was right for people to be cautious about the “Big Society” agenda until we are sure that it will not be used by the Coalition as an alibi for cost-cutting and to enable the Government to wash its hands of responsibility. He hopes that Big Society will be what its political proponents claim it to be and that the ideas behind it receive appropriate investment but – like many – the Archbishop still needs some reassurance.

The purpose of Government in the Big Society should be to sustain the vision that our society is a community of communities. For Rowan Williams: “Government is there to make the right connections and to ensure that these connections work”. This was an unknowing big thumbs-up for the type of work the government-promoted Big Society Network is engaged in. This suggests a certain symmetry in thinking between the Church and the Coalition on the Government’s role in fostering Big Society.

Getting the Best Out of People

Archbishop Williams believes that we need to have a clear sense of what sort of people we want to see in our society. The right characteristics and behaviours need to be nourished. For Big Society to become an ingrained part of the British way of life there needs to be investment in education and personal growth. Rowan Williams made it clear that he did not mean throwing money at education; instead he placed importance on policy-makers thinking laterally about how people learn within communities. He echoed the view of Phillip Blond by emphasising the supreme importance of giving people the capacity to shape their environment. The way Government encourages people to take control of the resources in their lives will be critical for growing further resources within society.

Natural Big Society-ers

The first step for anyone in embracing the Big Society agenda is to buy into its values. This is easy for the Church as it has been preaching the importance of giving for centuries and they are well experienced in promoting social justice. I left the event with the strong impression that Christians do not need an answer to the question “what does Big Society mean?” or to be convinced that it is important for them to help improve their community. What the Church needs to know is whether substantive actions will follow Cameron’s words and what part they will be expected to play in this new world.