ConservativeHome's Bournemouth 2006 Conference blog

Overview of reporters...

WATCHING THEM, WATCHING US

Peter Franklin on Radio 4's 10pm slot
Adrian Owens' coverage of BBC1's 10'o'clock news
Graham Smith's coverage of BBC1's early evening news bulletin

PORTFOLIO REPORTERS

Douglas Carswell MP on localism
Simon Chapman on foreign and defence policy
James Cleverly on home affairs
Nick Cuff on local government
Tobias Ellwood MP on the Bournemouth Social Action Project
Andrea Leadsom on health
Ben Rogers on the environment
Wat Tyler on tax and the economy
Cameron Watt on social justice

OTHER REPORTERS

Oberon Houston's roving reports
Brian Jenner's roving reports
Theresa May MP's shadow cabinet view
Hannah Parker on candidates etc
Miss Seagull's nightlife diary
Miscellaneous on the accreditation chaos
Speeches

Tobias Ellwood MP: Mission accomplished

The challenge to overhaul St Mary's Church and turn it into the comunity centre was met. At 4pm David Cameron, direct from delivering his final conference speech, visited the building to inspect all the hard work that was designed to be a practical illustration of the Party's theme for this conference: 'A new direction'

In four days of hard work we upgraded the electrics, fitted a new kitchen, painted fourteen rooms, created a reception room and artists area, and built a theatrical stage with full curtain rig. We assembled over 200 bits of IKEA furniture, (each of which have colourful names that I cannot pronounce) used 800 litres of paint over 6 tonnes of wood (environmentally friendly of course!) and 3,000 feet of wiring. We averaged around 15 people working from 8am until 10pm over four days; totalling around 700 man hours.

St Mary's turned into the alternative conference venue. Or put it another way - the longest fringe meeting conference has seen! Where else could you discuss policy and paint with a peer? Or meet an MP over a plank of wood and a drill?

And best of all - you did not need a conference pass to get in! Indeed, I'm grateful to Dorset Police for being so co-operative in delaying the issue of conference passes so more people headed our way.

But we have made real difference to Springbourne. And provided a lasting legacy. Whilst Party conferences come and go, this time we are leaving behind something permanent. Thank you to all who came and leant a hand; MPs Peers and Party Members, as well local volunteers and businesses.

I am not sure where the Party Conference will take place next year. But who ever is the MP or Parliamentary Candidate - my black and decker cordless drill awaits you!

Nick Cuff: Does social responsibility equal local responsibility?

The buzz word of this year’s conference was “social responsibility”.  What we didn’t learn from a local government context, was whether more social responsibility would mean more real local responsibility.

Yes, the rhetoric was positive with numerous front benchers taking swipes at Labour’s “centralisation” of the state both in the hall and in the fringes.  However, it became increasingly apparent as the conference wore on that outside the quick wins of binning the Standards Board or removing regional assemblies, the Party has still to resolve the most significant issue: local government finance.   

Without meaningful reform of finance, councils will always be reliant on Whitehall purse strings no matter how you tinker with structures.  Currently, the balance of funding for local councils is based approximately on 75% central funding with the remainder raised through council tax.  Labour has been hesitant to address this largely because there is no silver bullet to tackling equalisation i.e. how do you ensure poor areas of the country receive adequate levels of funds.   

The result of this inertia has been an increasingly complex funding formula to ensure that finance is distributed evenly across the country.  It is here where the law of unintended consequences lures her ugly head.  The status quo means that efficient councils actually lose money to Whitehall, and inefficient councils have an incentive to carry on doing what they are doing – or not doing anything as in many cases.

The Party line is to hold off until Sir Michael Lyons’ long awaited review of local government publishes its findings in December.  This is the right line to take as the report’s recommendations will steer and inform the debate over the next year.  It would be foolish to pre-empt what has been a genuinely in-depth review of an issue where all the main parties should be developing a political consensus.   

Unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that we cannot leave this to Labour.  Many are now beginning to fear that despite the length of time taken, Sir Michael’s review will not provide a long term solution to the balance of funding.   

Labour is simply not prepared to swallow a bitter political pill and give up the current powers they possess over Town Halls.  With Sir Michael based in the Treasury – the bastion of centralism – he will be hard pressed not to contradict Whitehall’s over arching stance.  Worse still, DCLG will publish a White Paper next month on local government structures, this is likely to take the wind out of the sails of any gutsy announcements Lyons may wish to deliver.   

The result is that Labour will continue to be socially irresponsible.  Their policies are creatures of the long grass.  There in the tall thickets, you will find local government finance lurk alongside its long-term neighbours, pensions reform and energy policy.  No labour hand will touch a stinging nettle.

Therefore, it will be up to us to take the responsible decision and hold a serious debate on how we reform local government finance.  This of course was never likely to happen in Conference 06, but as we drift rapidly towards the next election, I hope Conference 07 and 08 will prepare the ground for meaningful change which will put an end to a decade of centralisation. 

Malcolm Dunn watches Newsnight cover the leader's speech

As someone who watched much of the conference through the eyes of the BBC I looked forward to reviewing Newsnight's coverage of David Camerons speech and the last day of the conference with some trepidation. Some of the BBC coverage has been good but some utterly lamentable.

Newsnight started well, Gavin Esler was the presenter so we were spared the supercilious tones of dear old Paxo. Esler stated at the beginning that a leaders speech had two objectives.  The first was to encourage non-Tories to look at the Conservative Party again and secondly ‘to cheer up the troops’. Esler said he thought Cameron that Cameron had achieved both.

There followed a very short ‘highlights’ of the speech itself. This concentrated on Camerons thoughts about the NHS, marriage, the Armed forces and the optimistic finale. The BBC true to form panned the camera to three old buffers who appeared to be the only people in the hall not clapping when DC spoke approvingly of same sex marriages.

Following the coverage of the speech, Newsnight asked various activists for their reactions (all positive) and equally importantly who they wanted to succeed Tony Blair as leader of the Labour Party. The answer - perhaps surprisingly - was unaminous - Gordon Brown! Newsnight then showed a rolling poll of people's reactions to Camerons speech and compared it with Brown's speech to the Labour conference. Brown's speech appealed to committed Labour voters, Cameron's to everybody.

The Newsnight panel were then rolled out. Daniel Finkelstein represented the Conservative interest, Peter Heyman for Labour and Oli Grender for the Lib Dems.

Fink as you would expect was very supportive, Heyman also praised the speech but accused Cameron of aping Tony Blair. Oli Grender then tried to make capital for the Liberals by saying that this conference hadn’t succeeded because there had been no big fights or arguments! The other two then ganged up on her and both said the Liberal conference had been a disaster because Ming had survived and Ming was a real negative for the Lib Dems!

All in all this was one of the most positive Newsnights I have seen for the Conservative Party in months. Together with TV and Radio coverage of the conference I think we can conclude that today was a good day for Cameron and the Conservative party in general.

Theresa May MP: The best is yet to come

What a lively last day! The highlight of the last day of conference is always the speech by the Leader. David Cameron's speech was no exception - although I have to say that there was rather more hilarity in the 'Meet the Candidates' session earlier today. Seriously David's speech was excellent and certainly pointed a new direction ahead for the Party. He focused on the NHS and the environment, but for the Party moving forward the most significant statement came when he said that when some people complain there are no policies you can’t help but feel that they mean they just want the old policies. As he firmly stated "They aren't coming back and we're not going back."

Returning to the hilarity of the 'Meet the Candidates' session this morning.  We started off by singing Happy Birthday to Anne Widdecombe and ended by her thinking my reference to a "set change" was a reference to a "sex change". Mark Menzies had the winning idea which was hardly surprising given the laughter generated by his interchange with Oliver Letwin. When Mark proposed cutting the VAT on low energy lightbulbs, Oliver brought the house down by saying he was confused and didn't understand it… which bit don’t you understand Oliver, cutting, VAT, low, energy or lightbulb? Interesting that two out of the three policies being submitted for review as a direct result of conference's votes in these sessions were policies designed to help the environment and sustain us longer term.

A good conference  - not just one that people say has been good because they've forgotten it all in a haze of free drinks, or one that people tell themselves has been good to cheer each other up, but a genuinely good conference where the Party did set a new direction and where the mood was up-beat and enthusiastic, but not over the top. Measured optimism was the order of the day. We know there is more to do, but we can see the way ahead and we've set a clear direction. As David Cameron said: The best is yet to come!

Peter Franklin is worried that a bored public is going to stop listening

The World Tonight
Wednesday 10pm, Radio 4

For my final conference report, I'm back on task reviewing the Radio 4's 10pm current affairs slot. I shan't go on for long - because neither did Wednesday's World Tonight, which though it led with the Conservative conference, could barely hide its ennui.

I don't suppose we should blame the political hacks, who after three weeks of party conferences, must be thoroughly sick of the whole business. Bournemouth '06 was always going to be a difficult story. Labour had its leadership crisis, and the Lib Dems had the slightly interesting spectacle of a sober Charles Kennedy peering over Ming Campbell's stooped shoulders, but the Conservative conference was under such tight control that they didn't even let in the delegates.

The media's attempt to stir up a row over tax policy fell flat as pancake or, for that matter, a flat tax. Edward Leigh and friends made their point politely, George Osborne and David Cameron disagreed politely and that was it.

The Boris versus Jamie story was a short-lived diversion and in the end there was nothing to stop the leadership from getting over the messages they wanted to give. Mission accomplished.

In the end the World Tonight explored the idea that the conference wasn't a political event, but a branding exercise. For no particular reason there was a vox pop in Cheadle, then a couple of marketing types were dredged up to give their cynical opinions and that was the end of that - a resounding anti-climax to the conference season.

I wasn't actually at conference this year. I've been looking in from the outside. And it's left me with a nagging worry. The biggest danger facing the Cameron project isn't a rightwing rebellion or a new leader of the Labour party, but the risk that the public will simply get bored and stop listening.

Adrian Owens: BBC positive about David Cameron but other commentators unsure of reaction of party activists and the wider public

David Cameron’s speech led the main 10pm news tonight, as we would expect.  The coverage though was shorter than last night, at just 5 minutes.

Those around the Leader will not be worried about the quantity of the coverage though, because the quality of the coverage was first class in their terms.  Plenty of focus on the passages of the speech that the Leader’s team would have wanted covered – commitment to the NHS in particular.  Cameron’s advisers will have been more than happy too with Nick Robinson’s commentary talking of the “new direction” for the party and creating a “new mood”.  The BBC obviously likes David Cameron, but then we suspected that already.

A more uncertain note was sounded when political commentators were interviewed about how those at conference were reacting to this “new direction”.  Anne McElvoy thought that activists had been won over.  Benedict Brogan was less positive.  Matthew Parris shrewdly hedged his bets and said he felt that conference liked David Cameron personally but was less enamored with his message.

It’s not surprising that the commentators came to different conclusions – partly this is due to David Cameron’s stance of refusing to be tied down to policies too early, but partly it is also due to cruder motives.  None of us really know whether this conference has been a success until we see the first opinion polls in the weeks to come. 

Those at the conference are in an isolated bubble where group think can set in and a rosy picture prevail, while those of us unable to attend this year have our view mediated through channels such as the BBC.  The truth is, none of us know for certain what the wider reaction will be.  Wise heads such as Matthew Parris hedge their bets.  Meanwhile we eagerly await that crucial first opinion poll to pour over the movements in party fortunes like ancient soothsayers poured over the entrails of sacrificed animals.

Andrea Leadsom interviews Andrew Lansley

I asked Andrew what would be the one thing he would change in the NHS right now, if he could. His answer was to ‘make real’ GP budget holding.  That way, money could truly follow patients, and care would be truly patient centred.

I asked him for his vision of the future for the NHS.  He said that Social Responsibility is at the heart of the vision…..professionals need to be given the responsibility and the resources to meet the needs of their local communities, without interference from politicians.

On target setting, Andrew believes targets must be set, but only for ‘outcomes’.  For example, the survival rate after cancer or heart surgery, NOT the maximum wait for a consultation.  Micro management by government creates unintended consequences, blockages and resource diversions away from what really matters.

Andrew wants patients to be at the centre of all decision taking – that means much more consultation, not just on treatments, but also on the structure patients want for their NHS… is specialisation of treatment more important than easy local access to services?

Andrew believes we need to spend more, not less, on the NHS, but that more of the money should go on front line services and away from administration – he says the fact that recruitment of administrators in recent years has been more than double that of new nursing staff is clearly wrong. 

Under the last Conservative government, he acknowledges that we under-invested in the NHS;  Labour has gone some way to putting that right, but their management has been abysmal and now after ‘famine’ and ‘feast’ we are back to famine... Andrew would like to see the NHS of the future on a ‘healthy diet’.

Andrea Leadsom: Are we getting value for money from the NHS?

The question was asked of Andrew Lansley, Shadow Minister for Health, Anna Walker Chief Exec of the Healthcare Commission and Beverley Malone, Gen Sec of the Royal College of Nursing.

It was interesting that the three panellists all welcome the enormous increases in spending on the NHS, and feel there is more to be done.  Andrew Lansley pointed out we are still behind France and Germany in spending on health.

Beverley Malone made a plea for more involvement from nurses in the strategic planning for the NHS to ensure better value for money and less waste.  She gave an example of a new PFI hospital that was built without consultation with nurses.  Once the corridors were put in, it was apparent they were too narrow to turn around a trolley bed……

Anna Walker made a strong case for good value being achieved. Waiting lists are shorter, treatment in some areas like heart disease, cancer and strokes have improved dramatically, the focus on ‘health’ rather than ‘healthcare’ is starting to pay dividends in the focus on obesity and smoking.

Anna also talked, however, about where the HC has concerns – the ‘Cinderella services’ such as mental health, learning disabilities, older people and children.  In all of these, there is much more to be done.  Also, she is concerned that patient safety needs to be more at the heart of NHS culture. 

Andrew Lansley praised the improvements made in waiting times, but pointed out that these are in England – in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland waiting times remain unacceptable.  The Office of National Statistics has confirmed a fall in productivity growth – in other words, the doubling of cash for the NHS has  not resulted in commensurate productivity.

Andrew is optimistic about the future for the NHS however.  He thinks the culture has permanently changed for the better as a result of the introduction of performance measures.  He talked about a Matron at Kettering hospital who was able to articulate the restructuring of A&E to meet the 4 hour target.  This was a real ‘patient-centred’ initiative.

The panellists agreed that putting patients at the heart of the NHS is critical. Listening to what patients want, not just in terms of treatment, but also in terms of the structure of their NHS, is important.  The question of ‘specialisation’ versus ‘access to services’ is a big one and deserves much broader public consultation.

The answer to the question, ‘Is the NHS delivering value for money?’ ended up, I would say, as ‘on balance, not yet’.

Simon Chapman's message to Euro-realists: The MER can work – but it needs your support

When David Cameron and William Hague announced that the Conservative Party would wait until 2009 to leave the EPP they also announced that they were establishing a new organisation, the Movement for European Reform (MER) to promote a new centre-right vision for a flexible modern and open EU.

Euro-realists, bruised by what they saw as a broken pledge, have been sceptical about the MER. They point to the ED (the Conservative part of the current EPP-ED grouping) which was supposed to achieve the same things. One MEP told me at the time:

“The ED ended up with no officers, no staff, no meetings, no budget, no policies, nothing.  It produced a couple of half-hearted leaflets and a logo - nothing more.  I would like to believe that the MER will do better - but I doubt it.”

David Cameron gave the job of making the MER work to Graham Brady (who, as Euro-historians may recall, was as one of our youngest candidates amongst those Conservatives who included a personal pledge never to join the Euro in his 1997 election material). This week saw the first steps: the MER has been formally launched with its own website, and with public support on the main conference platform from William Hague, Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative MEP group leader) and Jan Zharadil from the Czech ODJ party.

I spent some time with Graham yesterday morning to ask him about the MER. He was keen to emphasise that, whilst there is an obvious linkage with the new group that the Conservatives will establish in 2009, he sees this as a broader and more important initiative. The MER’s object is to build relationships between politicians, parties, opinion-formers, business people and private individuals across the EU and even beyond.

They will come together to challenge the failed orthodoxies on which the EU is currently based and generate a new vision and institutional architecture that will enable the EU effectively to serve the peoples of its member states. Membership is open to people in the EU, EEA and accession countries. It is not limited to potential partners for 2009. Politicians from countries seeking to join the EU will find in the MER an assurance that the ever-close union model is not the only show in town. 

How will it work in practice? As yet there is no detailed budget or business plan. The good news is that this is Graham Brady’s first priority:

“the critical next step is getting the financial resources in place – it is essential to make this fly that we attract its own budget with permanent staff and organisers.” 

Initial events in London and Prague are being planned.

Graham was insistent that lessons have been learned from the ED experience. The MER is a serious and concerted attempt to establish a broad coalition of support for a new Europe. So what should Euro-realists do?

Let us remember that Hans-Gert Poetttering, Chairman of the EPP-ED group, spoke at a fringe meeting on Monday night here in Bournemouth. There are those in our party who, despite David Cameron’s pledge in July that "the agreement to form a new group is not an aspiration, it is a guarantee - and it will be delivered", still believe that the Conservative Party should remain in the EPP.

They are unlikely to do much to promote the MER. Their view is that the political arithmetic will be the same in 2009 as it is in 2006 – if it was difficult to establish a new group now nothing will have changed to make that easier in 2009.

Brady’s answer to that is that the party could have started the new group now, but that it chose to respect the request of our Czech colleagues. There is a broader point. If the MER is properly resourced and supported it will be a vehicle to set out a fresh and compelling vision for a 21st century EU that will attract new partners and colleagues.

Euro-realists have the contacts, the experience and (in some cases) the financial resources that the MER needs to succeed. Its prospects will be diminished without their whole-hearted support.

The stakes are very high. The EU desperately requires a new direction. For the Conservative Party, the row over the new grouping cannot be allowed to resurrect itself in the run up to the European (and probable General) election in 2009.

If Euro-realists can overcome their suspicion and make the MER succeed they will do their cause and the Conservative party a considerable service. If they don’t support the MER, who else will?