The magnitude of the challenges ahead requires us to ask searching questions about our rights, responsibilities and priorities. We need not only to go “back to basics”, but to re-examine what those “basics” are. And yet much of our recent political debate has failed to probe our values far enough. On heath for example, the NHS reforms prompt strong feelings, but mostly about the organisation of service delivery and the model most effective at delivering outcomes which are already agreed upon. Uncomfortable though they are, we need to confront more fundamental questions about the outcomes themselves if we’re to be able to make the tough choices ahead.

In the past week, the debate on bonuses and benefits asked us to reflect, closely examining values such as our understanding of “fairness”. Some of what we’ve seen has been an unnerving reminder of the need for reform. When did we become a society that thought it was fair for families on benefits to receive more money than the average working family? And at what point did failed business leaders become entitled to see their flawed decision-making rewarded with huge pay-offs?

From the highest to the lowest, we need to recalibrate our understanding of what the world owes us and what we owe to each other. Countless millions across the emerging economies have no such sense of entitlement, just the energy and endeavour to improve their circumstances. We will need to encourage and reward these values better if our economy is to recover and the prospects of the next generation are to improve.

This is weird. Normal people do not do that. One of the disappointments I’ve had (it’s not a huge one in the wider scheme of things…) is that despite over 50 per cent of the House of Commons being newly elected in 2010, they still all moo at each other, wave bits of paper about, jabber and wail in PMQs and generally behave like they’re off their faces at a karaoke bar instead of supposedly running the country. It has been pointed out to me a number of times that the newly elected 2010 intake  didn’t suddenly wake up on 4 April 2010 and decide to be MPs, so something clearly attracted them before that.

I’ve argued for years that the problem the Conservatives have had (and could  have again if they don’t recognise it) is that what tickles the fancy of people who are committed enough to be members is not enough to win an election. We must offer a rounded, coherent, sensible policy programme focusing on the things that voters care about as well as the things that really get the grassroots going. I don’t – despite what some may think – believe that the Tories have particularly been banging on about Europe in the last few days; it has clearly been on the agenda, it is something that matters, and the immediate issue of the euro-zone problems needs to be sorted as well as the longer-term ones of what the EU does and doesn’t do (and how well it does them).

But believing, as some seem to, that the No to the proposals on Thursday night is THE THING that is going to win us the next election is simply untrue. Firstly, for those who are really obsessed with the EU, it will soon be realised that this No hasn’t changed anything else about our relationship with the EU, so they will soon find something else to criticise. And secondly, yes a strong leader standing up for Britain’s interest is good, but if the only thing he is seen to do is say no to the EU, then most voters will (sensibly) realise that that’s not enough. By the way, I don’t think this will happen though if some had their way it would be the only thing we ever talk about.

What Conservatives talk about and deal with and focus on and make a difference in must be the things that matter. I have no doubt that we can make a convincing case for decentralisation, communities, the Big Society, sustainable growth, our education and health policies, and all the things that I voted for.

In the same way that the 50p tax rate is a totem, the amount of time Conservatives spend talking about the EU in relation to other matters is important. The real question is, will those who are determined to go “on manouevres” understand this?

The argument is quite simple and is summed up by the first line. “There is nothing right wing about fiscal conservatism”.

It makes the sensible (and I believe correct) argument that the only way to ensure that we poverty and ensure social justice is if the public books are balanced and that any funding isn’t just here today, gone tomorrow. It needs a sustainable and targeted investment over the long term, not just a few years of boom followed by a ten-year fiscal headache.

The paper highlights that Labour could produce concrete plans for the lifetime of a single Parliament, and potentially set firms goals on levels of tax, spending and borrowing over these cycles – this would be bold and brave and would certainly give an air of economic credibility that Labour presently lacks.

However this is paper also highlights the danger for the Conservative Party and the “conservative” (that is to say, cautious) caucus within the top levels of the leadership. Many of them think that providing we get through the present economic situation and that there are jobs and growth in 2015, we will get re-elected either with a Tory majority or a new five year Con-Lib Dem Coalition. Focus on the bread and butter, drop the Big Society and all that time consuming reform and we’ll win. It’s the economy, stupid.

It all very much smacks of that tried and tested (and failed) tactic of 1997 which is “ok, you might not trust us on public services, welfare reform, education or much else, but do you trust Labour with the economy?”

They expect the answer to be “No”, particularly given the way that the two Eds have participated in the economic debate so far. But Labour has another tactic which it can pull from 1997 – when they countered the Tory “economic competency” card.

All it would take for Labour to do, in the run up to the General Election 2015, is to promise to follow the Coalition’s spending plans till 2016-17 when they plan to eliminate the structural deficit and balance the books. Just like when in 1997, when Gordon Brown and Ed Balls promised to follow the Conservative’s spending plans up to 1999 to take away the idea that Labour was going to trash the public finances on taking office. Remember good old prudence?

At a stroke, Ed Balls can claim economic competency (after all, the Government’s attacks would be hollow if Labour merely promised to do the same thing) and move the debate to public services, welfare, education etc. where they are on much stronger ground and where the Government is presently incredibly weak.

Of course there are risks for Labour – will people believe them given their record over the past thirteen years? However it would certainly be music to the ears of many voters who don’t trust Labour on the economy, but would prefer the rest of their package to what the Conservatives are offering and might give them the chance to make a credible case for Government – something which they have not yet been able to do.

The only way for the Coalition and particularly the Conservative Party to prevent this is not to slow down on public service reform but to speed it up. Only successful reform of our public services with better schools and hospitals, less welfare dependency and more engaged communities will provide the ammunition to defeat Labour in 2015.

Moreover what if the economy goes wrong? The Government will need to have something else to defend itself with.

And time is running out; any changes that are not enacted in the next 12 to 18 months will probably not take effect by 2015 and leave the Government doing all the hard work with none of the credit for the results.

Worryingly, a usually reliable source, has posted that we are effectively back to square one.

This isn’t a terribly bad thing, if it means that we end up with more radical and transformative proposals but it does mean that the Government will need to seriously ramp up the timescales if they are to be electorally significant.

This isn’t a very popular message with a Government still smarting from the scars of trying to reform the NHS, but the truth hurts.

The Ugly

Our deficit and debt positions are ugly. Our economy is going to get uglier. Most peoples’ living standards are too.

The bad

Well I’d argue that increasing benefits but effectively decreasing pay is bad. I kind of understand why it’s being done and if it were the case that the poorest people in work would benefit from this the most it would be fine but I suspect that isn’t the case.

I also am very unkeen on the rowing back on the promises to be the greenest government ever – it is possible to go for clean growth and to be a world leader in clean technology but if you don’t incentivise it, it won’t happen. And, while I know it makes me sound like an out of touch metropolitan, I still think we should maintain carbon pricing and shift taxation from good things like work and saving onto bad things like pollution.

I also am slightly at a loss to justify the government spending taxpayers’ money on supporting businesses or mortgage applicants that banks won’t lend to; surely that is part of what got us into all this trouble to begin with? I’m prepared to be argued out of this one but it does seem counter-intuitive.

The good

Hmm. This is tougher. All the infrastructure projects are individually no doubt needed, but I wonder if they add up to something at a national level?

More people being able to buy their own home is a good thing for many reasons (not least, because people who own their homes are likely to have greater respect for and engagement with their surrounding communities) and I’m very pleased that the proceeds will be ploughed back into building more homes. I’d suggest, though, that as well as building new homes we should be aiming to refurbish existing buildings which have fallen out of use.

The Youth Contracts sound great if expensive (my maths is very shaky – maybe I should go to one of these new Maths Free Schools); I calculate that £1 billion for 410,000 young people for 6 months at 40 hours a week works out at something like £2.34 an hour which is £93 a week which is almost double the £50.95 of Job Seekers Allowance for 2011.

There are lots of other details but my overall impression is a lot of little bits and pieces. It all sounds very big and bazooka-like but is it? More to the point, should it be? Many of the measures announced since May last year will take time to have an effect; part of the criticism that we all, as Conservatives, made of Labour was that they used to do little widges here and a little tightening there, and then go back year after year and fiddle about some more; there was very little certainty, yet one of the very greatest confidence-builders any economy can have is advance knowledge enabling businesses to plan.

I’ll come back to the bazooka versus widges argument tomorrow, I think – it’s a much bigger conversation.

Is @PlatformTen becoming more like @ConHome? I ask because of blogs like this from @DJSkelton: http://t.co/CneGDgpE

10 November 2011 6:57 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@TimMontgomerie

Tim Montgomerie

followed by

@TimMontgomerie @ConHome @DJSkelton we're all Conservatives, after all...

10 November 2011 8:12 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite

@PlatformTen

Platform 10

followed by

@PlatformTen @ConHome @DJSkelton We are! I actually think gap between trads and mods is narrowing sharply at present

10 November 2011 8:18 pm via TwitterrificReplyRetweetFavorite

@TimMontgomerie

Tim Montgomerie

Then 

Centre left, Cameron loyalist, 2020 Conservatives group still plans to challenge Tory Right with new activist website http://t.co/vVRpsGob

16 November 2011 5:38 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite

@MichaelLCrick

Michael Crick

As I wrote in the Conservative Way Forward magazine during the party conference, ‘modernising’ (which is ugly shorthand and not something I would ever talk about in that way directly with voters) is not about being contrary; it’s about explaining what it is to be a Conservative in today’s Britain.

And as I wrote at the end of last year for the Coffeehouse blog, nor is it about setting up artificial dividing lines between traditional and modernising Conservatives because Conservatives are by definition both traditional and modernising.

I have always argued that it is essential to have a broad policy platform. I have always argued that we must earn the right to be listened to by the electorate by understanding their hopes and their fears. It is not incompatible to – like Tim – wholeheartedly support our policy on international aid and our policy on controlled immigration.

The exchange with Tim on Friday evening and the publicising of the 2020 group made me think more deeply about why we are seen to be so far apart. Is it mostly a question of tone and emphasis? Or is it something more fundamental about how we think, and what we think about?

Given all this frantic pamphleting, websiting, and positioning, there are a few things that I think need to be said. Firstly, we are all Conservatives. We have in common a desire for a state which does what it needs to and no more, which costs what it needs to and no more. We start from the premise that it is good for people to work, to engage with their community, and to have ambition. We agree that there must be opportunity but people must also see the fruits of their own efforts (or not, as the case may be). We want power to rest at the most personal level possible – so that outcomes are determined by effort and will and desire rather than a uniform mediocrity.

Secondly, so much of the ‘tension’ between (and we’re going for shorthand here) traditional and modernising Conservatives focuses on tone. As I said above, Conservatives are both; the way that we present ourselves to the electorate is however crucial. We must engage with the things that are important to them as well as to us. Crucially, all governments do, however, have to think about and act upon things that don’t seem to have an immediate impact on people’s daily busy lives – that’s why making sense of, for example, climate change policy or international aid policy is so important. As Conservatives, we largely want to get to the same places; where we do perhaps differ is how we should get there.

And thirdly, it really does come down to what kind of society we want to live in. Something I’ve often half-thought about the modernising Conservatives is that we are perhaps not aggressive enough. But then I realise that I don’t want to always be carping – I want to propose things that make changes for the better. I want to live in a country where we are positive and have confidence, and where we have discussions about what will work rather than just complaining that someone else is wrong.

Winning in 2015 is going to be about so much more than just having a good manifesto. It will need us to have governed competently and fairly, and explained to voters what we’ve done and how we’ve made their lives better. And most importantly, it will need us to make significant inroads into the hearts and minds of the 67 per cent of people who think we don’t like them.

I’ve written before about how unnecessary the problems over pensions for women born in 1953 and 1954 were.

This morning’s news that a woman is to be appointed in No 10 to woman-proof policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. It’s patronising, and it’s not the answer.

I don’t claim to have all the answers but I do know that a single person cannot do everything. I also know that if we want to have a society where we are all treated equally, forcing a separate – and single – woman check is not the way to achieve it; in fact, it is counter-productive because it allows the institution to think, oh we have a woman so we can continue to think in the same unsuccessful way because she will sort it out (similarly, it will remove any incentive to broaden the recruitment pool for staff). And finally, I think it is not very Conservative. If we accept – as Conservatives – that everyone is equal, then singling someone out for their gender alone is a serious step backwards.

What needs to happen is that the government – right through, right across, right down – thinks properly about how the policies they want to enact will affect everyone. I learnt a new word yesterday – egotropic. While it’s usually used in a medical sense, it also has a sociological meaning which is that one does not see that others’ experiences are not the same as one’s own. That is not solved by designating one person to proof everything. It’s solved by, among other things, a proper external relations programme to understand what the problems are. It’s solved by listening to people outside the narrow political realm, and it’s solved by ensuring that proper process is followed in formulating policy – particularly in identifying where you want to get to (and why).

So while I could shout, pick me, pick me for the post of women’s adviser, I’d far rather the government did it’s job properly and understood that it must keep its promises, understand voters’ fears and their aspirations, and deliver what I voted for – a government that’s working to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe. That backs the NHS. That raises standards in schools. That gets people off benefits and into work. That reforms policing, sentencing and prisons, and that commits us to a greener future.

Before I go on it’s important to clear up one thing first. There are those who believe that the private sector only get involved in public services when they can cream skim and take on the easy jobs in order to achieve a decent margin. In this case, the Hichingbrooke hospital is running a £5m annual deficit and has debts of £40m – so this will be a massive challenge for Circle and they will be providing a tremendous public service if they can succeed.

I’m not applauding this development because I think private is better than public. Both public and private sector providers can do well and can also get into trouble. Too often the debate around public service reform and delivery is approached from the ideological extremes – either the state is best placed to deliver and safeguard services or they should be outsourced wholesale to the independent sector.

It is a mistake to argue that there is a single model of service delivery that is better by default.  Only through a mixed market of different models of provision will balanced service improvement be achieved. By mixed market I don’t just mean some services delivered by the state and others privatised, I mean a genuine mix which also includes substantial numbers of mutuals and social enterprises. Each model has its particular strengths:

• State delivery tends to be free from external financial motives and as such is generally protected from unplanned financial failure (although the hospital in question here proves that this is not always the case!).
• Private provision can create scale, efficiency and system level innovation and can attract much needed external investment.
• Mutuals and social enterprises are usually smaller scale and focused on social value and innovation at a local level.

It shouldn’t be the Government’s job to pick a winning model but it should strive to create a level playing field where a balanced mix of provision can exist and influence each other through their relative strengths. E.g. the existence of state provision in a balanced market place should force the others to have financial safeguards in place, the existence of privately outsourced provision should ensure the others keep improving their efficiency, and the existence of mutuals should put social value (and its measurement) at the top of the others’ agendas.

There was much disappointment recently, which I shared, when the trailblazing public service mutual Central Surrey Health was unsuccessful in bidding for a large contract, which would have enabled them to expand their excellent service. However, Central Surrey Health’s presence in the market as a socially focused competitor would have undoubtedly influenced the proposition put forward by Assure Medical, the private group backed by Virgin Healthcare who ultimately won the contract. This is how a mixed market can work.

When in power Labour saw the benefit of such a mixed market so it’s a shame that they now choose to play politics with this. Although it’s a bit incredible when the person leading the attack on what is essentially the rescue of a hospital is Andy Burnham, the Labour Minister who initiated the process! Our memories aren’t that short Andy!

Andrew Laird is a Director of Mutual Ventures, a social enterprise which supports front -line staff to set up mutuals

But you’ve heard him. He doesn’t think he’ll make it. He doesn’t know how to make it from where he is. He’s fatalistic – he thinks he’ll probably end up like his sister.

There are things we can do. He needs stable role-models. He needs people to say, this is how to behave, settle down and work hard. He needs to see that success comes from opportunity AND your own hard work. He needs understand how to compete with the best. He has to be pushed to achieve his ambitions and taught how to identify and quantify them.

These are all things that, let’s be frank, most people reading this will have had by osmosis. But if you’re not lucky like us, then you’re kind of left to chance. That’s not acceptable in today’s Britain. There are lots of organisations working on opening these opportunities up to children like Luke. But there aren’t enough of them, and they can’t get into the hardest to reach families.

Jon Snow, who hosted the panel discussion after the film was shown, said that he was finding fundraising for his charities easier than before. He wondered whether this was a sign of a significant social shift? I hope so. I hope we as a society have realised that we are both individuals and part of something greater.

I’ve noticed an enormous increase in corporate social responsibility programmes in recent years. And perhaps more interestingly, an increase in their ambition and their breadth. But probably the most significant thing is the increase in private philanthropy. Two things I’m vaguely connected to have recently highlighted how governments, businesses and individuals can work together. The Legacy 10 campaign is – of course – aimed at very rich individuals, who are liable to inheritance tax. They can leave ten per cent of their total estate to charities, and in return get ten per cent off their IHT bill. The second thing was a trip to Berlin to discuss the Big Society with some German MPs and think-tanks, where not one participant sneered, or said it wouldn’t work, or questioned the motivations of those involved.

There are two lessons here for all of us. The first is that impotent raging (a la Occupy London) isn’t the answer; there are concrete decisions we can take together which will make a difference. The second is that because, as Jon Snow sensibly suggested this morning, statism has crowded out innovation and much incentive to make changes, there needs to be much greater openness to the third sector and to private initiatives.  As with so many social problems, the answers are not just about money (and we’ve seen that hosing money at problems doesn’t make them go away). The answers revolve around partnership, innovation, personalisation and sustained commitment.

Having said that, neither this film nor any of the organisations involved have all the answers. But it does show those of us with comfortable lives what the problem is. We have the tools, the capacity and the wherewithal to find answers. And we have the moral responsibility to do so.

For the record, I am firmly in favour of free publication of raw data. No doubt there are some errors (I recall a mad panic during late 2005, when someone emailed the Cameron Campaign office to ask why David Cameron had voted in favour of joining the euro. Fortunately it was an input error, and it turned out that, unsurprisingly, he had done no such thing); no doubt there are some things ministers and civil servants would rather not make public; and no doubt there will be some things that end up being misused.

Set against that, however, is the fact that we, as taxpayers, already own that information. It does NOT belong to the government and they should, as with many other things, operate under the presumption of openness and release it. Also, departments and other public bodies already collect it all and have it – they use it for various things, so why can’t we?

There is a ridiculous tension – which doesn’t need to exist – between those who want to basically data-dump and open it all up for free, and those who want to control it and charge for it. You can in fact do both. If you publish it freely, you enable anyone and everyone to use it; and their use of it will, in time, save money and resources in the future.

Most of us will never do anything with any data published; most of us have other things to do. But most of us will, at some point, take advantage of the work that others will want to do. For example, I have just finally given up on Orange after 14 years of loyal use of the same tariff (I know, I know). I had never really looked for a different tariff or a different network. But I found several great websites that explained all the options; and an hour of inspecting what I could choose from has meant I will have the same number, on a different network, and with a better deal.

That’s a tiny and not very important example. But – mass use of data is the best weapon we as little people have against vested interests. I once heard the founder of Dr Foster, Tim Kelsey, explain why he had set up his healthcare statistics company. His mum was a nurse, I think, and had mentioned that there were some consultants that ‘you just knew’ not to refer to because their success rate was low compared to others. That’s a disgrace; we shouldn’t have to call a friend in the know, we should all be able to look it up and see who is best for us.

It’s important that this government delivers on its promises to open up data. Partly because it said it would, and I’m always in favour of people doing what they promised. But mostly because it’s a hugely effective way to drive down waste; I have heard – though I can’t find anything to back it up – that the knowledge that expenses data, or departmental spending, or general outgoings, are going to be published instantly reduces the amount that is spent by an appreciable amount. And finally, and most importantly, because publishing the data, that we own and is already collected, in a usable form will allow uses and bring benefits that we’ve never even thought of.

Janice Turner of the Times has written some extraordinarily moving pieces about her parents and their experiences of social care in the UK. One of the things she suggests is a sort of TripAdvisor for care homes –  she herself doesn’t have time to do it, but someone does, and much of the underlying data is already sitting in government computers. All they need to do is publish it; people will use it, add to it, give it light and shade, and make it useful to people who need it.

Opening up the data in and of itself is only a first step. But the ingenuity of humankind, the dedication of some, and the demand of many more will all come together in an almost perfect illustration of the potential of the Big Society to allow more of us more control and choice. It’s not very interesting to most people, it’s certainly not a big flashy ad campaign or impressive and high-powered taskforce; but it has the potential to transform how the state serves us.

Outside the Apple Store, Regent St, this morning

The response to the death of Steve Jobs has been nothing short of remarkable. I’d wager not since the passing of Princess Diana has a comparable level of global mourning been felt for one person.

According to biographer Leander Kahney, Jobs believed that it was not the consumers’ job to know what they wanted and although the organisation had the mantra of “thinking differently” this was constrained within strict parameters of Apple’s bureaucratic structure.

Jobs famously eschewed the evidence of focus groups and rarely asked his devout followers what they thought or wanted from his company. He had a vision and a mission, one to which his inner-team of developers were trusted with to craft the Apple empire. There was little deviation from the plan.

The power and popularity of Apple was built upon its ability to develop solutions that were desired by the community and simultaneously remained customisable by the individual.

The ability to encourage creative thinking, to do what you what and when you want. To be industrious and entrepreneurial, to work hard seizing opportunities to develop engaging products. These are all traits that Apple claims it inspires in its users. They are remarkably similar to some of the identifying features of a libertarian Conservative party. Aren’t they?

Jobs decided and developed boundaries to enable his citizens to remain happy and prosperous. He didn’t ask whether they wanted it. He did what he thought was right. He led and they followed content with their ability to decide their own functionality. And they loved him for it.

In 2010 Populus asked whether voters thought the Conservatives were ‘for normal people.’ 38% thought so. In September this year the same question was asked and revealed that 30% felt that way.

It’s been a great year of achievement for party policy, but the communication of our successes has been unstructured and relatively weak.

If the party can build a strategy to communicate the similarity of Apple ideology already rooted in the populace and align public perceptions of individualisation and customisation with the core beliefs of community inherent in Conservative philosophy, then strong arguments can be forged that position the Conservatives as the genuine party of opportunity, fairness and prosperity.

Who could argue against that?