The 180-degree turn

As a student at the University of Surrey just after Labour came to power, one of the few Labour policies that I supported was the introduction of tuition fees. I sent countless letters to the student newspaper in support  and – unsurprisingly – didn’t find much room for my view among the NUS establishment. My point then was that the fee structure as originally proposed exempted many of the less well-off students from paying the fees – but that the abolition of the maintenance grant as part of the tuition fee introduction hit poorer students far harder.

But the NUS didn’t listen to me and since then things have changed hugely, with the cost of a university education now unenviably massive. I cannot think that anyone would found a nation on the principle of leaving young graduates tens of thousands of pounds in debt as a price for their education and it’s utterly bonkers that we’ve got to the stage we have.

Even in 1998, it was obvious to me that there was a pretty simple problem here. The vast majority of young people educated to A-level now wish to attend university – yet the nation simply doesn’t have the funds to allow them to do this and support the swollen university corps needed to deal with the numbers. There are, it logically follows, only two ways to deal with this – to reduce the number of students at university or to increase the amount of money in the system.

Labour’s solution, typically, was to give students money from the future and postpone the resolution of the problem until some unspecified date. Today, David Willetts revealed that even this charade had now run its course and that resolution was now needed. There is no more money left to go in.

It would be great if everybody could have a university education but I have always believed that there are far too many students taking courses that don’t improve their life chances, too many students only at university for social reasons and too many who, even though committed and willing, don’t end up giving the nation back the value of their degrees. Conversely, the amount of money going into serious research in our universities is falling year-on-year. They have become places that cater for drinking and socialising first and research and academia second.

There’s nothing wrong with drinking and socialising - but not when it’s funded by the taxpayer. And if the Lib Dems are not prepared to U-turn and countenance further rises in tuition fees, we all need to do a U-turn and consider once again what the purpose of universities and their facilities is. I believe that there are much more imaginative and worthwhile ways that those facilities can be tied into higher learning without the need of three-year courses. I also think the nation needs to work out how many university places it can afford – and what it wants to use them for – and award that number, not have a show of hands who fancies a spot at uni and then try to squeeze them all in.

Higher education in this country isn’t working, similar to many of the young graduates it produces. It’s time that we had a cultural re-assessment of the role that universities play in our society and lives because the bare fact is that the good times of universal higher education are coming to an end. In future it must be a properly integrated resource available to the most able regardless of background, not a sellable commodity for anyone able to pay (or borrow).

PS I’m not exempting myself from this – I did an undergraduate degree in Music, which was very good and enjoyable. But was it necessary and could it be justified under current economic circumstances? Doubtful.

Cutting with credibility

The PM speaking at MK

The PM’s speech in Milton Keynes was among the most important of his political career so far. It defined his position more clearly than anything previously on the defining political question of the decade – how to get Britain back into business.

We can take from it several things – firstly that the PM will lay it on very thick about the economic crisis being Labour’s fault. I think that’s no bad thing – particularly because they are starting to come out with some pretty outrageous criticism of the coalition on a situation they helped, at least, to create. But I think he’s got to be careful and not get too free with this tactic. He needs to be the consensus man, the leader, the unifier and the solution, not the “new” problem.

Secondly, the PM is happy to tell us just how bad it is, unlike Labour. Not everyone will agree with him but it is obviously in his interest to make things seem as bad as possible. I don’t think a great deal of exaggeration is necessary – things are very, very bad – but the openness he is in a political position to afford could be something of an advantage. I think if played well, far from Mervyn King’s prediction being correct, the public could be sympathetic to the Coalition for some time to come. Honest actions go a long way in politics nowadays and the public recognise favourably politicians who are prepared to do the right, if not popular, thing.

Thirdly, Danny Alexander will be right next to him – all the way. There’s no way that the Liberal Democrats are getting off the hook with this one as full members of the Coalition and I don’t think they want to. NC has said that there will be a “cut with kindness” policy that will shield some of the most vulnerable from the worst of what needs to be done but that can only do so much – they can’t be protected from council cuts in many areas.

Nor do I think it’s a good idea for George Osborne to widely consult the public on where to save money. This is a very risky strategy that could puta very considerable rod in his back when Labour organises a Twitter campaign to get people to respond in a particular way. The results could then be FOIed and may not be where the final decision needs to be made. It could look like the public has been consulted and ignored – not great PR.

The simple answer here is that, a bit like Masterchef, this new economic future is going to “change our life”. There are opportunities for efficiency, yes, and looking at different ways of providing services. But the bottom line is that we need to get a £170bn deficit down and there’s a lot of money to hack off budgets. It must be done, it must be done quickly and there is a certainly amount of political risk that is going to come as the pay-off of winning the election (sort of).

I think the Coalition needs to remember that the public has a great deal more of a problem with dishonesty than ineffectiveness. If the government tries to mask the problem, if it breaks its promises over what it is going to cut, if there is a suspicion that certain groups are being unjustly protected or if there is any underhand treasury regulation as with the last government, the considerable goodwill that the public holds will drain quickly.

If the government is straight, calls a cut a cut and acts responsibly for the best interests of the nation, it might just find itself laying down a legacy of decencyif not prosperityand a chance in 2015 to lead the country properly back into the new world economy with its head held high.

A Classless stunt

A grim day for David Laws but also the relationship between the media and government

When the PM decided to make his big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats, it was done because he recognised the necessity in forming a strong government in the wake of an ultimately indecisive election. He knew that the British public didn’t want to be at the polls again in October, he knew that the country couldn’t afford – and probably wouldn’t accept – Labour being kept in power and that in order to form the only coalition government that could claim a mandate he would have to talk seriously, sensibly and flexibly to a party between whose activists there has at times existed a genuine hatred.

No matter – that quite rightly has been placed aside in order to get the best people into government. And if you look at the excellent line-up of the cabinet – the PM and NC working together, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Ken Clarke, Vince Cable and others, you understand that the sacrifices both parties have made in their hearts and minds have been worth it.

David Laws has, for me, been the stand-out performer of the coalition. His handling of the announcement of the £6.2bn cuts last week was first-rate both in the house and in front of the media. His boss George Osborne was there with him but said very little and one hopes was watching carefully to see how it should be done. The point is it doesn’t matter whether he’s Lib Dem or Tory; if he’s got a mandate from the electorate and can do the job, the country needs him in place.

Enter the Daily Telegraph, whose view of the country is somewhat different. For them, the agenda is foxhunting, family values, favourable taxes and flag-waving. They don’t care much for Lib Dems – especially ones with secret gay lovers – and they’re not bothered about keeping the coalition together if it forces an election that could redress the result of May 6. Don’t get me wrong – I’m really disappointed that we didn’t secure an outright majority; but it was the failure to gain winnable Labour seats – not Lib Dem ones – that cost us victory.

The way in which the Telegraph has dealt with the David Laws story is bullying, immoral and reckless. What David Laws did was unquestionably wrong, although one can understand (just) why he did it. The money that he was taking from the taxpayer to pay his lover as landlord fell foul of regulations in 2006 that money could no longer be paid to “spouses” as “rent” (the fact it ever could be is bewildering). Had David Laws then not continued the payment, the question of why would have been asked – forcing him to reveal details of his private life.

Trouble is that £40,000 is a lot of money and he doesn’t need it any more than the PM. It creates the impression that a man asking the nation to make terrifying cuts across public and private fields is being less than austere with his own arrangements. For that reason, once the story became public, he has done the right thing in resigning – a very sad consequence of unjust parliamentary procedures in the first instance and social judgement in the second.

But for the Telegraph, there is no such mitigation. This angry, reactionary and backwards publication is an embarrassment to Conservatism and the nation it so very proudly wants to tell everyone it embodies. It represents exactly the kind of sneering, snobbish and bigoted values that the public reacted against in 1997 and brought Tony Blair into our lives. Why it felt it could not reveal the facts about David Laws during the original story is anyone’s guess and there is a rancid stench of spite and homophobia running through the decision to break it now – just as David Laws reaches the peak of his political career and achieves the platform to display his talents.

Who knows what’s behind it - there are of course powerful factions with an interest in removing a star in the making who wears the “wrong” colours (or the “right” colours in the “wrong” way) in both their political and private life. What amazes and disgusts me is that they, whoever they are, would choose to run so contrary to the national interest by fashioning the demise of potentially a key figure in the recovery and rebuilding of our economy.

The lowest nadir for UK journalism since the Sun decided it was in the public interest to publish topless pictures of the Countess of Wessex a few days before her wedding; and to trump the Sun on classlessness takes some doing.

Reality a-tax

The Daily Mail is leading the charge for the right wing of the Conservative Party and David Davis suggesting that people with second homes, shares, jewellery and other assets should not face any increase in Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 40% in order to help people on lower incomes (below £10,000) stay out of income tax altogether. There is plenty of talk of “betrayal” and “revolt” among the 1922 hopefuls and a general feeling that a Conservative government doesn’t do this sort of thing.

Firstly, let’s remember that the reason we are in government at all is because we’ve been able to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems. Sure, a Conservative government with a outright majority would probably have steered clear of CGT altogether but we were 18 seats short of where we wanted to be and the result is compromise rather than full implementation of Conservative principles. It’s a little uncomfortable in places but the PM has said that stable government was necessary in this time of national strife and compromise is part of that.

Furthermore, David Davis says that he wants to protect the ”hard-working, responsible, self-reliant middle and working classes”. I’m not sure how many “ordinary” people he feels deal in more than £10,000 of capital gains each year but I suspect the answer is “not many”. You also won’t find in any of the major papers the fact that the current 18% rate was only set by Labour in 1998 and previously had been much higher under the Conservative government during the 80s and 90s.

The fact is that people who have these kinds of assets to make money on need to pay their fair share in helping reduce the deficit – that may be fair to those whose trading helped bring the problems about and unfair on prudent savers. That’s unfortunate, it’s not entirely comfortable and it’s certainly not Conservative; but it’s necessary and hopefully temporary.

What is important is that those who are being helped by this measure by being freed of tax burdens and encouraged to work at the lower end of the pay scale are given a very firm steer in that direction. There is no justice in asking some people to pay for a £10,000 income tax threshold if those benefitting from it are then not working or contributing to society. Just as we need the wealthiest to help the country out of trouble, so we need the bottom-up economy to get working too.

Having taken a centrist view of the CGT issue then, I’m happy to take a more centre-right view on Iain Duncan Smith’s promise to mend our benefits system, which is a national joke. Of course I believe that the poorest in society should have the help they need. But I also firmly believe that thousands and thousands of people routinely abuse our over-complex and under-thought benefits system for their own gain – at the expense of the entire nation and other taxpayers.

So I hope that left-leaning thinkers will see a connection here – between controlling the right-leaning tax tendencies of the Conservative Party but also changing the liberal attitudes to the Welfare State that have cost Britain money and not a little self-respect during the past 20 years.

Three times a leader

Cllr John Kingsbury

At the first council meeting of the municipal year, Cllr John Kingsbury was re-elected as leader of the executive, even if with no overall control he can’t quite claim to be leader of the council. John took over as leader of the executive in 2008, was re-elected last year and this is the third confirmation in his position, which makes it the longest tenure since Jim Armitage.

In him, Woking has both an experienced and gentle touch. I’ve known John for many years going back to my reporting days and no-one cares more deeply about doing the right things for the borough than him. A consensus politician in the best possible sense, John has friends across the chamber and it says much about him that in a situation where the necessity for cross-party working could not be starker, he is the person the council as a whole feels can best deliver that.

I believe that he is the best choice for Woking and that he has a strong executive team in people like David Bittleston, Beryl Hunwicks and Graham Cundy to support him.

No doubt there are those who would prefer a more robust approach and who believe that it is possible to force through more fundamentally Conservative policy. Perhaps if the elections had left us with different maths, there might be a case for that but at the moment the only way to keep things working at Woking Borough Council is compromise and negotiation – the electorate, after all, has spoken. The 80-odd votes in key areas that would have seen things emerge differently weren’t won and that is something that needs to be put aside now we are into the real business of the council.

In his speech to council, John was quite clear that those in local government at the present time face great challenges ahead over services and financial pressures. But he maintained that a focus on service improvement was the key guiding principle of the council and that he would look to deliver everything in the Conservative manifesto – low council tax, community investment, 60% recycling, green belt protection, youth facilities and community law and order – in co-operation with the other parties.

Both he and Lib Dem leader Ric Sharp referenced the national coalition, with Cllr Sharp finishing his speech by quoting the PM. It might not be the Grand Coalition but if John believes he can make it work for the residents of Woking, I’m more than happy to put my trust in his judgement.

PS I had a great deal of fun doing a live Twitter feed from the public gallery tonight, pity the council doesn’t have a better 3G signal or even WiFi.

Coalition would be grand

On May 6, the local elections produced another indecisive result in Woking. There were gains and losses on both sides but despite no Labour representation to consider any more, the political scene in the borough continues to be ambigious. Even in 2007, the first year of overall control since 1998, the result was only 19-17, which when you take account of absences and mayoralty is not really a majority at all.

With the decision of Peter Ankers to go it alone, the numbers have stood at 18-17-1 and so it remains after the local elections. Just 70 more votes across Knaphill and Horsell West could have seen them 20-15-1 and shown a decisive shift – but that is not what the electorate wanted and the council has to listen to that.

It is my personal view therefore that with a Conservative mayor in 2010/11 and the numbers effectively at 17-17-1, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups should consider what the parties have done nationally and think about forming a Grand Coalition

This could entail three members each on a six-strong executive committee with a Conservative chairman and Lib Dem vice-chairman. Such an arrangement would also have the welcome side-effect – although it is not designed for that purpose – of removing the effective casting vote of the council from one independent councillor. No doubt Peter Ankers would use this reasonably – but how much happier that the total considered view of the council should be involved in the first place rather than just via one person’s judgement?

In normal circumstances, it would be up to the party with the mandate to take responsibility and implement its manifesto. But at present, neither party really has a proper mandate with the numbers that exist and the maths of the mayoralty suggest that unless there is broad agreement about the year ahead, a rather unseemly mess could result. That’s not good for the council, nor more to the point for Woking.

No doubt an agreement could be reached whereby some of the key problems can be tackled together and elements of both parties’ manifestos placed into the work programme. The PM clearly thought that it was silly (although I think “uninspiring” was the word he used) to have a minority administration trying to take decisions in the current climate. It appears that Nick Clegg agreed.

I don’t see how that situation is different in Woking given the close make-up of the council. Whether either side would agree to it is of course a completely different matter.

Working already

One good thing to come out of the new coalition is that our unjust and intolerant policy of offering tax breaks to married couples has been dropped. I have stated here before how dreadful I believed this policy to be - if financial benefit happens to derive for married people from policies enacted for other reasons then fair enough but I found it utterly un-Conservative to seek to penalise those who may be less fortunate by offering a financial incentive directly linked to marriage.

It seemed like a sop to the right of the party and it was entirely wrong but the new PM needed to keep the right on board during the campaign and especially post-Lisbon Treaty ratification. If a light centrist touch is what the Lib Dems bring to this government – an ability to deflect any hard-right tendencies of the party – then perhaps this coalition business is no bad thing in the circumstances that we face.

Update 12/5: Seems like I spoke too soon and the married couple’s allowance is still in the work programme. The Lib Dems though will be able to vote against it and one assumes that with the support of the nationalists it would not pass.

Another welcome side-effect of the coalition is that I hope – and fully anticipate – that there will be no attempt in the lifetime of the coalition to re-animate the devisive and emotive practice of foxhunting. I love the countryside and I respect its traditions but this potato is simply to hot to be comfort food for the nation.

At long last

What we've all waited 13 years to see

The day after my 19th birthday, Tony Blair swept into Number 10 with a silly grin on his face and the nation hypnotised by the promise of hope, panache and plenty. I didn’t think he’d deliver any of these as no Labour PM had ever done so before and six months later, I joined the Conservative Party. I made it my aim as a student activist to try and get rid of Labour but I found a Tory Party unwilling to learn lessons or change and so followed a different path - but the events of May 1, 1997 politicised me in a moment that everyone active in politics experiences.

Today, Labour has finally gone. But unlike 1997, there is no sense of positivity and little hope for short-term prosperity. In 13 years of borrowing from the future, Labour has brought the country to its knees financially and failed to address any of the social issues that people believed it would. Yes, there have been some difficult circumstances not all of its own making but Labour has ruled recklessly – and, worse, in its own self-interest. It has expanded the public sector to bring more people into state pay, opened our borders to bring in voters likely to boost its standing and declined to address benefits dependancy and a lack of social mobility to keep whole sections of society locked into a sense of victimhood.

What has happened since 1997 has been an undermining of our nation far exceeding anything that happened under Margaret Thatcher. Almost every aspect of our daily lives has been made worse by Labour – and that is quite an achievement. From our economy to our overseas interests – our health service to education, Labour has failed to stem decline in all of these areas through a woeful addiction to political dogma and a determination that the country should serve it rather than the other way round.

The Conservative Party needs to accept its share of the blame for the 1997-2005 years. It was a shambles of an opposition during that time, fighting among itself and moving decisively to the right in the wake of John Major’s defeat. William Hague is a fine politician but if Ken Clarke had been appointed leader in 1997, it is quite possible that Labour’s spree of destruction would have ceased in 2005. DC is the person who has turned that situation around – but it is only the beginning.

I long imagined that the sight of DC entering Number 10 would fill me with joy but it gives me no pleasure that a Conservative Prime Minister should be in power once more faced with the bleakest, leanest and most difficult times since the Second World War. But at least at last, at long last, the shadow that the wretched and devisive New Labour project cast over this nation of ours has been lifted and the process of finding our place in the world once more can begin.

But I envy neither the new PM nor our coalition colleagues the Liberal Democrats for the work that has to be done.

Morning after the long night before

The need for electoral reform has indeed been highlighted by the result of the general election. Despite the electoral map turning its bluest since the 1992 election, Labour’s many small inner-city seats, the over-representation of Scotland and in-built majority of 90 have helped Gordon Brown stay in Downing Street three days longer than he should have done.

There is a clear case, not for a proportion system that will deliver permanent hung parliaments and rig the voting system in favour of the Liberal Democrats, but for a refining of the boundaries to ensure that every constituency is the same size and that every vote is worth the same. The Lib Dems suffer from this system only because their vote is evenly spread as they try to be all things to all people – it is not intrinsically more difficult for them to win consistuencies than anyone else, as we saw in Eastbourne and Wells.

It is noticeable that many of DC’s inner circle, who were in many cases picked in seats where they had no connections, fared less well than average. It’s interesting because the Conservative Party is often criticised for lacking diverse MPs. But in this case, black, gay and female candidates have been rejected not by the party, but by the electorate. It’s a shame - but hardly the party’s fault.

I believe that Nick Clegg and DC will do a deal. In a sense, the Lib Dems have little choice. If they prop Brown up, they’ll sink back to the 15% support they enjoyed under Ming. If they refuse a pact with the Conservatives, they can hardly claim to be hard done by in the voting system when they’ve rejected a chance at power. Many Conservative activists will feel a ache in the pit of their stomach at the thought of going into coalition with the Lib Dems, but I don’t. As someone on the left of the party I share many of their social aims and the fact that we spend three months each year tearing strips of each other is simply election politics, nothing else.

During times of crisis, you have to work for the betterment of the nation. I don’t believe a Con-Lib coalition will survive any more than 18 months, but neither party has the resources nor the will for another election in 2010 and we need to work to steady the market and ensure that the financial meltdown that is now potentially on the cards is avoided. The markets want the debt tackled now and as the winners of the election, the Conservative prerogative should be to deliver debt reduction. The Lib Dem influence, as I see it, is to ensure that social issues don’t get left behind in this process and keep our party focussed on economic stability, education and social improvement.

The two most burning issues of difference – electoral reform and Europe – don’t need to have a part to play during this time. I utterly oppose membership of the EU – although that didn’t stop me losing in Horsell West by a fifth of the votes that UKIPpers took off me. But even I wouldn’t argue that the time for a referendum on this is now – it can wait until we have people back in work and the country is back on its feet.

Similarly, if Nick Clegg and his party think that the most pressing issue of the day is the case for PR, he’s sorely mistaken. Sure, the British public will say they want reform in the light of this shambles of an election but when it’s explained to them that PR always delivers a shambles and that it would effectively take from them the option of a Labour or Conservative government governing alone, they soon change their mind – and I know that because I explained it countless times on the doorstep. So this too can wait for another time.

The major problem it presents for the Conservative Party is delivery – will people understand the compromises being made if they are reflected in our ability to do what we said we would do? And if there is another election in October 2011, will the fluidity of our politics have continued and where will it have taken us? Labour’s most dreadful legacy, unfortunately, is leading us to a point where views about the best forward were so utterly polarised.

Uncertain times are these - and the last thing that our damaged nation needs.

A very long night (part II)

No question about it – the most important thing about last night was ensuring that Woking retained the services of a Conservative MP. All the work that we have been doing in Horsell West and Horsell East was geared to ensuring that Jonathan Lord became the next MP for Woking and that we fought off the Cowley Street Works being foisted on the constituency by the Lib Dems.

They really did throw just about everything at the place – copious literature, Christmas cards, glossy Hello!-style eight-pagers, handwritten pledge letters as well as the on-street campaigns in the town, railway station and the online stuff. We got the full treatment, including a personal and vicious campaign against Jonathan portraying him as a grasping outsider who didn’t care about the town. I’m glad that people have roundly rejected this cynical and low messaging.

Knowing what defeat is like, I’m not going to gloat at Rosie and knowing Rosie, the above carry-on wasn’t her doing anyway. A couple of weeks ago, I don’t mind saying that I was a touch anxious about the way things were going but we finished very strongly and not only did Jonathan hold Humfrey’s majority, he actually increased it - polling an enormous 26,500 votes and 50% of the share for the first time since Cranley Onslow’s tenure.

I’ve worked pretty closely with Jonathan during the past six months and I can tell you that not only is he a hell of a nice guy, he’s also going to be a cracking MP for Woking. If you believed all the cant in the Lib Dem literature, I think it’s safe to say you’ll be in for a pleasant surprise when you meet him and understand his “get things done” outlook on life. He’s an effective and strong voice and will be able to work with Surrey MPs to place Woking’s priorities at the heart of what we hope will be a government led by David Cameron.

Last night, he gave a speech in which he also paid tribute to the other candidates in a way with which I would entirely concur. Representing the people; the democratic process – those things are serious. But politics is fun – let’s remember that now the election is over and put away the silly slurs and insults to work together for what our town and its surrounding villages needs.

Many congratulations Jonathan, may this be the first day of a long tenure for you here in Woking.