Any Conservative voters who really believe that a vote for Nick Clegg will get them a sort of Labour-lite – avoiding the upheaval of a change of government, keeping the half-decent things that Labour has done while not having to put up with the “old party” of Gordon Brown or even Gordon Brown himself – should read this post at ConservativeHome.

We are choosing a government and people need to look at what the Lib Dems will actually deliver if elected. They want to give all pension tax relief at the basic rate – so if you earn more that £37,400 your contributions above that limit will get relief of 20%, not 40%. They also want to tax capital gains at the same rate as income – a 2% increase on the basic rate and 22% on anything above £37,400. They want to scrap the Child Trust Fund, scale back the HomeBuy programme that helps people onto the property ladder, cancel the next tranche of Eurofighter aircraft and cancel Trident. Then there’s the local income tax, the stopping of people going to prison for fewer than six months (effectively ending the power of magistrates to send people to prison) and the threats to reform our voting system so that they will remain in coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour in perpetuity.

In addition, the Lib Dems will push for further European integration and there will certainly be no support for withdrawal from the EU, they will open our borders for unlimited immigration, are proposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants and will continue to be staunch supporters of handing continuing amounts of sovereignty over law and order, foreign policy and taxation to Brussels. Quite a price to pay for a fresh face on the telly.

All of this policy may not be Conservative or Labour and it may not come directly from the mouths of those associated with past ills, although let’s not forget Michael Brown and the fact that Lib Dems too were invovled in expenses and other scandals, but that doesn’t stop it being regressive and contrary to the national interest.

The equation that we face is shockingly simple. The Conservative manifesto sets out a positive future for Britain under David Cameron that builds on opportunity, self-empowerment for individuals and communities and a focus on a high-technology economy to pay off our crushing debts. If you don’t agree with the Conservatives and you’re not convinced that we can deliver, the only other option open to you at this stage is a Labour/Liberal coalition with Gordon Brown as PM. I can’t think of a worse place for Britain to be on May 7 – an outright majority for either of those parties would be better.

We must leave The  X-Factor to Simon Cowell and the pop music industry and keep our sense of proportion in politics. It is time for change and not chance, confidence and not compromise and a future that shows to the world Britain has a plan for recovery.

Carl Thomson, co-author of the Bow Group pamphlet

There is a very good pamphlet that has just been published by the Bow Group on cutting government spending without impacting on public service delivery. The author is John Redwood, MP for Wokingham who spoke at the Conservative Annual Dinner the other evening along similar lines to some of the themes in the pamphlet. Carl Thomson, our candidate in Mount Hermon East in the Woking Borough Council elections next year (Twitter @carlthomson), has co-authored the report with John Redwood and his clarity of thought is evident in there too.

Mr Redwood has written an article on ConservativeHome about his work and it is definitely worth a read – it is comfortably digested in 20 minutes. The two authors go through each government department and suggest areas where savings could be made. Some of them are themes we are already familiar with such as quangos and staffing and there are one of two others thrown in that you may not have considered.

Particularly interesting are the comments of the introducion and conclusion, which talk about the politics of cutting expenditure, how Labour has tried first to say that all spending is untouchable and automatically equates to sacking doctors and nurses and then changed its mind. Spending cuts are not about cutting services, the pamphlet says, that is a very public sector way of looking at things. They are about delivering everything that you want to deliver – which might be everything you deliver now, or even more – more efficiently, with less waste and providing the taxpayer with better value.

A lot of ConservativeHomers are calling for John Redwood to be installed as Shadow Chancellor on the back of this but personally I think they are living in a dreamworld. Mr Redwood’s problem is not ability – he is among the most able of all MPs – it’s his public image, associated as he is with the cost-cutting, economy-is-everything right wing of the party. This pamphlet has shown another side to him – that he a considerate MP looking to create a better, more financially sustainable future but I had to laugh in the conclusion when he suggested that PR, spin and marketing costs should be cut.

Apart from the fact that everyone says that in opposition but seem to be much keener on PR when it comes to telling the world what they’ve achieved, perhaps if John Redwood had had the benefit of some proper PR and marketing to the general public during the first 10 years of his political career, there’s a chance he might be Shadow Chancellor by now!

Anyway, being Shadow Chancellor is no good if you can’t contribute anything useful and this is a superb contribution to the debate. Particularly congratulations to Carl, whose first pamphlet for the Bow Group this is – it’s a very careful and measured look at an emotive subject and will I’m sure find its way to the Shadow Chancellor before long.

Nadine Dorries - I'm a big fan but she's wrong on AWS

I have had a number of discussions with Conservatives about all women shortlists and I seem to be about the only person welcoming DC’s words yesterday.

Look, I don’t like the idea of AWS. Like everyone else, I think it smacks of discrimination. But people like Nadine Dorries, arguing on ConHome that AWS leads to “two-tier” female MPs and Jonathan Sheppard of Tory Radio, with whom I had a good discussion on Twitter yesterday, are missing the point.

Nadine argues that she got in without the need for AWS and that with only 30% of applications from women, only 30% wanted to be MPs. Not only is this statistically complete nonsense, it is also a judgement she is hardly in a position to make. I’m a big fan of hers but on this one she’s wrong.

Moreover, even if we were happy with 30% of the parliamentary party being female (that would do for a start!) we currently have nine percent and with only around 25% of candidates female we are not even selecting the proportion of those applying.

Jonathan and others believe the answer is to encourage more women to apply. Agreed. But that still doesn’ t solve the problem of them being selected by association members – male and female - which itself is probably linked to why they don’t apply in the first place. They think the Conservative Party is a male-dominated environment. They think their chances of selection in a winnable seat are small and they think that even if successful, they will have a small number of female colleagues. Look at the evidence – is this an unreasonable view?

So if we want women to apply to the party, we have to show that we are prepared to select them in winnable areas. We have to show that we are looking to provide a more women-friendly environment and we have to show that in parliament, successful candidates will have a proportional mix of people with whom to work. By saying that our paucity of females in Parliament is the fault of women themselves for not applying is a grotesque abdication of the reality.

AWS is the unfortunate consequence of years of inaction on this issue. We can all pull out exceptions to the rule – Baroness Thatcher etc – but I’m surprised that Nadine Dorries believes that pulling up the ladder to others just because she managed to clamber aboard benefits women or the Conservative Party.

Why is it we are bothered about women “only getting the job because they are a woman”? Does it not occur to people that many, many male MPs only got selected because they went to the right school or university, worked at the right companies, were central office wonks, advisors or former leaders of local authorities? We tolerate this discreet favouritism yet condemn positive action. It’s dreadful and sexist.

The fact is that the party needs its talented women in Parliament and if local associations won’t select them their hands need to be forced. As ever, the AWS women in Parliament will need to work twice as hard to prove themselves. But how condescending for us just to assume that they are not up to it.

Sir Thomas Legg about to send out letters

A slightly lightweight but nevertheless poignantly acerbic little morsel on ConservativeHome.

I understand the anger about expenses but really, isn’t reforming the system enough? My father says that there are four motivating emotions for humans – greed, fear, lust and jealousy. It’s clear to me that this story is not so much about the moral rectitude of MPs but about the newspapers manipulating the latter of these emotions to shore up their own shaky position and lure readers back off the internet.

Please don’t go – it only encourages them.

There’s been a bit of a stir in Conservative ranks since the party launched its new selection guidelines for 2010, which included the stipulation that shortlists for selection must contain a 50:50 male/female balance. This is the process that we are following in Woking to select Humfrey’s successor.

A ConservativeHome poll suggests that 91% of party members are against this with just six percent in favour. Count me as among the six percent.

Discrimination of any kind, be it against the minority or the majority, goes against everything I stand for. But at the moment, 91% of the parliamentary party is male (the same number as those opposing the new rules) and there are just 17 female Tory MPs. This is despite DC’s “modernisation” and everything the party has been through since 1997 – we have just four more female MPs elected in the two elections since then.

I think that the Conservative Women’s Organisation and Women2Win are vital to the party’s future and a few of the naysayers would do well to visit the websites. There is no magic solution to the gender imbalance within the Conservative Parliamentary Party but there are compelling reasons why something needs to be done.

First of all, credibility. Unless the party increases the number of women elected, it will simply not be taken seriously, especially by the women voters so vital to success. There is also a trust implication here – we have promised to modernise the party and this is a significant benchmark – to fail here is akin to a broken promise.

Then there is simple natural justice. It is intolerable that such a large proportion of our representatives are taken from such a small pool – however distinguished that pool may be. I don’t care if we have old Etonians splashing around; but I want to see some more people like Nadine Dorries, Justine Greening and Anne Widdecombe who can truly claim to represent a broad spectrum of people.

Thirdly, it will be beneficial to the party and the country to have a more prominent female input into policy and the administration of policy. It will also demonstrate to some of the more resolute grandees that progress is here and they need to get used to it. It’s about time that we dragged this party into the 21st century and if that means balanced shortlists, fine.

I know that I’m probably the only member of the panel in Woking in favour of the 50:50 rule. But the party as a whole has demonstrably and catagorically failed in this area for 30 years – the past 10 years of which have been spent saying that something would be done. Now something is being done and those who don’t like the method can’t say they weren’t warned.