Conservative Future - Regional Control?

London Spin has the scoop on the new Conservative Future Chairman, Ben Howlett's plans to decentralise power to the Regional Chairman of CF.

Creating Regional Chairmen was one of the most logical things that Michael Rock managed during his time at the helm. Mirroring the senior Party in this way ensured a much greater co-ordination between the two groups, and aided in the relationship-building that CF has managed with CCHQ/CRO.

Howlett's plans make a lot of sense. It has always been a Conservative instinct to avoid centralised control wherever possible, and the idea of allowing regional Chairs to get on with things is an attractive one. He will have to ensure, however, that they take up the opportunity he is providing.

As with any voluntary organisation, you get differing levels of activity depending on how much time people can afford to offer. As a result, at times certain regions have felt a bit bereft of direction, with RCs more than a little distant. The lack of opposition at a regional level in many areas during the CF elections is also cause for concern. People always step up to the plate where there is a bit of competition.

Let's hope that the RCs take the chance they have been given, and run with it. Activity and interest levels can only increase further if they do.

Impressive Ed

Ok, alright, I admit it. Ed Miliband has impressed me.

The election of the Shadow Cabinet was always going to be heavily scrutinised to see how much of a break with the past Labour MPs were willing to stomach in the face of such a forthright speech from their new Leader.

It's a curious situation to have to be in - wanting to take your Party forward, and to stamp your authority on your appointments, but still being hamstrung by Labour's rather torturous election regulations. Full credit, then, to Miliband Jnr. for acting to ensure that Nick Brown, one of the archetypal links to Gordon Brown, will not be contesting the Chief Whip position.

There were those that said that in electing Ed, rather than David Miliband, Labour were lumbering themselves with the more ineffective brother. This kind of ruthlessness, however, is hardly the mark of an ineffective leader. Instead, it is reminiscent of the swift changes David Cameron made to change the focus of the Conservative Party after he came to power in 2005. After a slightly lukewarm Conference speech, it seems the Leader of the Opposition is finding his feet. Interesting...

A Letter to the Guardian - Brown vs. Darling II?

This letter appeared in last week's Epsom Guardian:

Quite apart from the fact that they didn't have the courage of their convictions to actually sign their name (though I can probably have a stab at the author), I felt the letter warranted a reply. I wrote into the Guardian, and am hoping to have my letter printed tomorrow. For the purposes of space, I had to reduce my original argument by about half, so the longer version is included below.

Personally, I think it is extremely foolish for Labour to continue to frame their economic argument in the crass terms of 'cuts vs. investment', though I imagine those like Ed Balls will continue to do. Given Ed Miliband used his debut speech yesterday to state that the Opposition will not fight against cuts they think are necessary/right, it brings up an interesting point of conflict between the two. Balls' name is, of course, being widely touted for the Shadow Chancellorship. Surely Labour would not get themselves into another situation where the Leader is saying one thing, and the Shadow Chancellor is thinking something different?

Anyway - the letter:

I read with interest the anonymous contribution in your last issue, (‘Budget Will Put People Out of Work‘).

The letter, as with much of Labour’s reaction to the Emergency Budget, seems to be based on the fallacy – in part put forward by a recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report - that cuts in the public sector will automatically lead to vast, lasting unemployment. A closed argument that fails to take account of the Coalition’s welfare and business policies; the emphasis placed on getting people off benefits and back into the workplace, and on rebalancing our economy.

This economic recovery will be one fostered within the private sector, and to ignore this forms a circular argument that implies the public sector is the only possible workplace in this country. Given the grossly swollen public sector that they inherited, with its accompanying pension liabilities to the tune of £1 trillion, not included in any Labour deficit projections, shifting the balance away from the public sector would seem sensible, and crass attacks such as this are unhelpful.

The argument also seems to fly in the face of the figures. The UK’s GDP grew by 1.2 per cent in the last quarter. The additional cuts announced by the Coalition that your writer finds so unpalatable amount to 0.1 per cent of GDP by quarter. Cutting in this way is not a cut in economic revival, it is merely a cut in the size of the State. A European Commission study on defecit reduction found that out of 74 consolidations, economic growth accelerated in 43 cases. You need only look at the examples of Finland and Sweden to see the benefits of growth in this way.

However, this private sector recovery will not succeed if, as your writer alleges, the Government is ‘pulling the plug’ on business. I think a local example will serve to oppose this. When the local franchise of Puccino’s risked going out of business due to rent increases, it was the Coalition’s rate cuts that ensured it could keep trading. Cuts in business rates to small and large businesses alike are offering real support whilst the recovery gets underway.

In a week when the IMF has said the Government’s plans for defecit reduction are ‘strong, credible and essential’; in a month when Moody’s Investors Service has endorsed George Osborne and stated that not sticking to his plans could affect our AAA credit rating; in a Conference season where Alistair Darling comes out in favour of a strong deficit reduction plan, it seems a nonsense to view the economic measures currently being taken by the Coalition as ‘reckless’. What this country needed after thirteen years of fiscal profligacy and staggering beurocracy was a Government prepared to take the tough decisions in order to ensure economic revival. In the Coalition government, I feel we have it.

James Tarbit
Deputy Chairman, Political
Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.S. There is one thing the writer and I can agree on, however; their analysis of why ‘most people join the Tory party’ – because they wish a smaller state. After thirteen years of beurocratic interference with front-line services and degradation of civil liberties, I think many people would sympathise!

CF Elections

For the past four months or so Conservative Future, the 'youth' wing of our Party, have been going through an elections process to decide who will form the new National Executive Committee. Given the Conservatives are now in power, these roles are not unimportant.

Today the ballot closed. The results were as follows:

Chairman - Ben Howlett

Deputy Chairman (Membership) - Clare Hilley

Deputy Chairman (Political) - Alexandra Swann

Appointed Officer - James Deighton

As I voted for all four of them I am delighted that they were successful in their campaigns, however the number of ballots returned for the contest left me staggered.

Take the Chairmanship; Ben Howlett gained 113 votes. Craig Cox, the second-placed candidate, got 60. That's 173 votes. Put more contextually, that's 173 votes out of an alleged CF membership of 20,000.

20,000 members - 173 votes

Let's have a look at another of the positions. James Deighton gained 72 votes. Patrick Sullivan, the second-placed candidate, got 70. Now I voted for James Deighton. If I had switched my vote, that would have meant an instant tie between the two...and they say that the Unions had too much power in the Labour Leadership contest!

That so few people were able to vote in this election is a travesty. Running an election over the University holidays automatically stopped 1,000s of members from voting. Added to that, there were huge issues with missing or incomplete data, with little or no responsibility seemingly being taken by CCHQ. I for one had to push extremely hard for my ballot, with several e-mails and phone calls before it came through last Thursday (the final day of posting to hit today's 12 noon deadline).

I am sure Ben will have many constraints on his time in his new position. One priority, though, must be to address these issues. Promising to run further elections in the Spring will solve the University problem, but a membership without valid membership data is no basis upon which to build a strong campaigning force. Best start updating Merlin...

Litmus - Rainbow Coalition Blogging

Coalitions come in many shapes and sizes. If the one put together in May took people by surprise, then how about a combination of Tim Montgomerie, Will Straw, and Dr. Mark Pack to add to the confusion. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat hand-in-hand? Whatever next!

This powerhouse combination, though, is not holding sway at Westminster but rather in the publication of a new political magazine for the Conference season, Litmus.

Quite aside from the clever name, Litmus promises to be a very interesting publication. A partnership between three major blogs – Conservative Home, Left Foot Forward, and LibDem Voice, it has considerable clout when polling for contributors, with Tom Watson, Lynne Featherstone, Damian Green and Chris Huhne amongst the commentators on topics as diverse as Immigration, Climate Change, and Electoral Reform.

I was particularly interested to read David Boyle’s argument on income tax. Disregarding the LibDem insistence on progressive taxation, he instead called for a movement away from income tax to a programme of corporate reform and energy taxes.

“Increasing income tax these days just serves to entrench the separation of the mega-rich”

Indeed!

Thought has also evidently gone into distribution strategy. The first issue of Litmus is available for free if you promote it for them on Twitter; very savvy. With no cost involved, there seems little more to say other than go get it.

Right-wing blogs. We still exist Iain!

So, it seems Iain Dale is worried about the future of the Right-wing blogosphere. Fired up by a disappointing drop in conservative blogs in the latest TotalPoliticics Blog Awards list, he used his column yesterday to ask where the next generation of right-wing bloggers were, and why there had been a drop in interest from that side of the spectrum.

"The comparative decline of the right is not because existing right-wing blogs have been performing badly, it is because there has been no new blood."

I think one of the commentors on his post had it right. When your Party is in power, the impetus to blog about what you disagree with is considerably weakened. Put simply, the anger isn’t there. Rather than risk blogs becoming tribalist lists of real (or imagined) success, they instead become defunct.

Some events can re-fire interest. The Blue Guerilla came out of mothballs for this summer’s Conservative Future election campaign, as to a certain extent did London Spin. They helped fill a gap in the ‘Tory yoof’ stakes created by Tory Bear’s seeming lack of blogging time. Once the results are announced next week, though, it will be interesting to see if they keep up the pace. As I have found, time for blogging is generally short, particularly when you have a day job outside politics, and a demanding toddler!

Anyway, if Iain Dale is putting out a call to action, then I’m stepping up to the plate. I may not have the most impeccable of national sources to send stories my way, but nonetheless toes will be dipped outside the calm waters of Epsom slightly more often from now on. Iain, fancy giving me your little black book?

The Big Society - A Flower Bed Too Far?

The Big Society was always one of the more diaphanous elements of the Conservative manifesto in the recent General Election. Ostensively a codification of previous attempts to conjoin local government and local community groups, it has been described as the Conservative Manifesto’s ‘Big Idea’ as well as an easy way to get cuts in through the back door.

Personally, I have always been a fan of the idea. The concept that community groups, charities, and NGOs should be more involved in the delivery of local services is not new, but if it is to succeed in any measurable way, the involvement of Westminster is welcome. Local Councils too, I had imagined, would be fans of the scheme. In the face of declining government grants, any chance to use interested parties to ensure the money goes further would be welcome. It seems, in Epsom and Ewell at least, I was wrong.

I have blogged previously about the recent Hub project – an excellent example of the ethos of the Big Society in action. A post on the Epsom Conservatives blog – run by Conservative Leader on the Borough Council, Sean Sullivan – the other day seemed to offer up another potential scheme; gardening. With less money available for landscaping in the Borough, why not get local groups involved? Hey, it worked for Newsnight!

It seems, though, that my suggestion of getting local groups involved to assist the Council in keeping its flower beds up to scratch didn’t go down too well with Liberal Democrat Councillor Anna Jones…

Not a believer in the Big Society, it would seem.

Personally, I see only positives in using the talents and interests of the local community to help the shrinking Council budget to stretch further. I’m not talking about getting local residents in to replace redundant public servants. I’m merely saying if we muck in here, they can focus their time more efficiently in other areas.

For the record Anna, time allowing, I would be willing to help out in any way I can. As far as school dinners go I’ll even cook the pudding. We could call it Jamie’s School Dinners?

LateRooms 'gets' Social Media

It is always a pleasant surprise to see a company using social media and the ‘net to their fullest advantage when it comes to identifying and adressing customer needs and, more importantly, customer issues.

A few weeks ago, I booked a hotel in Birmingham for the Party Conference through laterooms.com. Places to stay during Conference are like hen's teeth, so I was very happy to find somewhere about a mile or so away, and at a reasonable price to boot.

All seemed well, until I got a call from a rather apologetic lady at the hotel in question saying that she was very sorry, but they were full on one of the nights I had requested. They had told LateRooms this, and they had no idea why I had still been able to book it.

After cursing my luck, checking online, and phoning around, I managed to get a booking for B&B just down the road for the entire stay, and cancelled my previous booking (at no charge thankfully).

Skip forward a couple of weeks. Up pops conservative blogger Tory Bear, mentioning that (as ever!) he had no accommodation yet. I sent the following tweets:

The next morning, I got this:

Needless to say, I have written them an e-mail, letting them know that despite the problem I had I am suitably impressed with their use of Twitter. Far too often we see examples of companies using social media incredibly badly – this one springs particularly to mind. Here, however, we see a company willing to use new methods of communication to engage with their customer base, and ensure their concerns are addressed. Well done LateRooms. Just make sure your availability is updated more often next time, eh?

Paleolithic politics

I have watched the grandstanding from the TUC over the past few days with a sense of both sadness and deja vu.

I fully understand the right of individuals to petition their employers for improvements in circumstance and pay. When, however, Bob Crow can stand at the lectern and call for a campaign of 'civil disobedience' in the face of cuts that all Parties agreed were necessary to differing degrees, and garner support from the floor, then something is deeply wrong.

Yesterday, Mark Serwotka - head of the PCS Union - called for not only a moratorium on public sector job cuts, but even an increase in public sector funding to lift us out of recession. Failing to see that it will be the private sector - in particular small/medium enterprise within this sector - that will most likely provide the growth we so need, misses the point entirely and risks a further decline into deficit and debt.

The most glaring hole in the Unionist argument has been posed very effectively by City Unslicker - what would they do instead? In the face of almost unilateral agreement on the necessity of spending cuts - Labour's plan was to halve the deficit within four years - how would they ensure their aims?

The Unions obviously feel that the time has come to show their hand. It remains to be seen whether the result is similar to that of 1974, where industrial action had the result of bringing down the Government, or of the early 1980s, where the Unions' power was crushed by a government organised and determined enough to face them down.

The 'Big Society' hits Epsom

There is a shop in the very centre of Epsom, next to Marks and Spencer, that has been lying empty for months. Previously a newsagent, the family who owned it evidently decided they could make more profit by moving from a shop to a market stall and so moved out into the square next door. Until last week the shop was abandoned, with only a mysterious planning application from the Council, stating an intended use of the space for the disabled, joining a couple of leftover newspapers and some junk mail as decoration.

I say 'until last week' because seemingly overnight it has had a fresh coat of paint, new carpet, a security blind fitted, and is now seemingly to be known as 'The Hub'. The Hub, opening 13th September, is "a drop-in First Stop Shop for information, advice, advocacy and other services, which will be run by disabled people for disabled people and carers."

The service has been developed by local voluntary groups, local charities, and the Borough/County Council. It will be staffed by volunteers, both disabled and non-disabled, and will "help improve access to local sources; and to promote the rights of disabled people to equal opportunities and independent living."

Two things make me very happy about The Hub. Firstly, the concept of Local Government and charities/community groups coming together to provide useful services at a reduced cost is exactly what the Conservative Party had in mind when they were trying to put across what their Big Society message meant. The message may not have been defined to everyone's satisfaction, but it is great to see projects like this up and running.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it shows that there is at least some impetus to improve disabled services in Epsom. Coming in the face of the parking charges recently levied by the Borough Council, it is good to see action behind their talk of also improving provision for those with disabilities. Good stuff.