That’s a rather disingenuous interpretation.  Certainly, Janet Street-Porter (The Mail on Sunday) advocated that view.  But she also seemed to hold rather contradictory views; advocating “guerrilla tactics” at the start of the debate and legally-binding quotas for public appointments and elections at the end of the debate.

The “you deserve the coverage you get” attitude was also firmly held by Anne McElvoy (The Economist), who pointed out that politics is a business for peacocks.  Journalists look for things to write about, be it a woman’s cleavage or the Prime Minister’s bald spot.  Don’t wear ridiculous outfits, says Janet Street-Porter, referring to Caroline Flint’s various fashion choices.  The difficulty with that argument is that different people have different ideas about what a “ridiculous outfit”.

The problem, of course, is that the clothes and the shoes and the “how does it feel to be a woman and an MP” questions overwhelm the rest of it.  Emma Reynolds recounts occasions when she expected to talk about a particular policy and all the press wanted to know was what how difficult it was to get elected.  Male politicians appear in GQ and nobody blinks: Louise Mensch does it and it’s discussed as a feminist issue.  And yes, there is a disproportionate amount of coverage of Theresa May’s shoes.

If the panellists representing the media were asserting how the media is tough on everyone, the MPs asked how the lack of coverage of women and the lack of women in politics fed into one another.  On the Today Programme that morning Louise Mensch counted 22 men and four women, while Newsnight is ubiquitous in its maleness.  She wasn’t arguing for absolute parity, merely for more women’s voices to be heard.  The press is excluding women’s views when they could be benefiting from them.

Women have a different relationship with the media.  Sophy Ridge (Sky News) said that female MPs don’t push themselves forward, don’t phone up every week asking to be on TV (an unnamed male MP apparently does do this) and don’t want to speak on subjects they are less familiar with.  Sadly, this may be entirely logical behaviour, given the media’s tendency to either focus on women’s shoes or to deride them as airheads, but it provides no escape from the vicious cycle.  As Angie Bray said, those politicians who get to the top, like Theresa May, are firstly tough and secondly learn how to deal with the media.  No one in politics can decide to have nothing to do with the media.

Speaking from the audience, former MP Gillian (now Baroness) Shephard agreed that a tough skin was important.  It’s hardly fair to put every portrayal of women in the media down to the “if you wear those shoes then that’s all we’ll write about” attitude.  Women on television get held to a higher standard of appearance than their male counterparts, and women on the internet receive far more criticism.

Do female politicians all agree with each other on how to address this?  Of course not: they’re from different political parties.  Women don’t agree with each other simply because they’re women.  We want the brightest and the best women in Parliament, and we don’t want them turned off politics because of the portrayal of female politicians.  The under-representation of women in politics and the lack of coverage of women’s views in the press are intimately related.

And the best quote of the night?  As Janet Street-Porter loudly asserted that quotas were the only way to get more women into Parliament and at least half the panel and most of the audience raised their voices against her, someone at the back of the room shouted out: “ladders not quotas!”  That’s the debate the APPG should have next.

But the Iron Lady is not about Margaret Thatcher’s politics, nor even her life and times. Nor is it – really – about dementia and old age. All of those things are used as tools to portray the hugely moving story of a person saying goodbye to her past and especially to her great love. That she had been Prime Minister, won the Falklands, won the Cold War, won the battle to restore Britain’s sick economy and set in train an economic rocket-booster was only window-dressing to this film.

The breadth of her time in power and the changes which Britain and the world underwent in that time would make it hard to construct just one story, but I would love to see a film about Margaret Thatcher the doer, the thinker, the ruler, and the political colossus. This is not that film – but I don’t think that matters and in fact perhaps we need this humanising film before we will be ready for the other.

One criticism I’ve heard a lot is that the film shouldn’t have been made in her lifetime; I disagree entirely, for two reasons – firstly that as such a huge figure in so many people’s lives, her persona is basically public property anyway and secondly I think that the treatment of her decline was handled with impressive dignity and no little restraint.

I wasn’t sure whether I would like it or not; I often find films about politics quite annoying because they get behaviour or facts wrong, or because they are too simplistic. But even though there were some things that didn’t ring true, and some shaky presentations of historical fact, I loved the Iron Lady. For the purposes of this, I didn’t care that she was the first female Prime Minister, I didn’t care that she won the Falklands, I didn’t care that she lost her political touch in the end (as all politicians do). What makes this a great film is her saying goodbye to Denis; it was beautiful and painful to watch.

As shown time and again through the film, so much of her thinking was centred around individuals and what they can do to contribute to wider society; perhaps that re-stating of Thatcher as a real human being rather than an ideology, a cipher or a hate-figure is this film’s real achievement.

What a load of rubbish.

The Government is right to finally declare that Westminster has the prerogative to decide whether or not Scotland can have a referendum, and indeed whether it is binding. There needs to be more Unionist assertion, including proper destruction of the SNP’s arguments, which seem to follow these themes:

1. The Scottish Executive (which the SNP rebranded ‘Government’) is the voice of the Scottish people: The SNP may command a majority in the Scottish Parliament, but they did not win the election because the Scottish people demanded a referendum, and therefore supported them for that reason alone. Labour has the majority of Scottish MPs in Westminster, and overwhelmingly sent Unionist MPs to Westminster, where referenda decisions are made. Surely they are the voice of the Scottish people? Westminster is sovereign, not Holyrood.
2. The referendum is bound to happen and it is with the SNP’s right to decide how and when it happens: they do not have the legal right. Local councils do not set monetary policy simply by virtue of their councillors promising to replace the Bank of England if elected.
3. Scotland as the sole political unit:  for all counties and unitary authorities that wish to remain in the United Kingdom, they should be allowed to. Why is it that the SNP dictates who stays and who goes? Maybe I should demand that the ancient Kingdom of Kent be allowed independence.
4. Seamless terms of secession: the SNP may believe that Scotland would happily remain part of the EU, NATO, IMF, & WTO, enjoying a special relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. They would think that they are free to peak and choose political separatism without the risks of economic nationalism. There is no reason why Westminster could not hold Holyrood to ransom, if Holyrood is currently willing to do the reverse. There are wonderful reasons for being in the Union and being British, and there are also costs for abandoning it.
5. Residents of Scotland have the only say: I see myself as British and not defined by the home countries of pre-1801 and 1707. If a Scots-only referendum happens, shouldn’t there be a UK-wide affirmatory referendum as well? If my country is to disappear, a commensurate say would be nice.
6. Fiscal imbalance: one the SNP’s old chestnuts about Scotland’s economic possible independence. There is nothing wrong with fiscal transfers to citizens, but the SNP should not be able to hold a veil over people’s eyes.

The reason I believe that a stronger Unionist line needs to be taken is because of my own experience in Canada-Quebec separatism. Indeed, this current Coalition Government draws many parallels with the Canadian Government in the 1990s. Not only have Francis Maude et al. sought to learn from their deficit cutting programme, but in 1995, Quebec – Canada’s second-most populous predominantly francophone province almost voted to leave the Canadian federation,  by 0.6 of a percentage point. The Canadian Liberal Government fought furiously during this third round of referenda to keep Canada together, against the separatist Parti Quebecois (notionally left-wing like the SNP), who had voted the provincial legislature to conduct a referendum. Although only advisory, the PQ ‘had a democratic mandate’ to hold Canada to ransom. Such was the near-destruction of Canada, the rancour the referendum debate had created, and the searing experience it left on both sides in Quebec, especially for the Canadian side of my family, that I have always been against Scottish devolution. It is also why Unionists needs to step up their game. Labour is increasingly an irrelevance in Scotland, which therefore leaves no credible strong voice in the Scottish Parliament. Alex Salmond and the SNP have created their own narrative and sense of fait accompli whilst the Unionism has remained mute.

It is right to put forward the positive aspects of the Union, but it is also correct to rebut Alex Salmond’s myths. At the head of his march to independence, both intellectually and politically, he is running rings around his opponents. Rather like Napoleon, he is masterful at gaining dominance of his political realm. To continue the historical parallel, Salmond’s return from exile in Mount Elba (read interregnum of his SNP leadership) has been allowed to continue for too long. Let us hope that at this next critical juncture, his opponents unit to ensure that he meets his Waterloo. Perhaps, he might then elect to be despatched to St Helena. Indeed, in 2015 2016  (the latest possible date for the next Scottish parliamentary elections), this would happily coincide with the bicentenary of Bonaparte’s arrival.

Closer to home there has been the phone hacking scandal and the closure of the News of the World, the riots in the summer and an economy that continues to struggle to get off the ground. All in all, it’s not been the opening 18 months that Cameron and Co. had in mind. Europe was not meant to dominate the agenda. Phone hacking made an unwelcome newspaper topper for weeks, and the riots reminded politicos that all is not well in pockets up and down the UK.

So as the Prime Minster and his advisers look towards 2012, they must be cautious of predicting what will happen and unsure of what to plan for. It seems certain that the crisis in the eurozone will continue to dominate, that is for sure. There will be more summits, more crisis meetings, more warning and (given the record of the agencies so far) more downgrades. Alistair Darling warned earlier this week that the situation was “far more serious” than many realised, and his warning should be heeded; whilst the Christmas period meant the eurozone has been out of sight, it should not be put out of mind.

However if David Cameron learns his lessons from 2011, he has the opportunity to enjoy a successful 2012. Despite all the ups and downs of the last year, he remains popular with the voters. He is as his best when his back is up against the wall, whether he enjoys it or not. Bruce Anderson wrote a great piece in the Telegraph this week as to why Cameron needs to “discover his inner Scrooge”, even if he would rather be Santa.

The statesman like Cameron is far more palatable than the joke-cracking, complacent one who occasionally appears at Prime Minister’s Questions. When he is grave, serious and honest about the problems being faced by the country, he wins voters over. The Tory right may not be completely happy with him but they are also aware of the importance of having a Conservative Prime Minister, no matter where on the conservative spectrum he fits.

Ed Miliband continues to fail to make an impression. Try as he might he is seen by the majority as unsure, weak and not someone to trust in times of austerity and financial concern. Labour’s financial shots are still not working, accusing the Government of borrowing too much whilst in the same breath saying they would borrow more. For those who look behind the soundbite, it doesn’t make sense.

So 2012 is a year of potential for David Cameron. His position at the end of this year is stronger than many predicted it would be. Remarkably he has the possibly and the tools at his disposal to build on his position, to take his views to the country and push forward the Coalitions reforms. Agree with them or not, the reforms are at the heart of what David Cameron wants to achieve and he promised to try to implement them.

Cameron and Co should learn from the past year but not focus too much on it. They should look forward to 2012, select the areas they wish to target and make a concerted effort to do so. David Cameron should continue to lead in a dignified and statesman like manner, one which the voters want to see and respond well too. And the Conservatives – and to some extent the Coalition as well – should seek to cement their political position and intentions. If they achieve all this, 2012 could certainly be the year of Dave.

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?

This comment was inspired by a report recently published by the University of York revealing that a majority of conservationists believed that it was time to let some of the 17,000 ‘under threat’ species go extinct. What was once a heretical notion in their community is now becoming a logical proposition. The cause? Lack of resource. Efficiency requirements. Return on investment.

This is a huge development. Groups that have devoted decades of campaign activism and research funding to one ideology are now acknowledging that they can’t save every endangered species. The sheer scale of the problem has defeated their emotional intentions.

How does the principle of balance apply to government logic? Some policy areas are better for some sectors of society than others. If we have them, where do our priorities lie?

On the one hand we have the requirement inscribed within democracy to hold regular elections. Here we all know that populism must rule for the system to function.

But what if what is best for the nation isn’t what is the most popular view? Politicians cannot govern without the support of the people, but they cannot enact unpopular but logistically necessary policies for fear of getting the chop.

Once in power can policy ever truly be considered based on the requirement of ‘the greater good’? This statement is forged on a balancing of the percentages – by finding out where the majority of beneficiaries will lie. But what about the rest? Should the minority that won’t benefit be ignored for the ‘greater good’? Is it a waste of resource to even consider them?

The weak in society should always be defended. But it can be conflicting for an elected representative to choose the extent to which this influences their judgments: were they elected to represent or to do what is in the best interests of their constituents? These are not necessarily the same thing.

In the age of the all-powerful media, where the sound bite is king, can we ever accept a species of politician who is able to do what is right on balance without fear of getting booted out by the X-Factor generation of voters?

Will the electorate ever be able to accept that sometimes Parliament might not be in the best interests of us individually, but that they are working in the best interests of the nation?

“Should it be how unique a species is genetically, how useful it is economically, or whether lots of species can be saved at once?” says Dr Murray Rudd who created the original survey.

Unless we, the public, can define and educate the nation about what we believe politician should be for then we will forever be putting them in an impossible situation – do what’s right for me and I’ll vote for you. Do it for everyone other than me and I won’t.

It’s time for us all to stop passing the buck and take some responsibility for our part in the political system.

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.

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?

My starting point is probably a bit uncomfortable for those of us who are Party members – but we need to remember that what we, as Conservatives, think about ourselves is largely irrelevant; it’s what voters think that counts. There is no point in us thinking we’re great if no-one else does. And for too long, too few people thought we were great. That has changed in recent years, and we now have the opportunity to put into practice many of the policies that we’ve been working on for years. The ultimate proof of our fitness to govern again is actually governing, and this government – while a coalition, with all the compromises that entails – has both the opportunity and the imperative to deliver on the ideas we spoke about in Opposition.

Those ideas are rooted in our Conservative principles. In 2006, I was part of the Conference team which made a video about the history of the Conservative Party, and all the radical improvements we had made while in government. That radical thread runs through every successful Conservative government – but what gives those governments the capacity to be radical is, first of all, the trust and the confidence that they have established with voters.

There is an ongoing argument about whether politicians should lead or follow public opinion. I’d argue that they should do both. They need to respond to what voters want; and, in delivering what has been voted for, they build up a relationship which means that radical ideas can be taken at face value rather than voters being suspicious of politicians’ motives. So rather than looking at headline voting intention, I have become a fan of looking at perception measures.

In mid-September, Populus released their regular results on party image. They have been running similar questions since 2003, so they are an interesting long-term reflection of opinion. September’s poll showed that only 30 per cent of voters believe that Tories “are for ordinary people not the rich”. I would utterly dispute that belief – as would, I’m sure, every person reading this – but the fact remains that 70 per cent of people don’t think we are ‘for them’.

23 per cent of voters, according to a ComRes poll, think that the Lib Dems “have done a good job of moderating Conservative policies”. The Independent implies that this is a low, and therefore disappointing, number. I disagree. It is a high, and therefore disappointing, number. We Conservatives should not need to have our policies “moderated” in popular opinion. We should ensure that our policies make clear that we are on the side of normal people.

I would argue that in most cases, we are achieving that. Sorting the national finances, free schools, more accountable policing, more responsive councils, a fairer welfare system, greater individual freedoms… These are all things that Conservatives can be proud to be delivering. But I also contend that we, as Conservatives, as a government, are not presenting our argument very well. We’re not telling people enough about why the (needed) cuts are worth it, and where we will be once all the radical changes we’re introducing take effect. I am utterly convinced that governing well is the most effective way for us to win the next election. In order to govern well, Conservatives must persuade voters of the value of what we’re doing – and what we’re doing must matter to voters.

We need to explain what we’re doing, and why, and how. We need to ensure that we own the good policies as well as the tough ones. We need to explain how we make their lives better. If we can’t, we shouldn’t be introducing that policy. ‘Modernising’ was always shorthand for rebuilding that bond of trust with voters and responding to the world as it evolves around us. It is not, and never has been, about being spikily contrary for the sake of it. The key insight was – and remains – that you cannot win an election if voters think that you don’t understand or like or support them.

We will only win in 2015 if we get governing right now. It won’t be enough, in 2014, to suddenly say that we weren’t just about cuts and arguments over whether or not we were ‘conservative’ enough. Voters need to know, with certainty, in 2015, that we don’t need to be ‘moderated’ and – crucially – that we are ‘for them’.

This piece first appeared in the Conference edition of the CWF magazine, Forward