Once again the idea of not changing the clocks, changing them permanently, doubling the change or moving to some other time zone rears its head…

I don’t see that it makes much difference, really – you get the same number of hours of light and dark no matter what your watch says. But if it’s a serious discussion we’re after, here’s a thought – why not, for example, say to the Scottish Executive that England would benefit from using BST all year round, but Scotland could decide for itself whether or not to use it?

Or alternatively, if the change isn’t made, schools and offices in some places could – shock, horror – change their own working hours so that they had more light in the mornings, or whatever it is they want?

There’s no real reason for everyone to go from home to work or school for 9am, just as there’s no real reason for everyone to leave at the same time.

You could have micro-localism, where businesses, schools etc decided to start (for example) at 11am in the winter, and at 7 am in summer.

I think I like that idea a lot better than once again repeating the arguments from the 1970s…

You never know. Publishing information that is funded by the taxpayer probably isn’t the end of the world. If it is, then you’re probably doing something wrong.

In my slightly geeky way, I was looking through the Communities and Local Government website, trying to find the speech made by Grant Shapps describing Local Housing Trusts. I also found a speech he made at the Housing Design Awards ceremony a couple of weeks ago, which I thought I’d read as I assumed there would be some interesting stuff about the LHTs.

I have no idea if there was anything useful in the speech, because halfway through, there’s a square bracket and “political content removed” – so I can’t read the whole thing.

Why not? Aren’t we capable of distinguishing between blatant electioneering and fact? Or are we likely to be bamboozled by the politics?

If – as they should – departments are going to publish speeches and articles, they need to accept that a) we should have the full text and b) politicians are political as well as being managers.

Local councils are leading the way in publishing data – Eric Pickles has encouraged that  all council spending over £500 be made public, and hurrah for him for his announcement that his government department will be doing the same (I’ve never understood the £25,000 lower limit for central government).  Some councils will publish everything, there are some councils which publish proper detail about what the councillors are up to, and there is one (at least, possibly more) which publishes things like energy consumption as well. This is all great stuff.

I was at a Policy Exchange event on Tuesday (more on that later) where Greg Clark outlined some thoughts on his role as Minister for Decentralisation. His three requirements were a right to information, a right to challenge and a wholesale change in the attitude of central government.

Ministers and secretaries of state should start by making sure that all of their on the record utterances are accessible to all. Politics isn’t dangerous. Civil servants shouldn’t be so timid – ministers should be able to explain what they are doing and why. Governments ARE political – that is why we vote – and it is unquestionably a good thing that we know what they are up to.

David Cameron put climate change at the heart of his campaign to transform and modernise the Conservative Party. I don’t doubt his personal commitment or that of many other Ministers and MPs. However the same cannot be said for the entire Conservative Parliamentary Party, with a significant number of climate change sceptics on both front and backbenches.
 
Not long before the General Election, TimMontgomerie, a former CCHQ staffer and editor of the influential website Conservative Home, suggested that “80-90 per cent” of my party are “just not signed up” to the climate change agenda. His comments were backed up by a poll of Conservative candidates in the 250 most winnable seats conducted through his website before the election. Candidates were asked to rank 19 different policy priorities in order of importance. Britain’s carbon footprint came bottom.
 
It may sometimes be effective to shift the focus of the argument. Those who are sceptical about climate change and the need to cut GHG emissions may still accept theoverriding need for more investment in energy efficiency, thedesirability of new nuclear power stations and even of some forms of renewable energy because both help to cut our dependence on imported oil and gas. The dangers of being vulnerable to the whims of volatile foreign regimes that may not always be friendly unites climate change sceptics and enthusiastic greens alike.
 
We must persuade the public that it is in Britain’s economic interests to move to a low carbon economy faster than other countries, not least to give us a competitive edge. This will not be easy, but if the carbon price rises substantially as the world economy recovers and other nations get tougher with emitters, then we will have a very significant advantage if we have already invested in low carbon electricity generating capacity, low emission transport infrastructure and environmentally-friendly buildings.
Low carbon products and services will be a growth market in the medium to long term, as trends in the car industry already show.
 
Now is the time to invest in research and development of the products and services that will be in demand as the low carbon revolution takes place. Clean coal in particular offers immense international potential, and the Government should continue to prioritise the demonstration of carbon capture and storage.
 
The EU has a role to play in the big picture. If aligned with either China or India, it would easily outweigh America on the global stage. Imagine a common EU/China or EU/India standard for electricity generation or for buildings. The rest of the world would have to pay attention. Of course the EU’s approach to these issues may at present be poles apart from both China and India, but it must be worth at least exploring the possible benefits of bilateral agreements with those countries even if initially such agreements were only voluntary.
 
David Cameron is inheriting a far more difficult and complex situation than anyone foresaw. When that iconic photograph was taken of him dog sledding in Norway, en route to view the retreating icebergs, nobody had any idea of the looming global financial meltdown. His green enthusiasm in the early days of his leadership proved how the Conservatives had changed but those were very different times.
 
Nonetheless there is no going back now. One measure by which his Government will be judged is whether it accelerates the transformation of Britain to a low carbon economy.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Tim Yeo MP. Tim is MP for South Suffolk, and chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.

The full pamphlet, Green Gold, can be downloaded from the Tory Reform Group

Only 14% of the public claim to know anything about the ‘Big Society’ concept. It seems improbable that anything labelled ‘Big Society’ can credibly use this name until the idea becomes understood by everyone.

The un-understood concept

Paul Twivy, CEO of the Big Society Network, readily admits that ‘Big Society’ is still a raw concept, not fully understood by the vast majority of people – I would add that those who do claim to understand the concept probably have different understandings – and that there is plenty of scepticism as to whether ‘Big Society’ is a tangible idea. For those who are interested in the theory behind this movement I can recommend blogs by Nat Wei and Matthew Taylor. Unfortunately Matthew Taylor in his piece uses the acronym BS for ‘Big Society’. Where I come from BS is an acronym for something else, a phrase that some sceptics might say is a true description of what ‘Big Society’ actually is.

Big Society Networking Event

Yesterday’s Big Society Network Event, hosted at the Department of Communities and Local Government, was a brain storming session designed to generate ideas around how best to move ‘Big Society’ from the dreamy abstract space it inhabits to the cold hard reality of life. The broad aims of the event were to:

• Generate practical ideas to help people to engage meaningful in local action.
• To raise the number of people who take part in local community activities.
• To work out how community groups can navigate their way around the road blocks, in particular legislation, that impinge on doing good.

An old idea dressed-up in new words

At its core the ‘Big Society’ idea is actually nothing new. It is about rediscovering the link between those who face a problem and those who have to find a solution; local people finding the best solutions for local issues through the structures of their local community. ‘Social entrepreneurs’ have always existed, whether in the form of churchmen, voluntary organisations or neighbourhood associations. This is not to say that organisations like the Big Society Network are not needed. In fact in today’s Britain it is crucial that such an organisation exists and that it has the ear of government. This is because what is new is the social and economic environment that has been left behind by 13 years of a Labour government who were wedded to uniformity, which manifested itself through centralising and bureaucratising as much of society as it had time to do. Ed West recently highlighted the change over the past decade in the proportion of private sector jobs compared to public social jobs. He came to the conclusion:

“.. the state’s takeover of society… has required ever more numbers of social services managers and welfare officers, as the state has professionalised all areas of social interaction, friendship and membership.”

Civic society can only grow if there is an organisation which can offer practical support, lobby government to remove systematic obstacles and facilitate the sharing of good practice.

Success in simplicity

I am optimistic that the Big Society Network, through its “Your Square Mile” initiative, will bring together the best modern techniques to rejuvenate traditional social networks. Many of the ideas that came out of yesterday’s event were simple and practical, as well as having the potential to be transformative. For example, the break-out group I was a part of came up with some interesting ideas around creating a space, which we labelled a ‘Big Society Bazaar’, that could connect what needs to be done with what people can offer and what people want to gain from their voluntary experience.

What I am less sure about is whether the Network can reach out to the majority of citizans who are so far uninterested in ‘Big Society’. It is worth noting that many of these people may be interested in local voluntary work and may have already been doing ‘Big Society’ type of activities since well before David Cameron uttered this phrase.

For the Big Society Network to be a success it needs:

• To explain the concept as simply as possible to the widest audience,
• Connect the concept to what already exists,
• Have vocal cheerleaders at the top of government, and
• Get the network up and running as soon as possible.

Over the next few years the dramatic cuts to departmental budgets could lead to a lot of people feeling angry and frustrated. It is important that everyone knows how they can channel these emotions into positive endeavours, rather than destructive ones.

I can’t believe I’m about to do this. I SWORE I wouldn’t write any more about bins… but it turns out I still need to.

One of the main headlines on Today this morning was that bin taxes were going to be abolished by the new government. Then on WATO, Eric Pickles described beautifully how Conservatives want to help people not hinder them.

That is all very well. But do you know what?

IT IS UP TO COUNCILS TO GET RID OF OUR RUBBISH.

IT IS THEREFORE ALSO UP TO COUNCILS HOW OFTEN, BY WHOM, HOW, AND IN WHAT WAY THE BINS ARE EMPTIED.

To be less shouty about it, I don’t think the best way to encourage people to produce less waste and to recycle more is to charge them more. But I do think it’s a local decision. And, building on that, if a council decides that’s what it wants to do then it is accountable at the ballot box if local residents decide that they want something different.

The only way that the localist agenda is going to work is if central government really means it, and doesn’t get sidetracked by Daily Mail-esque campaigns for or against certain things.

The way it will work is if central government means what it says and lets local people decide.