In the short term, the Government will be judged by successfully dealing with the catastrophic financial situation left behind by its predecessor.  In the long term, the Government will be judged on making Britain a more socially mobile and open society.

Social mobility matters.

It matters that so many people are not fulfilling their potential or aspirations.

It matters that life chances are more likely to be decided at birth than at any time since the 1920s.

It matters that, although only 7% of children go to private school, such schools account for almost 80% of judges, 70% of finance directors and barristers; 55% of Tory MPs; and over 50% of top journalists.

That is why the appointment of Alan Milburn as social mobility ‘czar’ is to be welcomed.  At the moment, after 13 years of a Government that promised so much but delivered so little, Britain one of the least socially mobile countries in the world and less mobile than at any time since the war.

The report of the cross party commission (which I praised at the time) headed up by Alan Milburn for the last Government was a devastating indictment of the previous Government’s failure to act on the issue.  It said that, “access to the professions is becoming the preserve of a smaller and smaller part of the social spectrum.”  This is something that a highly talented man such as Alan Milburn feels strongly about and it is only to be applauded that he will be avoiding the tribal taunts of members of the opposition about the fact he wants to do all that he can to help improve the life chances of the poorest.

Social mobility is also something I care deeply about.  I went to a North Eastern comprehensive school (probably of the kind that Tony Blair would have derided as ‘bog standard’).  I saw so many exceptional people who were let down by the system and didn’t always achieve their potential.

There are some people who suggest that an attachment to enhancing social mobility is ‘un-Conservative’.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  It wasn’t un-Conservative when Churchill talked of creating a floor below which none could fall and a sky through which all could rise.

What is more Conservative than ensuring that each and every human being is able to fulfil their potential.    What can be more Conservative than raising people’s aspirations? A modern economy needs highly skilled people to prosper.  What can be more wasteful than seeing so many people not fulfilling their potential?

Political sovereignty in Britain should lie with the Commons.  It should lie with people we elect and can remove.  The rise of both the quangocracy and judicial activism (not to mention the EU) makes that less the case than it should be.

Dan Hannan has a very good blog today in which he points to the case of the budget being challenged in the courts by the Fawcett Society.  As he queries, how can a budget possibly be a legal rather than a political question.

A budget should be entirely the prerogative of the elected chamber and elected politicians.  That was the clear result of the crisis around the People’s Budget that culminated in the 1911 Parliament Act. The Commons, in which the sovereignty of the people resides, should not see its budget decisions overturned by unelected judges.

Judges are not only unelected.  They are thoroughly unrepresentative, representing a small section of British society.  They are not only unelected and unrepresentative – they wield increasing power and they cannot be removed.  Shifting power to the judiciary and the quangocracy only shifts power further away from the people

As Daniel Hannan says in his blog:

“It is worth remembering that we came through a civil war to establish the principle that revenues should be levied and disbursed by the House of Commons. If the Fawcett Society wants a different budget, its members should put themselves up for election and argue their case.”

Judicial activism represents a real threat to the democratic tradition.  Change should be achieved through the ballot box, not at the whim of unelected judges or unelected quangos.

Paul Goodman published an interesting piece on Con Home on Monday about,as he puts it, the ‘left’ of the Tory party.  Although Con Home is increasingly the internet based ‘house journal’ for the right of the party (and some elements of the right that are sceptical of the coalition), it is always interesting to see the view of the left of the Party from the outside looking in.

I would suggest that ‘progressive’ is a better description than ‘Tory left’.  That tradition is far broader and more open than some elements of the Tory right – which often seems to adopt a 1975 ‘year zero’ approach.  Progressive Tories look to Disraeli’s social reforms as a first attempt to marry a market economy with social justice (with an inbuilt recognition that the market economy is not perfect).  It looks to Joseph Chamberlain’s radical social reform and Lord Randolph Churchill’s ‘Tory Democracy’.  It looks to the Macmillan Government, which delivered one nation policies and economic success unparalleled by any other post war administration, with low unemployment, high productivity and high growth.  Progressive elements of Conservatism also look to the positive liberalism of the late 19^th and early 20^th Century (freedom to, rather than simply freedom from).

Above all, the progressive tradition in the Tory Party doesn’t believe that there is just one way of doing things.  It questions blind dogma and puts a pragmatic ‘what works’ consideration at its core.  Progressives in the Tory party have a belief in the market economy, but also an understanding that market failures can and do occur and, if this happens, Government has a duty to step in.  Individuals, government, community, the free market and intermediate institutions all have a role to play.

I would contend that the Con Home article misses a number of key points and merits a response.

The Myth Of The 2010 Election

The right of the party is building up some dubious mythology about the election based on what I would call “right wing Bennism”.  Tony Benn described the 1975 election defeat for the ‘No’ campaign (that was comprehensively ignored by most of the Tory Party) as a remarkable achievement and the 1983 election result as a good result for Labour.  Just as Benn believed that more left wing policies would give Labour victory, so some on the right seem to believe that more right wing policies – a variant on the theme of 2001 and 2005 – would have delivered an outright majority.

What is clear is that the Conservatives didn’t win the election because they had not persuaded sufficient voters that they had modernised enough.  Voters looked for reassurance and, in some cases, didn’t feel reassured enough.  That is why the Conservatives struggled in places such as London and Scotland – not two places that would normally be associated with a desire for more right wing Thatcherism.

The Coalition Has Been Largely Progressive

Paul Goodman makes much of the membership of internal party committees in his piece.  Confusingly, he seems to ignore what the Government has actually done since being elected.  This is a slightly bizarre distortion of priorities.  The Government is governing in a progressive way and the progressive wing of the Conservative Party is playing a central role in the Government.

Of course, just as sites like Platform 10 were in favour of a progressive coalition as soon as the results were known, so the likes of Con Home were unstintingly opposed to the idea of coalition (ignoring the economic and political uncertainty that results from minority Governments).

The ‘Programme For Government’ or coalition agreement is, in many ways, pleasingly progressive.  Constitutional reform put off for too long (in some cases, since 1911 or even, some might argue, 1649) is happening at last.  Ken Clarke’s intelligent reforms to the penal system represent evidence based policy making against the shrill opposition of right wing blogs and the right wing press.  The coalition has committed itself to tackling poverty and inequality and promoting fairness.

Thinktanks and Groups on the ‘Tory Left’ Have Been The Most Dynamic and Agenda Setting

In the article, Mr Goodman was careful about the think tanks and organisations he chose to discuss the Tory left.  In fact, there are a myriad of think tanks in the progressive centre of politics.  In so many ways, they have been setting the agenda in a way that think tanks of the ‘so called’ right have not.  Respublica’s media imprint has been massive – as has their argument that Toryism needs to move on from Thatcherism and accept that the social consequences of the 1980s were mixed.  Policy Exchange have been hugely influential on the Government.  The TRG have become revitalised recently – particularly on environmental policy. ‘Bright Blue’ are the latest addition to a crowded field in the progressive centre.

Cross fertilisation of ideas that crosses party lines has become common in the progressive centre.  Demos have been pumping out ideas as part of their ‘Progressive Conservatism’ project and Richard Reeves contribution to the debate, through the idea of the ‘liberal republic’ was exceptional before he moved on to be the Deputy Prime Minister’s Special Adviser.  Many ideas that I support, such as the Living Wage,  are supported by a coalition of progressives across the party spectrum.

Some of the old groups of the ‘Tory right’ seem overly concerned with looking backwards rather than forwards.  There is often a ‘Thatcher worship’ that borders on the hagiographic.  All too often, the bolder forward thinking ideas are coming from the progressive Tory left.

Contrary to the Conservative Home article, the progressive element of the Tory Party is in a confident mood.  Paul Goodman misses the fact that Tory progressives are already, in his words, “out, loud and proud.”  It is, in most cases making the running, setting the agenda and keeping the game in the centre ground.

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.

As The Times (within the paywall) reported this morning, Trimdon Labour Club has poured its last pint.  The club where Tony Blair repeatedly popped along to when he wanted to connect with traditional working class voters closed yesterday.  It is a shame that Mr Blair couldn’t put his hand in his pockets to help the venue that helped him so many times.

The closure is just the latest chapter in the sad decline of British working men’s clubs.  In the 1970s, there were over 4,000 working men’s clubs.  Now, there are little more than 2,000.  The decline of working mens’ clubs creates a shell in the community of towns and villages across the country.

The Working Men’s Clubs organisation is one of the most important organisations in the country. It provides an important glue to help hold our towns and villages together. They provide great community facilities, an excellent social setting, great banter and excellent value drinks. At the same time as other pubs are ripping their dartboards and pool tables out to make way for sometimes dubious claims to ‘gastropub’ status, the CIU constitution ensures that each club must have a board and a pool table. Ever since my Dad took me to some of the Working Men’s Clubs around the County Durham area for a pint or two, I have been a massive fan of the Working Men’s Club movement.

The sad truth is, unless the decline is arrested, working men’s clubs will become an increasing rarity.  In an age where politicians talk about cooperatives and community involvement, the working mens’ clubs, the living breathing embodiments of such ideas, are in steep decline.  They surely embody a lot of what the ‘big society’ should be about.  Communal meeting places, run by enthused local volunteers and often acting as the beating heart of communities.  The removal of a working me’s club often only serves to atomise communities further and diminish community spirit.

There are many factors that have caused the decline of the movement.  Some of these factors are irreversible and societal. Some are connected with the tragic deindustrialisation of the the 1960s, 70s and 80s that hollowed out too much of working class life and, all too often, removed the vital glue from communities.

But other factors can be changed.  Clubs are suffering because they cannot afford to pay the extortionate fees of BSkyB, so are losing the football and cricket watching crowds to the pub chains.

The smoking ban was introduced completely ignoring the views of the working mens’ club movement.  As the General Secretary of the CIU says the ‘no compromise’ approach adopted by last Government has left elderly and infirm CIU members standing outside in the cold. Surely we can reach a compromise where working men’s clubs are enabled to have properly ventilated ’smoking rooms’ if their members desire and their staff assent?

And that is on top of the other factors that are causing pubs around the country to struggle.

The decline of working men’s clubs is another example of how, all too often, working class communities have been ignored and marginalised.  Hopefully, the working men’s club movement can play a reinvigorated role in reinvigorating communities in the coming years.