This fuss over the ‘landmine’ of the Equality Act is completely ridiculous. The Act doesn’t require anything beyond a consideration of how government actions impact on people – which frankly is something I would expect any halfway competent politician to do anyway.

I think there is an argument to be had about the way that governments expect to pull a lever and have a wide-spread social effect – but it’s not specifically that Act.

More widely, I think the furore shows us something instructive about how Labour and the Conservatives approach society.

Labour is all about phrasing , not delivering , and just showing that they ‘care’; and requiring; and splitting people up into discrete little groups so politicians can try to target what are effectively bribes at them.

Conservatives are about making sure that overall, people have the opportunity to make of themselves whatever they want. It’s not about putting people in boxes – it’s about making sure that they all have equal opportunity to break out of whatever box they have been abandoned to by Labour.

The Emergency Budget was – let’s face it – tough on everyone. It had to be. The problem is not that our taxes were too low, but that our spending was too high.

There are a few things that strike me as obvious but which clearly aren’t for some – firstly, that to make work pay you have to make sure that living on benefits becomes less attractive: that doesn’t mean punitive, but it does mean, for example, that lavish housing benefits far beyond what people in good jobs can afford have to go. Secondly, that of course when you cut spending, those who use public services the most would be disproportionately affected if you make no other changes to reform those public services in order that they deliver better (this is the great argument that Betapolitics has been advancing in recent weeks). And finally, that when bodies like the IFS have considered fairness and progressiveness, they only look at what the state pays out. Why don’t they look at the opportunities for growth, for better jobs, for more social mobility as well?

It isn’t all about the state. It is all about society.

Perversely, the fiscal crisis strengthens the chances of Cameron’s modern Conservatism surviving and possibly becoming a model for Conservative Government.

The combination of coalition government and economic breakdown encourages a reformist administration.  With the public finances in such a mess the time is ripe for reform and acting tomorrow is viewed as inappropriate and irresponsible. During the election campaign one of the Conservative’s central arguments was that excessive government spending had made the state obese. This profligate way of running the country was both unnecessary and unsustainable, thus reducing public spending would be the priority for any new Conservative administration. At the heart of new conservatism is a desire to deliver a smaller state through positive delegation.

The Coalition government strengthens Cameron’s reinvention of Conservatism because the Liberal Democrat’s naturally support the ‘new’ ideas. The Big Society agenda, with its promotion of localism and individual responsibility, effortlessly brings together forward thinking Tories and centrist Lib Dems. Cameron’s modernisation would have been under greater threat if the Conservatives had gained a tiny majority, forcing him to negotiate with the outer reaches of his own party, many of whom are dismissive of the chosen direction of travel. If the Party forces Cameron to retreat to old Conservatism the Coalition will crumble.

The economic situation created a strong adhesive between the coalition partners, fostering a feeling of togetherness and joint ownership. Coalition negotiations took place against the backdrop of a burning Greece, which focused minds and, ultimately, led the Lib Dems to embrace fiscal Conservatism. Unity on economic policy is crucially important to ensuring the coalition lasts the full five years, giving Cameron enough time to implement the Big Society agenda.

In Cameron’s first 100 days his administration has enjoyed a political honeymoon. Attacks have been easily brushed off; mistakes forgiven and the tough choices agenda has not led to public outrage but this mood can’t last. It’s easy for people’s rational minds to support the concept of cutting spending to balance the books, however, it becomes a different and emotional issue if ‘my child’s school roof can’t be mended’ or ‘my contract is cancelled’. Mistakes will be portrayed by the media via a ‘cuts are hurting’ narrative. Nothing sells papers like a good old scare story, especially if blame can be heaped on those in high office. Groups, both left and right, who are wary of Cameron’s agenda will use the change in mood to attack the Coalition. Strong leadership will be needed when making decisions that may be right but not instantly popular.

The new Conservative ideas are about resolving the structural problems that created the fiscal crises. Cameron will make it work because it has to work. There will be no mandate for a second go and no money to spend on a second agenda.

This post was originally published at The Frum Forum – http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-honeymoon-over-for-cameron-clegg

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.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s proposals for penal reform have landed him in hot water with some of the self anointed ‘tough on crime’ brigade. In a speech to the Centre for Crime and Justice recently, Clarke challenged conventional wisdom stretching back over two decades. Eschewing the ‘prison works’ rhetoric of one of his predecessors Michael Howard, the new Justice Secretary called for greater use of community service to reduce both prison numbers and re-offending rates.

Let us be clear, there is a role for prison both to protect society from some of its most violent individuals and also to act as a deterrent.

I subscribe to the view that a prison sentence should be something to fear – there should be no toleration of drugs in jail, no perception that you are met with a stay full of life’s little luxuries and life sentences for murder should mean just that. There also needs to be an equally strong phase of rehabilitation and re-education prior to any release. Recent examples have shown the perilous potential results of premature release.

Over-crowded prisons and high re-offending rates however characterise the British penal system. Whilst we haven’t quite reached the dramatic US level whereby almost 1 in 100 adults are in jail, the prison population in the UK is now one of the highest in Western Europe and the highest it has been in British history. The number of inmates has more than doubled since 1993 from 40,000 to over 85,000. 20,000 inmates share cells designed for one and since 2007 80,000 criminals have been released early to ease over-crowding. That we can’t focus our energies to imprisoning those that actually should be there and instead are releasing violent criminals early due to financial pressures is scandalous. We could learn a lot from the Dutch model which has seen both a deliberate fall in prison numbers (and an emphasis on community sentencing) accompanied by a fall in crime.

Driving the astronomical rise in the prison population in the UK  is the proliferation of custodial sentences and especially short sentences. Two thirds of those in prison are there for less than a year and the majority of those are there for less than three months. Many of these inmates leave prison for a life of unemployment, homelessness, and crime.

Many argue that prisons are increasingly no more than ‘criminal training academies’, solidifying rather than breaking the cycle of crime. Re-offending rates in this country are alarming. Over 40% of inmates will re-offend within twelve months of release or 60% of those serving short sentences. This is the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome as the same people pass through jail several times. Despite New Labour’s pledge to be ‘tough on the causes of crime’, rehabilitation remains frustrated by a lack of funds and prison over-crowding.

The wider social impact is a serious if under-publicised issue. An estimated 160,000 children have at least one parent in prison and are three times as likely to engage in anti-social or delinquent behaviour than their peers. 65% of boys with convicted fathers go on to offend themselves.

Clarke blames the ‘bang ‘em up’ mentality of the past two decades which if allowed to continue will see the prison population rise to near 100,000 in five years. While he acknowledges that the prevailing wisdom is not completely misguided he does challenge a key underlying assumption, namely that a correlation exists between prison numbers and crime rates. While it is true that from 1993 prison numbers doubled while crime rates halved, from 1951 to 1971 prison numbers also doubled and crime rates trebled. Not unreasonably Clarke argues there are more important factors influencing crime rates.

This clears the way for greater use of community service to deter, rehabilitate, and reduce prison numbers. This approach has senior judicial support. The former Lord Chief Justice Woolf argued in 2007 that custodial sentences should be reserved for ‘violent criminals’. Otherwise sentences should be reduced and tough community punishments applied in far more cases.

Nearly two decades since Michael Howard fired the starting pistol of a rampant rise in the prison population, and with mounting evidence that conventional ‘wisdom’ is no longer working, Ken Clarke’s considered, evidence-based intervention is highly welcome.

 Marcus Booth is a former Co-Chairman of the Conservative City Circle Law Panel

The Saturday Times magazine (link here but it’s behind the paywall) had a great article about Apple, and how all companies basically want to be the Apple of their industry. Farhad Manjoo also came up with a list of the attributes that make Apple Apple.

He notes that discipline, focus and long-term thinking are key, along with a willingness to flout conventional wisdom. He adds a fanatical attention to detail, unrelenting focus on branding (and all that that implies, not just the look of the thing), and the ability to absorb the lessons and move on from mistakes.

That all sounds pretty good to me – in fact, I’d say that all of those things are essential for political parties. Perhaps his most interesting point, though, is his final one – that Apple’s essential skill is in remixing: taking the best of what’s out there, bringing it together, tweaking it and releasing it to fulfil demands people didn’t know they had.

I know that there are going to be people who say that the Coalition has no principles, that David Cameron has sold his soul for the sake of being Prime Minister, that it will all end in disaster.  But they are wrong and I can’t be bothered arguing again about this one. What I do want to say is this: for years, I was never really a fan of Apple products which seemed a little bit style over substance and poseur for me. But then I got an ipod nano. And then an ipod Touch. And now I am kind of thinking I want an ipad.

What happened? Well… I tried them out. They worked. They did what they were supposed to. When the battery gave up after 13 months (just out of warranty – as Apple batteries do), I took it to the ipod store and they replaced it for free. I use it for all sorts of things I never knew I wanted to do.

That is what the Coalition will stand or fall on. The internal stuff – the discipline, the focus, the attention to detail and so on – will wax and wane over time, of course. But the thing that will mean the Coalition is a success is the experience that users have, just as the thing that makes Apple a success is not the white earphones or the drag and do (though those features all help). The overall delivery and additional experiences that you never thought were possible – that is what keeps Apple desirable, and that will be what does or doesn’t get the Coalition re-elected.