Direction of Travel

Come on David, it's not rocket science!

Last night was Woking Constituency Conservative Association’s annual general meeting at which Humfrey Malins gave his farewell speech and Jonathan Lord the first of what we hope will be many. During his speech, Jonathan talked about many interesting things, including references to helping the poorest in society that I think it does well for the grass roots to hear.

One of the subjects he touched on was this idea that the Conservative Party has no policies. I firmly believe that this is a message that Labour spinners, aided by the BBC, Grauniad and others are determined to repeat over and over for our consumption – that DC is a salesman with nothing to sell except the art of selling itself. A Blair mark two. Jonathan argued, quite rightly, that there are many examples of Conservative policy out there and that in-depth policy details are not the norm before a general election; Margaret Thatcher didn’t have them in 1979, nor Tony Blair in 1997. What the country understood about these two Leaders of the Opposition, Jonathan said, was their direction of travel.

Cllr Mike Smith asked Jonathan what it was that bound these policies together, the central message to activists and candidates to sell on the doorstep. He, along with others including myself, don’t yet get the sense of an overarching theme to Conservative policy that defines a direction of travel.

It’s desperately needed if DC is to win a convincing rather than narrow victory. And it’s not rocket science. The concept that binds our policies together is three-fold; self-empowerment, opportunity and the fulfillment of aspiration. The credibility gap that the Conservative Party has is linking its support for the wealthy and Middle England, the encouragement of entrepreneurship and businesses and the rolling back of inheritance tax with its desire to help the poorest in society achieve a better life.

Our problem is that we only ever talk about one of these at a time. The first allows our opponents to claim we are the party of the few, not the many. The second provokes a reaction among grass roots that the party is abandoning its core voters. But these two flanks of the spectrum are inextricably linked and go hand-in-hand.

We want to allow people who have been succesful the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their success. We want the prospect of that enjoyment to be an aspiration that creates excellence in its pursuit. We believe that leaving an estate to the next generation is a self-empowerment that begets striving for success. And we will fight for the right of the well-off to enjoy their lives – as long as they pay a fair share to those less fortunate. The successful business creates employment, tax revenue and generates investment in this country – it is also key to our recovery from this dreadful recession.

Similarly, while I am not entirely comfortable with DC’s phrase Broken Britain, there are parts of Britain that don’t work. In some areas, people have poor life chances and little hope of being anything other than a criminal or lifelong welfare recipient. We have to show these people when they are young that we believe in them. We have to demonstrate through community policing, social services and educational opportunities that with hard work and self-belief, anything is possible. And we have to be serious about it, knowing that it is in society’s interests that we address this problem.

In between these extremes, there are countless other examples of people who want the government to help them achieve their aspirations through the tax system, employment regulations, adult education, public sector reforms and so on.  I’m not big on small government - the government should be there to help the people who elect it. I’m big on enabling government - a government that leaves people alone when they are doing well and picks them up when they need help.

But we need to hear more from DC and the party about the link between the two things above. We are not the party of the few,  nor are we the party of the many; we must be the party of everyone.

I believe that with the economy being how it is, voters will forgive a lack of specific, concrete promises. But they will not forgive a listlessness, a lack of direction. Now it is for DC to elucidate the various Conservative policies that are out there in these strategic termsit is not only voters who need to hear it but his own party too.

Enquiring minds

Sir John Chilcot

Sir John Chilcot

It’s not unusual for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre to be full but perhaps rarely are events held there that cause a queue to overflow outside. This morning, the Chilcot Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Iraq War began with Tony Blair expected to be among those giving evidence.

Now that he can no longer expect diplomatic immunity from prosecution after his EU presidential bid failed, this must be a nervous time for Mr Blair. Several newspapers have run stories suggesting that the facts of the matter are at significant variance to the official account of events, including that Blair denied military options were being considered when in fact they were.

What I hope will happen as a result of this inquiry is that we will know:

a) Whether or not Blair and others deliberately manipulated evidence, parliament and public opinion to go to war

b) Whether or not his central claim of “45 minutes from destruction” was true and how it originated

c) Why there was a woeful lack of planning for what happened after the Allies controlled Baghdad – the clock to insurgency then started ticking

d) How much US policy dictated British strategy in Iraq

We all suspect we know the answers, or at least many of them, to these questions. The picture emerging six years after invasion was that politicians exaggerated and spun their way to public approval for a war that the Americans wanted and that there was a price for not following them into.

But let’s not forget that the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has stretched to billions and billions of pounds that have be scraped away from areas such a local authority highways, Revenue Support Grant, policing and even the Armed Forces themselves. The person who approved every penny for this shallow, shambolic military intervention is now sat in No 10 Downing Street, all of 500m from the conference centre.

We should not forget his role in this. Yes, Blair wanted war. But he also wanted welfare reform, Euro membership and to follow Tory spending plans. Gordon didn’t seem to have a problem blocking these things – so why wasn’t he more vocal in his opposition of the war? His role in signing the cheques seems to have been swept under the carpet.

It is interesting to note, of course, that Woking MP Humfrey Malins voted against the Iraq War and resigned from his position on the shadow front bench in protest. How right he has been proven to have been.

Six of the best

I know it’s a bit spurious of me to blog of the Woking PPC selection because I can’t mention details on here of who’s involved etc.

What I can say is that it was a pretty intensive experience that gave me an good insight into what people who want to be MPs have to go through and it must have been pretty nervewracking for them. A few were obviously very nervous and some showed it less although must have been inside.

At the end of the initial selection, we have going forward six excellent candidates, any of whom I think would make a superb MP for Woking and would be in a good position to keep Rosie Sharpley safely out of reach of that honour. She has a decent record as a councillor but is in no way suited to being Woking’s next MP.

During the county elections, we only won in the Woking constituency by 1,609 votes – 5,000 short of Humfrey Malins’s current parliamentary majority. That kind of figure simply won’t be good enough in 2010.We need a candidate who is not only electable, likeable and normal but one who has a proven connection with the area and who is a top-notch campaigner. With the exception of 2007, the Conservatives have largely underachieved in Woking during the past 15 years. That’s not the fault of individuals, it’s a collective issue. We need greater coherence, better messaging and sharper tactics to respond to a very real Lib Dem threat. We need a PPC who is prepared to come in and lead from the front to shape and operate a smarter campaign and who has the track record to show they can.

If they aren’t that person, or don’t inspire that campaign, what looked like a superb opportunity to occupy a safe seat in parliament could turn into a bitter disappointment and one of election night 2010′s “shock” results.

Six gets narrowed down to four this Saturday.

Meritocracy or madness?

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.