Part of the discussion I had with David Cameron (results available in Company magazine, March issue, on sale at all good newsagents from 13 March) revolved around the Tories’ publication of draft manifesto chapters.

He said:

“We’ve launched it draft chapter by draft chapter, on the internet, with people then coming up with their ideas and their questions. I’ve done online public meetings, the first one I think 40 000 people took part and voted on which questions they wanted answered on their particular subject. So we’ve got a long way to go but I think it’s a world away from what we used to do. And the exciting thing is is it’s totally interactive – it’s driven by what people want to say rather than just being pushed stuff by the politicians.”

I asked him if this was a bit of a cop-out, maybe even played into (unfounded, by the way) accusations that the Conservatives are entirely focus-group driven.  He replied (unsurprisingly…) that he disagreed, because: “The draft manifesto is what we want to do, it’s what we believe in but I think in the modern world of Wikipedia and crowd sourcing and interacvtity it’s only right when you’re asking people and you want to be their government, look here’s our draft manifesto what do you think, what have we left out, what do you most think is your priority? I think it’s a very good and modern way of doing politics.”

At the time, I was a bit sceptical. After all, four years of research, policy work, review and discussion – surely they are ready to make the argument for the policies they believe in? But actually, the more I think about it, and the more I hear about just how fed up of politics as usual voters are, the more I think that if this process is seen to be making a difference, then it can only be a good thing.

After all, we are a representative democracy. Our politicians are supposed to be answerable to us. They are supposed to represent us – not just pass laws from on high.  I do want politicians to listen, and react to what we say.

Remember when Tony Blair was attacked on Newsnight about the 48 hour GP targets – he had absolutely no idea what was going on. He assumed that because his government’s 48 hour target was being met, everything was ticking over nicely. But he was very wrong. Politicians need to work out a way to get the real facts – targets being met did not tell them that the GPs’ surgeries just disconnected the phone once two days’ of appointments had been made.

Gordon Brown is right on one thing: politics is all about choices. But you can’t make an informed choice unless you have enough information, and politicians need to make sure that they can access enough information from sufficiently diverse sources to inform the choices they make in our name.

While it does have to actually make a difference (in my experience, fake concern is worse than no concern at all), I have become a fan of wiki-writing the manifesto.  It’s all part of the post-bureaucratic way of doing things…

James Purnell’s announcement last week that he is stepping down from Parliament is a great shame to anybody who wants politics to achieve progressive ends.  I have written before about how Purnell underestimates the ideas put forward as part of the ‘progressive Conservative’ umbrella.   Having said that, his contributions, particularly since leaving the Cabinet, have been genuinely thought provoking and pretty compelling.  Read last week’s speech at the LSE as an example and compare it with Miliband’s particularly substance light Demos speech yesterday.

Despite the protestations of the likes of Liberal Conspiracy (and quite a few left wing friends of mine) who still seem to detest Purnell, we should all be sad that people who are radicals and thought leaders think it is better off for them to be outside of Parliament rather than inside.  What does that say about the health of our politics and our political process?  Witness, as well, the announcement by Tony Benn before the last election that he was resigning from Parliament “to devote more time to politics.”  Or the fact that, love him or hate him, Daniel Hannan prefers to be outside rather than within Parliament.  Or even the resignation of the likes of the highly talented Bryan Gould a few years ago.

It is worth reading Kenneth Morgan’s excellent life of Keir Hardie, or looking at the causes of Chartism and the other great radical movements to understand the emphasis placed on gaining working class and radical representation inside the House of Commons.  Indeed, that is one of the many things that sets British radicalism aside from continental radicalism.  What does it say about the modern House of Commons that so many people of radical views feel that the best place for them is outside of Parliament?

Of course, there are many potential reasons for this.  The growth of unelected institutions, at a national, European and international level has, undoubtedly weakened the power of Parliament.  The judiciary, rather than elected decision makers, plays an increasingly activist role. The power of the 24 hour media has probably diminished the capacity for ‘thinkers’ to gain breathing space whilst under the media spotlight.  The power of the party hierarchy and the whips has undoubtedly grown, to the detriment of a healthy democracy.  The rise of the blogosphere and think tanks means that radical ideas can potentially gain as much emphasis when expressed outside of Parliament than outside.

There is little doubt that political reform is urgent and overdue.  The role of Parliament undoubtedly needs to be strengthened.  It is, surely, tragic that some of the best thinkers and most talented politicians no longer see being in the House of Commons as being the pinnacle of political life.

I have a question. During an election campaign, and let’s be honest it already feels like we’re already in the middle of one, is it acceptable for one party to adopt a policy which has been proposed by one of their opponents? This post argues yes, especially for a Party that has serious aspirations to govern.

One of the major strengths of a democratic system is that it creates a market place where ideas compete for the blessing of citizens. It is churlish to believe that one person, one institution or one philosophy has a monopoly of knowing what the best solutions are for the problems that this country faces, especially when all Parties, pressure groups and institutions compete for our support by producing what they consider to be the best solution.

Gordon Brown’s brand of political chauvinism is an example of what can happen if you believe the answer to my question is no. He searches for dividing lines that can be used to beat-up his opponents. The desire for instant victory over opponents who are viewed with hatred trumps any concern over how these victories are achieved. It is this type of attitude that breeds instances such as the Damien McBride/Red-Rag scandal. This intransigent outlook has not just damaged the country, it has also stunted the Labour Party. By crushing any possibility of there being a leadership contest post-Blair, Brown was telling his party he would not tolerate competing views. He did not allow Labour the breathing space to conduct a debate about its future direction. He denied the general public a chance to hear the case for him being our Prime Minister. It is no coincidence that the most promising Labour thinking emanates from those who do not share his mentality thus consider ideas from wide variety of sources.

The trigger that started my thought process was the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax to £10,000 pa. They claim that this policy will mean that 4 million low paid workers will no longer have to pay income tax. This policy instantly appealed to my Tory gut. It neatly ties together the Conservative philosophies of low tax and achieving social justice through promoting aspiration. If the Tories adopted this policy they would not need to move a political inch. The tax threshold idea compliments existing policies such as abolishing tax on new jobs and reducing tax on small businesses will help to encourage companies to employ more people, the commitment to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and fund 10,000 extra high-tech university places so that the unemployed can play an active part in the new economy. From a social justice angle the £10,000 tax policy stands on the shoulders of much of the work done by the Centre for Social Justice. Since 1997 three quarters of a million more people are classed as living in severe poverty. Despite what Labour propaganda would have you believe the Conservatives want to help people get out of this situation. Unlike the Labour Government Tories understand that this cannot be done by just throwing money at the problem.  A sense of aspiration and reward needs to be built into the system in order to encourage welfare dependants to take their first step onto the working ladder. Labour can criticise Tory tax cutting beliefs as being something that just benefits the rich but raising the tax threshold shows that tax cuts can benefit us all.

Politics being politics, if the Conservatives did add the Lib Dem idea to their programme for government they are bound to face some hostility. In anticipation of this I have answered the three most obvious charges which may be flung at them.

You have stolen that idea!

To quote my political philosophy lecturer “There is no such thing as an original idea.” The Conservative Party have a fine history of encouraging the poorest in our society to generate, accumulate and use wealth. The Lib Dems’ idea builds on the work of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne to put aspiration back into the welfare system. The Tory Party is not afraid to adopt ideas which will benefit the country, wherever they emanate from. We welcome the fact that the Lib Dems have spent time on issues which we have consistently highlighted as being important and we already have a wide-ranging governmental programme to solve. Raising the tax threshold to £10,000 is a Lib Dem cherry which has been put on top of a Conservative cake.

This is proof that you have no good policies yourself. This is a Tory endorsement of the Lib Dems. Voters should forget about the Tories and just vote Lib Dem.

Labour has plunged Britian into the longest and deepest recession on record. We face the largest budget deficit of any major economy. The Conservative Party has a full economic programme which will firstly ensure that Britian maintains its place as a major economic power and secondly wenches our nation back onto the path to prosperity. We will create a national loan guarantee scheme to underwrite bank lending to business, to save businesses and protect jobs. We will tackle debt, we will create 100,000 new apprentiships that will create a qualified workforce for the high-skill economy that Britain needs to develop. We will cut the cost of Whitehall and Quangos, freeze Council Tax for two years, and abolish tax on new jobs. If you would like me to go on let me know. The point is it is only us who has the right strategy for fixing the problems that face this country. If another Party, pressure group or individual creates a good idea that fits into our strategy we have no problem adopting it. Our decisions are based on what is best for the British people, they are not driven by an abstract political agenda.

You are only adopting this policy because you want the support of Nick Clegg’s mob.

The Labour Party has dramatically failed in its promise to raise the living standards of the lowest paid workers in our economy. Stateist solutions have lead to greater inequality partly because they have taken away pride, aspiration and responsibility from those they feel the need to protect. The Tories have been highlighting this broken promise for a number of years now and we have many progressive policies which will encourage improvements. It is unsurprising that the Lib Dems are also trying to solve the mess Labour has created. We have no problem working with others to solve this issue. A Conservative Government will concentrate solely on making Britain a better place to live.

Adopting others ideas, when they are good and are consistent with your programme, shows the electorate that you posses political maturity, confidence and leadership. Maturity because you ignore yaa-boo politics in favour of the greater good. Confidence because you will do what is right even if it opens you to criticism. Leadership because you are open to considering many ideas before deciding which direction to take.

I’m a fan of Left Foot Forward.  It is amongst the list of ‘must read’ blogs.  But in an article a few days ago, they completely misunderstood the nature of the Tory blogosphere.

Sam Coates et al arranged a fairly informal get together for bloggers on Tuesday, at which Eric Pickles gave a short and very entertaining speech. The normally excellent Left Foot Forward added a blog based on a fiction.  According to LFF, the disparate and varied Tory blogosphere will now be marching with the discipline and unity of a well drilled battalion – apparently driven on by 7 AM briefings that they will be expected to parrot.  This is, of course, totally untrue.  Nothing even remotely of the kind was said at the event.  In fact, the independence of the blogosphere was loudly celebrated.

There are two important points here.  The first is that what Will Straw alleged was said absolutely wasn’t said.  The second is that it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Tory blogosphere.  The truth is that the Tory blogosphere is highly independent and highly diverse. The idea that blogs from the progressive centre such as this one will start singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as some of the blogs on the right wing fringe is absurd.

What Straw fails to note and comprehend is that internet and the blogosphere has resulted in the greatest proliferation of sources of news, information and opinion for centuries.  Not since the time of the likes of Cobbett’s Political Register and Marat’s L’Ami Du Peuple has such a range of political opinions (from the sensible to the crackpot) been able to reach a wider audience.

In such an uncontrolled environment as the internet and the blogosphere, central control verges between difficult and impossible.  As Joe Trippi’s brilliant ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’ makes clear, the internet and the blogosphere are, by their very nature bottom up rather than top-down.  It is part of the left’s misunderstanding of the blogosphere that they think any kind of central control is even being considered.

I have blogged a few times about the increasingly rightward drift of the US Republican Party.  Even I was surprised by this poll, by the Daily Kos and Research 2000 of 2000 self identified Republicans – showing how far to the ideological fringes the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt had moved.

Some of the key findings of the poll (with my italics) are:

• 39% say that Barack Obama should be impeached.  Correct me if I’m wrong but the US Constitution says that impeachment should be a punishment for high crimes and misdemeanours.  Seemingly, this sub-set of GOP supporters believe that Obama should be impeached for having the temerity to disagree with them and win an election.  Frightening.
• 42% believe that Obama was born outside of the United States.  The conspiracy theory, with some fairly offensive undertones, that Obama wasn’t born in the US has a shocking amount of credibility with GOP supporters.  Is that any surprise when the likes of Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN, gave this absurd idea such airtime?
• 63% believe that Obama is a Socialist.  That is plain daft – although the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannitty seem to parrot this ridiculous line on a nightly basis.  Anybody who thinks that Obama is a socialist clearly doesn’t have the faintest idea about political philosophy or Obama’s platform.
• 21% believe that Acorn ‘stole’ the last election, with another 55% ‘not sure’.  Another absurd conspiracy theory given a silly amount of airtime by Fox News.  For Glenn Beck, Acorn is almost an obsession.
• 53% believe that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. I find it hard to understand how anybody could hold this view.
• 23% believe that their state should secede from the USA, with a further 19% being not sure.  Speechless.
• 55% believe that openly gay men should not be allowed to serve in the military and 77% believe that openly gay men should not be allowed to teach in ‘public’ schools.    77% believe that creationism should be taught in schools.  31% believe that contraception should be outlawed and 76% consider abortion to be ‘murder’.  It is hard to understand how anybody with broadly socially liberal views could sympathise with a Party in which these views are so broadly held.

Despite recent electoral victories (largely due to the lingering level of unemployment), the Republican Party urgently needs to re-engage with the centre ground if it is to have any hope in 2012.  It needs to consider that the conspiracy theories and extreme social conservatism repeatedly parroted by Beck, Hannitty et al might motivate the base but they will not win elections.

On a side point, the Bill O’Reilly interview of Jon Stewart is a must watch.  I particularly like the lines that, “they [Fox News and the GOP right] have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao” and “you [Bill O’Reilly] are the voice of sanity at Fox News…that’s like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.”