Spirit of ‘45? Cameron finds unlikely consolation in Ken Loach in lamenting social decline

Ken Loach’s documentary message is all too familiar to Ed Miliband and David Cameron but all three make the same mistaken assumption, and fail to grapple with the issue of declining community.

Yesterday I watched Ken Loach’s latest documentary ‘The Spirit of ‘45’ which on one hand celebrates British resilience and spirit at home in the face of two crippling wars, and on the other hand regrets the forces which Roach argues, thwarted and eroded the values of the common good and social responsibility. What Loach offers is a combination of nostalgia for this past sense of fraternity and community, with a misplaced and romantic attribution of this departure to the influence and policies of Margaret Thatcher and neoliberalism.

Loach makes this argument by juxtaposing the climate and the social attitudes in the face of fascism and poverty, caused by the crippling cost of two wars, with the post-1979 peacetime values which focused on prosperity, individualism, and moral decline. In doing so Loach feeds the same socialist myth that community died under Thatcher when in fact this decline happened far before Thatcher came to prominence.

Although some of Thatcher’s rhetoric and policy did not help to reverse this trend , the assumption is a staggering misrepresentation of history. The truth is the spirit of ’45 which Loach alludes to, declined in the years immediately after the war.

One consideration ignored in the documentary is that war united the country in a way which was very unique. In the years of peace which followed, the external threat of fascism departed and the force which instilled this sense of solidarity naturally declined. A second consideration neglected by Loach and others on the Left is that in the years post-1945, the size of the government rapidly increased. Government began to take over the responsibility and provision of services and responsibilities taken up by individuals and communities in wartime society. Inevitably the wartime national spirit naturally declined in the wake of these two factors.

So how can the spirit of ’45 be revised? This is something both David Cameron and Ed Miliband have talked about and have each respectably have talked big in the past about restoring, albeit by framing the problem in a different way, yet both have failed to varying degree to match this talk with concrete ideas and policy.

There is no doubt that the ‘45 spirit had vast benefits. During the war individuals and communities stepped up to the plate and to the challenges Britain faced at home. They took vast responsibility for the provision of services. Mutual aid and social solidarity in this sense, bought out the very best in the national community. Circumstance pushed wide scale civic association.

In this respect the biggest enemy to the ’45 spirit wasn’t the end of the war and the peace which developed, rather it was big government. With the rise of government into the social provision, people inevitably took on a smaller, more passive and less of a responsible role in the welfare and maintenance of communities. This, along with the declining relevance of other institutions which instil moral and social fabric, such as the Church, inevitably oversaw the erosion of the wartime civic association and prior community spirit which modern Britain was built upon.

In this respect civic association has been left in a miserable and powerless state. History determines that social trends cannot usually be reversed, but rather they must be transformed. It isn’t through looking to the past that the problem of civic association’s declining prevalence and influence over public life can be answered. New institutions and new ideas are needed to restore social cohesion in a modern world of secularism, individualism and passive consumerism. The only way to combat this going forward, surely is David Cameron’s Big Society.

David Cameron’s Big Society is an attempt to revive civic association and people power. Whilst the idea is spot on, the application has struggled to materialise. One reason for this is the Big Society has not been backed up with sufficient and meaningful policies. The agenda has been put on hold whilst the emphasis is on restoring Britain’s finances and faltering economy.

Another problem with the Big Society is that it is operationally flawed. This is because whilst the Big Society seeks to restore strong community, it is being driven as a central government initiative. A truly Big Society arises organically from the bottom up, not from central government downwards. David Cameron is in the wrong sector if he wants to achieve such social transformation.

The notion of the Big Society has in application been confused with localism. The Coalition has a wide-ranging programme which is devolving powers from central government to local authorities. Whilst this is a positive move, it is not the same as enabling freer license for individuals to assume increased responsibility over social provision. Returning powers to local government from central government still keeps provisions under the remit of government, not communities.

Social institutions have to be empowered, or more importantly, social institutions must not be further undermined and eroded by forces of central government, aggressive secularism and unchecked individualism. In a world where government influence is unaccountable to community institutions which prosperity and wellbeing were once built upon, government, whether socialist or conservative, is not where the solution to social decline lies. Community thrives in spite of government, not because of it.

So whilst the spirit of ’45 can never be revised in peacetime and prosperous Britain, civic association can grow again when fostered under the right conditions. These conditions have been eroded by the Postwar big government and by Thatcher’s centralised government and emphasis on individualism. As well intended as the Big Society is, it just simply cannot be restored through government initiative, a reality that both David Cameron and Ken Loach lament and share difficulty finding a way to explain and resolve.

Denying prisoners of the vote can only cause social and political harm

I have been following the developments of this issue since the very start when the Coalition took office in May 2010 and must say that on balance it is wrong to deny voting rights to prisoners serving short sentences.

But let us be realistic, the government’s commitment to ensuring prisoner’s voting rights are kept away from them has proved highly popular, but it seems that what the Coalition are doing over this issue is more consumed with garnering a much needed boost to popularity, rather than to bring about any positive change.

Why is it worth all this effort? The government have been at loggerheads with the European Court of Human Rights for several years now. Is this part of a wider agenda of being seen to repatriate powers from Brussels and other such International institutions? Or do they believe it will make a meaningful difference in the criminal justice system, worth all this hassle?

Politics aside, the denial of  the vote from prisoners can only cause harm, rather than good. It can only further disenfranchise criminals and unnecessarily disrupt their integration back into civilised, law abiding and decent society. It certainly will have little crime-deterring or retributive effect, as very few prisoners are inclined to vote anyway.

What the government always have to do with issues of this nature is get the balance right between retribution and rehabilitation. It seems on balance to me, that the Coalition have got it very wrong on this issue. 

What we are talking about is not the voting rights of murderers and rapists here; we are talking about shoplifters, drug dealers, burglars and other ‘petty’ criminals tried at a Magistrates’ Court. What possible positive effect does this elicit?   Criminals need not be given any legitimacy for feeling hard-done-by and disenfranchised. The State must not risk giving further ammunition to apologists who explain away the causes of crime as being the fault of the wider law-abiding majority. The Coalition ought to set the standard to which prisoners should abide, and this is by the standards and practices of the law-abiders in society. This includes voting.

Universal suffrage is the bedrock to any developed democratic system In which all can succeed or fail based on the own endeavours. Disproportionate legal discrimination against certain sections of our society is against the grain of a One Nation government. To use in vogue language, never must we risk, through statute, the development of Two-Nations. One of law-abiding and civilised people, and the rest being of another Nation: that of chronic and an unwelcome Underclass.

I used the term ‘underclass’ because non-voting is a defining characteristic of people who are in this ‘Underclass’ that is the uneducated, the long-term unemployed and in general, the persistently and permanently impoverished. It is a crime to trap these people in poverty through disproportionately comfortable welfare subsistence, taking away any incentive of the individual to improve their condition (both financial and social) through finding work. Such welfare encourages dependency which strips them of any hope of the dignity of self-sufficiency., Likewise though, it is a crime to take away the suffrage of a prisoner, making their sense of disenfranchisement and resentment of the law-abiding majority ever more ingrained, trapping them in a culture of crime by taking away the incentive of being part of civilised society, which for these people within this culture, is already the far tougher option.

Should this whole issue be dictated by the EU and the European Court of Human Rights? No, if this is purely a matter of political principle, then I'd back the government's stance on this, However, viewing the issue at hand as a principle in itself, then for me I have to disagree with the government.

However, where the issue is complicated again, is in the politics. Cameron is not campaigning to take away the vote from prisoners, rather he is fighting to stop prisoners being given the vote, and at that, by an external institution, undermining the democratic will of Westminster. Whilst I think prisoners on short sentences should, as a matter of principle, be able to vote, democracy (ironically) dictates that the motion shall never be supported by government. It is however, and probably shall remain, an oddity in our free and democratic country that we don't reserve the taking away of civil rights for only the most serious of offenders.

Public turn out in numbers as series of Kent PCC hustings gets underway

The race for Kent Police and Crime Commissioner is an election that for months now has been hotly contested but of late, after attending two recent hustings, it seems that the people of Kent, contrary to what the media says is general apathy nationwide, are also very much engaged with the process. 

People in their vast numbers have attended these two debates on the University of Kent, Canterbury campus and at Midkent College, Gillingham, in which all six candidates took part  This in part I think is a credit to the candidates, who of varying success have campaigned all around the cities and towns of Kent, but this is also because the people of Kent are aware that whoever wins this election has a huge task on their hands in order to coordinate the protection and prevention of crime in Kent which has disrupted far too many people.

Whoever wins this will have control over a £225 million budget and where this is spent, or not spent will have a direct impact over the safety of all in Kent. There shall be no time for bedding-in period for whoever wins on the 15^th November. Whilst the role is new, the job of Police and Crime Commissioner is not one for a novice.

In Kent, under the traditional responsibility of unelected, target-obsessed and detached bureaucrats in the Kent Police Authority (KPA) over 70% of crime in Kent went unresolved. 84% of burglaries and 82% of car crimes have gone ‘undetected’, drug problems and the general influence of the Black Market over the lives of Kent residents are rife. This is before the impact of a 20% reduction of the police budget is felt. The move towards a more accountable police service, with a democratically elected Commissioner cannot be more timely and welcome.

Candidates Ann Barnes (Independent), Dai Liyanage (Independent), Craig Mackinlay (Conservative), Steve Uncles (English Democrats) , Piers Wauchope (UKIP) and Harriet Yeo (Labour) all attended the two recent hustings in which all put forward their own cases for becoming the first PCC of Kent. I was struck by the range of candidates on offer in Kent. Far from a bunch of career politicians, we have Harriet Yeo, a proud trade unionist, Craig Mackinlay, a local Magistrate and accountant and current Councillor, Dai Liyange, a former Liberal Democrat member and Mayor of Medway, Piers Wauchope, another Councillor, Steve Uncles, an activist within the English Democrats, and lastly Ann Barnes, formerly of the KPA. This variety is refreshing and shall only improve general attitudes to the newly formed PCC role at a time when public faith in traditional politicans in Westminster is at an all-time low.

The big issues which came up in both hustings were firstly drugs. All candidates conveyed their hard-line approach to drugs in Kent. All were in agreement that illegal drugs have no place in civilised society. Mackinlay and Yeo in particular, spoke candidly on the issue. Mackinlay, as a Magistrate in one of the most challenging wards in the whole country, reiterated that the overwhelming majority of crimes have a drug element to them, in which most of these criminals have a drug habit. Harriet Yeo challenged the notion that drugs are of no harm to society when she talked of how a helpless parent, which she met whilst on the campaign trail, could do little to prevent the damage of the fumes, spread from a neighbour from reaching her 3 year old child. A reminder that it is those around the drug user that suffers at the hands of illegal drugs. Mackinlay also supports drug rehabilitation programs as the way forward to help hooked users off the habit.

Another issue that was prevalent was fears of privatisation. Again all candidates appeared to agree that privatisation of the front line is not on the agenda. Harriet Yeo attacked Ann Barnes for her record on privatisation on the KPA. Yeo called for Mrs Barnes to be upfront about the private companies she oversees to carry out Kent Police roles.

Craig Mackinlay however was more realistic on the issue. Mackinlay reiterated that ‘capital P’ privatisation is something he will never bring onto the front line provision of the police, however he explained that for back-office functions, private companies can carry out functions at a cheaper cost to taxpayers whilst providing more effective service.

Another issue was an apparent dissatisfaction with the lack of police presence on the streets of Kent, meaning that police officers become detached from the public, who lack community ties with their local officers. Craig Mackinlay offered hope to Kent's rural communities, who many claim to have not seen a police officer 'in years'. Mackinlay's promoted his rural manifesto's six-point rural crime policy, emphasizing the need for increased police interaction with rural communities, the need for more Special Constables and better use of intelligence to combat crime in rural Kent. 

However all candidates defended the closure of police stations in Kent. Ann Barnes acknowledged that they were too expensive to maintain. Mrs Barnes said that her policy would be to provide 'mini mobile police stations' to combat the 'emotive element' of station closures. Mackinlay said that the rise of technology and its widening distribution and usage meant that Police can be more responsive now, through the use of technology, meaning that the  police stations purpose and effectiveness was diminishing.

Another issue in the forum was over the salary for the role. On a show of hands at Midkent College, very few believed that the position justified the £85000 annual salary. Dai Liyanage claimed he would only accept a salary of £40,000, whilst committing the rest of the allocated amount to police technology research.  

Interestingly though, Mrs Barnes, Chair of the Kent Police Authority, whilst in her six year tenure oversaw a rise by 45% to her six-figure salary, this for her work in unelected position. This authority shall, come November 16^th be abolished and replaced by the elected PCC . The salary for the role shall be significantly less than what Mrs Barnes paid herself whilst Chair of the KPA with taxpayers money in these roles. This salary for a new, elected and democratically accountable person seems far fairer than the previous regime and whilst at the same time as reducing salary cost, shall also increase democratic mandate and representation in our police force.

Craig Mackinlay in Canterbury led the concern at rising bureaucracy costs under the previous KPA, at a time when the police budget is being cut by central government. Candidates Yeo, Mackinlay, Liyanage, Wanchope and Uncles all expressed concern of this trend. Mackinlay said that these ever-increasing costs were unnecessary and , if elected he would ensure that the money allocated to admin would be spent on protecting the front line. Dai Liyange agreed that these costs will have to be brought back down under control.

Consensus on the issue however did not quite form around the podium. Ann Barnes, believed to be a front-runner for the job, defended the tripling of back office and admin costs spent by the KPA in the space of only six years, this whilst front line officers have been made redundant in Kent, conceded that she could not promise that these costs won’t continue to increase from the £1.5 million she already administers.

So as the event drew to a close in Gillingham, attendees at the forums will have much to ponder when it comes to their crucial choice in 22 days time. Each candidates respected campaigns shall no doubt step up in intensity as election day on the 15^th November approaches. How the new Police and Crime Commissioners will impact crime and the police agenda is something that will be of much interest in the coming months and years. But for now, the elected Commissioner is here to say and it is essential that Kent selects the right one.

Don't even think about it: Why backbenchers must back off Cameron

Last month it was alleged by backbencher Bob Stewart that he had been approached by colleagues to form a leadership challenge to David Cameron. With ‘Borismania’ the centre piece of this year’s Party Conference, talk of an pending challenge has been filling the political gossip pages for weeks now, not helped by Boris’ regular public disagreements over government policy. What such a challenge would represent is highly detrimental to the Party and it begs the question over whether some in the party have learned the lessons of the past.

Not many of the core supporters or those of the grassroots would say that this frontbench is representative of their views or interests everytime, nevertheless overthrowing this leadership, without democratic mandate from the public would come at a massive cost to the Party going forward.

What those disgruntled on the back benches must remember, before pressing the issue of a change of leadership, is the context in which David Cameron assumed the leadership.  

The Party was left toxically divided by the ruthless casting aside of Thatcher throughout the difficult years of Major’s Premiership. This disunity continued after 1997 by the rise of popularity of so called ‘New Labour’, this marginalised the Tories, especially the unfashionable Right faction of the Party, leaving us simply unelectable.

Poor choices out of a poor selection of leadership candidates simply made this part of our history even more harrowing. What David Cameron, whatever his flaws may be, picked up in 2005 was a shambles. A broken Party, broken by the best part of 20 years of disunity, infighting, scandal and perceived ‘outdated’ and ‘out of touch’ principles. What Cameron did in his years in Opposition was modernise the party, reclaim and reach out our appeal to the electorate. Cameron, with the help of the incompetence of Brown in Number 10, put the Conservative Party back on the map and this is where we must stay.

Cameron’s change in approach and claim over the Centre Ground, paved the way for our return to Government, albeit not in triumphant fashion, with the failure to secure an overall majority. This return to power paved the way for Michael Gove’s excellent education reform and Iain Duncan-Smith’s welfare changes. Cameron’s gestures of modernisation, such as ‘hug a hoodie’ , ‘liberal conservatism’, support for gay marriage and ‘Web Cameron’ made a significant difference to the Party’s image, making us again credible and appealing to the wider public.

So where has it all gone wrong for Cameron? Ultimately this stems back to a poorly presented Budget and various ministerial scandals. But these issues have had such an exacerbated effect due to frustration over the slower than expected economic recovery, making such scandals further irritable to an already agitated public and Conservative backbench. But a change in leadership now would make the matter so much worse. Again, we would be a party rife with vicious division. It would be reminiscent of the Post-Thatcher era of infighting and detachment from reality. To the public it would appear that we would have learned nothing from this forgettable episode. But we cannot forget as the only winners here would be Labour and no doubt we would again be punished by the electorate.

So how can Cameron ensure this scenario no longer threatens to become reality? This all said it is the state of the economy that really matters. Not just for the public, but to those inside his own party.

Cameron and his inner circle of “metropolitan elites” must, of course oversee an economic recovery, bought by the public. They must do this by maintaining their sense of mission in wiping out the budget deficit. But they must also successfully turn their attention to growth. All efforts must be committed to presenting a credible set of policies to bring about growth and private sector jobs. Moving Michael Fallon to the Business department is long overdue and is a masterstroke to  change public perception that this Government has growth at the top of its agenda. This would surely sooth disgruntled backbenchers.

The frontbench must also, if they can reflect backbench opinion more in Government. If they can, given that it is a Coalition, they could bring more core conservative principles and policies to the agenda. But what the Right of the party must remember is that it is the moderate Centre which has a democratic mandate, not the Right. Anything beyond this is simply party politics.

Cameron cannot be judged by his backbenchers solely by what he does in Coalition, all effort and energies must be committed to securing a landslide majority in 2015. Then, Cameron must get the balance right between appeasing the Right of the Party and staying in touch with the moderate public. Cameron’s ability to assert himself is limited inevitably, by the presence of the Liberals in the Government. How Cameron would fare as the Leader of a majority Conservative Government is a question for the Party post-2015 and not a day before.

National debt and public spending increasing: Is it time for the government to consider the case for a negative income tax?

Despite the mandate of this Government being derived from its commitment to whipping out the structural deficit by the end of a five year period, the Coalition is somehow on the path to failure. Whilst the targets are the right ones for the UK’s economic credibility, the means have been counterproductive and badly thought out.

With the forecast that the official national debt is due to rise by £605 billion over the course of this parliament alone (from 53% GDP to a staggering 76% GDP) it is clear that the Coalition’s commitment to a sustainable economy has been thrown off course. This increased borrowing has not been evoked as a desperate attempt to restart business and provide growth, rather it has actually gone mostly on meeting the demands of an increased welfare bill, fuelled by the sharp rise in public sector unemployment. This clearly isn’t sustainable.

The Government’s agenda was to make up the downsizing of the public sector with increases of jobs in the private sector. This has not happened for two primary reasons. One being that it is unrealistic to expect to make it up over a short period of time. Secondly, and most worryingly of all, it is because they haven’t provided the policies conducive to growing private enterprise. Putting this agenda on the back-burner for now, one way in which the government can bring down public spending, and therefore the structural deficit and national debt is to consider something very radical to bring down welfare costs. The negative income tax could be the lifeline this Government needs.

The reduction of the deficit has been made up mostly by tax increases and cuts to investment programmes. This simply won’t do as it is a short-term strategy, it is an ill-thought out way to meet the immediate goal of eradicating the deficit.  This, even if it were to work, may succeed in giving the government credibility in the eyes of the public, but long-term doesn’t sort out the structural problems with the UK economy. Growth aside, one of the biggest of which is welfare costs.

Before the Coalition took office, the cost of welfare under Labour exceeded tax receipts by almost £25 billion annually. This model was indicative of a government attempting to grow dependency and therefore its own power rather than growing a healthy economy. Osborne took the pragmatic approach in his first budget of raising taxes to meet this unbelievable short-coming. Whilst this was understandable, especially because of the Tories fixation on reassuring the public of the earnestness of their centrist agenda, it was a mistake.

The answer isn’t to raise taxes, as common sense perhaps would dictate. Taxes were too high under Labour already. The real problem was that the extortionate costs of welfare dwarf the issue of high taxation. Cameron and Osborne should not have been trying to meet the demands of increased welfare, rather they should have been looking to remedy the problem of this unsustainable public spending.

The conventional methods are limited. For instance simply cutting the provision doesn’t resolve the problem of dependency culture.  It simply scapegoats and points the blame at dependent individuals and punishes them, fuelled by populist demand, for their ‘moral’ failures. This doesn’t offer any kind of redemption for individuals in such circumstance. It only aids social disenfranchisement, rather than encourages them to engage in employment which in the process helps both the individual and the rest of society.

Another method practiced is increasing the provision. This method is perhaps even more damaging as it enables and validates a culture of dependency and inactivity. It takes away any remaining incentive to work, and therefore the need to develop skills which make them more employable. Rather, increased provision traps them in poverty and therefore makes them ever more reliant on state hand outs. This method takes away the human dignity and freedom of such individuals. This sentiment is the primary cause of an Underclass which is so prominent in modern social life. This of course is unacceptable. Although advocates often have forgivable intentions which aim to solve such social ills, it creates vast social problems and tensions.  The means to this end is wrong.

But, if the government takes away the reasons not to work, leaving only the incentives of work for dependent individuals to ponder, this can go a long way to ease this problem. However, the real issue of dependant individuals is not the amount of welfare administered to them, rather it is the very principle of welfare that it is a deterrent to finding employment, no matter how little or large. Therefore dependency alone does not explain away the increasing welfare costs. The biggest problem economically is its flabbergasting inefficiency. Perhaps it’s time the Government considers a negative income tax in the place of this highly flawed and detrimental system.

Critics, including myself (ideologically speaking) may argue that the negative income tax does take away many of the incentives to work. In addition, it also advocates ‘something for nothing’ benefits. It fails to eradicate the notion that if one wishes not to work as hard, they can still be subsidised by the State through taxation of hard-working tax payers. But in reality welfarism is something that will not be resolved any time soon. Accepting this, the negative income tax is far more efficient and cost-effective to the tax-payer as it requires an inevitably much lower welfare bill to individuals who do not make up the income required for a minimum standard of living. Taking this pragmatic approach will surely bring the cost of welfare down to realistic standards, whilst ensuring it always pays to work. This is because the negative income tax would be ideally introduced in conjunction with a flat rate income tax. Guaranteeing that the State never penalises hard-working successes, whilst on the other hand rewarding idle failures, will remove the problem of Government discrimination, inherent within a ‘progressive’ tax system. It would ensure that every individual is treated equally in the eyes of the State, the bedrock to a just democratic society.

Another possible problem a negative income tax could encounter is the validity and fairness of the figure estimated to be the ‘minimum standard of living’ wage. The Left, if ever to enter government, would of course be inclined to increase this rate of entitlement. This would allow for increased allowances. What this would do is hugely damaging. It would ensure that tax payers are lumbered with a system that disproportionately rewards failures and inadequacies.  It would lead inevitably to abuses of a system which was introduced purely for good intentions. Furthermore, socialists may even increase the level of negative income tax, over Friedman’s recommended 50%. This again disproportionately takes away the incentive to work, making the system pointless. Certain legislative powers must therefore be enacted, such as ring-fencing of the rates, to ensure the system always remains effective in rectifying the problems it sets out to cure, rather than adding to them or causing new levels of deep-rooted State dependency.

Those critical of the negative income tax feel it would lead inevitably to the withdrawal of welfare altogether. The temptation to libertarians may be to withdraw spending in welfare areas such as health and education, with an expectation that individuals are fully responsible for paying for their own services. This of course may be true and whilst this argument cannot be dismissed, the truth is no sensible or right-minded Government would believe that having no role to play in the provision of welfare would have no negative impact on the workforce which wealth generators employ. The risk is that it may lead to generations of infirm and uneducated individuals. This causes a vast range of social problems which of course aren’t amenable with market forces. Furthermore, an unhealthy and unskilled work force holds back the economy. A Government surely realises its greater vested interest of ensuring a strong, healthy, educated society as it enables a strong, efficient and skilled workforce, essential for maintaining a strong economy. The negative income tax must not be used as part of such an ideological agenda. The implementation of a negative income tax must be viewed simply as the means to the ends of a) making welfare vastly more efficient and b) Making the tax system simpler and fairer.

Why Conservative MPs are right to rebel on House of Lords reform

The telegraph today reported that 70 Tory MPs are leading a rebellion to defeat the Bill. Clearly Cameron is putting his leadership on the line over this issue, at best, in order to appease the junior partners across the cabinet table. Or at worst, because he actually believes an elected House of Lords serves the best interests of the country. Either way it is foolish for any government to attempt constitutional reform without the consent of the public. It is more foolish to do so without first ensuring they are carrying the  party with them.

Cameron conceding House of Lords reform  in the coalition agreement is unforgivable. Constitutional change is something which should kept out of back-door negotiations between the two parties. Democratic institutions must be protected from politicians playing party politics. The legacy of such reforms is permanent and impossible to reverse. Whilst electoral reform was borderline inexcusable, at least it was put to the public, in the form of a referendum, to decide whether or not AV was something the country wanted. The conduct of the Coalition over Lords Reform however, has nothing to spare any integrity.

Clegg was able to justify an expensive referendum for changing the electoral system in 2011, yet doesn’t see fit to put the biggest constitutional change the country has seen in modern times to the vote. This is ludicrous hypocrisy and demonstrates pure political opportunism in order to force through changes to the Upper Chamber which nobody really wants, other than liberal dogmatists, taking advantage of their rare opportunity in government, who hold only a simplistic understanding of democracy.

It is astonishing that Cameron has failed to intervene and stop this proposal going any further. Lords reform is something that nobody is calling for, least of all now. The pursuit of an elected House of Lords is something which is alienating Conservative voters and members. Cameron has failed to gage the mood amongst his own backbenchers who have been put in the undue predicament of putting the Governments unity in jeopardy, and his own premiership on the line.

Government rebellions are never taken lightly in the Conservative Party. This is more the case than ever with the reluctant rebellion of Nicholas Soames, a Tory MP who has only once in his long parliamentary career, voted against his own party. This is indicative of the mood of Tory backbenchers whose patience again is being stretched to the full by Cameron’s leadership. Cameron is playing with fire with his own backbenchers. This is something a leader can only get away with so many times before it comes back to haunt them. Not even Tony Blair was immune. Cameron is clearly not in touch with his own party over this issue if he believes he can come out of this unscathed.

Never before has a government attempted such drastic constitutional reform. Therefore Cameron is on unchartered territory. Whether or not it gets passed remains narrow, but either way, Cameron is surely putting his standing within the party in danger.

Attempting constitutional reform, without being put to the electorate, represents a clear betrayal of the public. Never should a government attempt to change the goalposts over the countries democratic system without the mandate of the British people. Therefore out of principle, all MPs must realise their abuse of power and oppose the Bill.  This is unlikely to be the case, but what upholders of democracy can hope for is a sufficient tory rebellion.

Local Council Elections: Why only conservative policies will win back Conservative voters

Local election results are a harrowing punishment for the Coalition’s last couple of turbulent months in Government. An ineffective Labour Party under weak leadership have claimed council 713 seats, whilst the Tories have made a dramatic loss of 378 seats and surrendered the control of 12 Councils. These results are completely unacceptable for the Conservatives and such a substantial loss could have been avoided.

Those on the Left will exploit this defeat and explain it, incorrectly and misleadingly, as being allusive to the countries anger at austerity measures. This is simply not true. Every indication and poll reveals that the public do accept the need for cuts.

Rewind to this time last year in the Local council elections, despite high unemployment, hard-felt cuts and protests, The Conservatives actually made significant gains of 86 seats and 4 councils, an outstanding achievement for a party of government wielding painful cuts. This is reflective of how competent the Conservatives appeared at the time. Fast forward to this year and it’s a completely different story.

Of course the underlying reason behind this embarrassing defeat is the perceived sheer incompetence and corruption from the leadership in the national party. This all started with the poorly handled Budget in March. Alone this would probably not have proved so costly come elections, but the event was not one in isolation. This has been followed up but bleak economic forecasts and political scandal which has highlighted poor leadership. In short, the elections couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Coalition.

The Conservatives have lost touch and appeal to their traditional voters. The Tories attack on the elderly through the ‘Granny tax’, a product of a poorly presented Budget, is a betrayal of our loyal supporters.  No real Conservative government fails to look after our elderly. The truth is that many, and far too many to be politically forgiving, are disillusioned by a government that tries desperately to appease everyone and succeeds in looking after nobody whilst taking the concerns of our core voters for granted,  because this isn’t a government of principle, it has become a Government of apologists.

The support of House of Lord’s reform is a classic area over which Cameron has led the Tories into the pockets of liberals. Too conscious to appear ‘modern’, Cameron is supporting reform that will see our Upper Chamber taken control over by a bunch of career politicians, under the thumb of their leaders in the Lower Chamber. What’s more is that he and Nick Clegg want to do this without putting it to the public in a referendum. If Cameron wants to claim back our supporters then he must climb down over this policy, which conservative voters feel threatens our parliamentary democracy. This is not a Conservative policy.

Cameron and Osborne must too ease the tax burden of our supporters. The Coalition has failed to do anything to this extent. Those who earn in excess of £25,000 are substantially burdened by high tax demands. Those that earn an income of £50,000 pay a massive £15,000 of hard earned money in tax.  Under no interpretation is this a Conservative tax system. Especially during times of austerity, these policies are an unforgiving attack on our aspirational and hard-working Middle England. To ensure we don’t lose these votes to Labour again, we must not exploit them through unreasonable taxation.  

But the issue that directly affects everyone is the economy. It’s only through Ed Miliband’s weakness and Labour’s serious lack of any credibility over the economy that has seen Cameron and Osborne get off so lightly. When compared to Labour, The Coalition appears business friendly, but in reality they are not pro-business and inadequately Conservative. Osborne’s failure to see through an even lower corporation tax, as well as the top rate of income tax is sheer weakness. This is a party that got elected on a mandate that it will make the tough decisions necessary to recover the economy, yet caved in over the budget out of fear of being branded a ‘Party of millionaires’, which those who they feared would say this, did anyway.

The only threatening opposition to this Government is coming from their own Conservative back benchers and voters. Labour are up to nothing, yet are being rewarded for the Coalition’s own failure. This must be addressed before going into General election in 2015. The only small chance of Labour winning will come from Cameron throwing it away through turning away the genuine conservative vote.

Cameron has to give up the idea that he can appease the left with anything short of socialism. Third-Way social democratic policies only succeed in putting off Conservative voters and the aspirational. Desperate stunts to appear ‘modern’ are work of a party in opposition. Cameron is not in opposition anymore, he is leader of a Conservative Party in government. These Local Council results one would hope can only remind him of this. The only bit of good news is the imminent re-election of Boris as London Mayor. Whilst Boris has retained his supporters, Cameron is leading the national party away from his. This could prove very significant if Cameron’s leadership comes under threat. And it is only by listening to his voters that he will avoid a leadership challenge.