ConservativeHome's 100policies

David Belchamber: A radical rethink of current vocational training

David Belchamber runs a consultancy business in partnership with his wife, Helen. They advise independent schools on management matters, both of them having had experience of working in such schools. Helen was a Finance Bursar and David, after 11 years of teaching, has been a Bursar, management consultant and sales manager of a firm offering financial services to schools.

> Policy summary

To adapt the present educational system to meet the aspirations of pupils/students and the needs of the nation in the 21st century.

> Policy explanation

The basis of this policy is to be found in “As It Seemed To Me” by John Cole, the highly respected former Political Editor of the BBC:

“…politics is only important through the effect it has on the lives of ordinary people”.

Apart from health, few things in life can be more important than education: it can be the catalyst that transforms a person’s life for the better. For this reason, nobody can argue against the extra funding that Tony Blair has put into education over the last 9 years (the budget is now something like £73bn a year). Where one can argue with him – as with most other Nulab policies – is the way that it is spent.

The Tories must apply that funding to much better effect.

Despite the ever improving exam results, too many pupils are let down by the present system, while too many students may well wonder why they find themselves unemployable after graduating with a huge student loan to repay.

Able pupils, like rich or powerful people, will prosper despite Nulab’s policies but the Tories must start from the bottom to put things right for the less academic.

In education this requires coherent policies to boost vocational training, “vocational” being defined as:

“of or related to applied educational courses concerned with skills needed for an occupation, trade or profession”.

In the real world where people’s skills, experience and ability are marketable assets, those who possess none may become a social problem, whereas a good education, whether academic or vocational, should promote well-being and foster self-confidence. We do want what John Major sought:

“a nation at ease with itself”.

Despite the recent glowing exam results, a spate of damning articles from individuals and organisations such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce indicate that, as with so many Nulab policies, there is a wide gulf between appearance and reality.

Sir Digby Jones, defending immigration, wrote:

“You cannot blame a migrant for the fact that we don’t have sufficient numbers of skilled British-born people to do the jobs. One in five of the adult population in this country cannot read and write to the standard of an 11-year old”.

A report in the TES of 25 August 2006 highlighted some complaints from employers about youngsters entering the workforce:

(i) would-be airport firefighters are being rejected for the job because they lack the writing skills to fill in logbooks,

(ii) one in three companies had to introduce remedial training in literacy and/or numeracy and

(iii) one food retailer said that his young staff were totally thrown if offered £10.17 for an item costing £5.17.

Richard Lambert, the current Director of the CBI, set out what is required:

“The reforms will have to start from the bottom up. Our society cannot afford to let so many young people slip through the educational net: there are 220,000 between the ages of 16 and 18 who are not in education, employment or training. The education system must focus on giving them the skills they will need – practical as well as intellectual – to find work at a time of rapid economic change”.

Finally, from practical experience of working in UK companies and also from observing the workings of the great departments of state – the FCO, the Home Office, Defra, the NHS, the DfSS (or whatever its name is this week) – it is abundantly clear that incompetence is rife in British management. We no longer seem to know how to organise anything or to get anything done on time and on budget.

Clearly there are shining examples to the contrary but the nation needs an educational system that can deliver into the workforce – not graduates in Contemporary World Jazz or Watersports Studies (one C and two Es at A level required) or Football Studies or Hair Care Management (examples taken from Jeff Randall’s coruscating expose of the Mickey Mouse subjects currently on offer in our universities) – people who are fit for the purposes of employers.

What the Tories should do in my view is to take the question of vocational training very seriously and consider the following proposals:

i. ensure that all school leavers attain a competence in numeracy and literacy commensurate with their innate ability.

ii. engage with the CBI to design appropriate vocational courses for GCSE,  A levels and Vocational Colleges.

iii. also discuss with the CBI the expansion of the modern apprenticeships scheme.

iv. encourage local authorities and Chambers of Commerce to foster links between schools and businesses.

v. establish a number of Vocational Colleges that will provide a rigorous training in skilled occupations that this country needs for its continuing prosperity.

These colleges must be first-class institutions and their qualifications must be seen to be equivalent to degree standard.

vi. additionally, practically based courses in Management and Administration should be introduced into schools, while dynamic courses in Higher Management be offered in colleges.

> Political risks and opportunities

To do something that is so obviously right is seldom a political risk.

I believe that there would be enormous benefits ultimately for the nation, for any number of pupils and students and also for the Conservative party itself, if it committed itself enthusiastically to making a significant improvement in the provision of vocational education both for pupils and students.

Not to do so would in any event lead to a continuing skills shortage which would not be solved satisfactorily by the long-term use of immigrant labour.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

If they agree with the general thrust of this policy, CH readers could help greatly by fleshing out the detail and pointing out any factual errors or wrong assumptions.

> Costs

Unknown cost. Since the proposals merely suggest changes of emphasis within the existing system and also since significant cost savings should prove possible out of an annual budget of £73bn by more competent management, it is to be hoped that they could be implemented within the existing budget.

 

Thomas Bridge: Foreign permanent residents to clear through EU immigration

Thomas Bridge was born in England but raised in Ireland.  He currently works in IT in the City of London, and lives in Brentwood with his wife and three month old son.

> Policy summary

Currently, on arrival in the UK from a foreign country (other than the Republic of Ireland) there are two queues to clear immigration. One for British and EU nationals, and the other for foreign nationals. Under this policy, foreign nationals who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom would be allowed to clear immigration through the British and EU nationals queue.

> Policy explanation

A number of countries outside the European Union allow permanent residents to clear immigration through the queue designed for their nationals - for example the US immigration desks have "US and Canadian Nationals and Green Card Holders" and Singapore allows Permanent Residents to clear through the Singapore Nationals queue.

Foreign nationals who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom often choose not to take British citizenship - there are various reasons for this, including the implications for citizenship of the country they were born in.  However, indefinite leave to remain is usually granted after working in the UK for five years, a period of time during which they make their own contribution to British society, both in terms of their work and their taxes (many foreign nationals work in the NHS for instance).  Many even have the right to vote in British elections, being Commonwealth nationals.

It is expected that foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain have already had their applications scrutinised by a government body - there is no real need for them to undergo the same strict screening processes that apply to foreign nationals visiting the UK for any reason.

It is also the case that usually it is quicker to clear the British and EU nationals queue in airports on arrival in the UK - this is because the check usually consists of confirming the passport is the right nationality and doing a photographic match.  Allowing our permanent foreign residents to clear this queue would allow them to clear immigration more quickly, and would be no more complicated than
clearing EU nationals through this queue.

> Political risks and opportunities

This would allow the Conservatives to demonstrate that we are not anti-foreigner (or even anti-immigration) and provide a useful rebuttal to the charges of "little Englander" while showing those foreign nationals who are permanent residents that we value their contribution to our society.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Should requirements for foreign nationals to be granted indefinite leave to remain be changed?
• Should the right to vote be extended to all foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain, or should it just remain restricted to Commonwealth and Irish citizens?
• What ways could we encourage foreign nationals to become more integrated into our society, so that their children can identify as British if raised in this country?

> Costs

There should be no significant costs associated with this proposal - this in effect simply moves a subset of foreign nationals into a different queue at immigration so they can be dealt with more quickly.

Wat Tyler: Transparency on government spending

Wat Tyler edits Burning Our Money.

> Policy summary

Central government should be required to maintain a searchable online database detailing all payments to companies and other organisations, either directly or through government agencies/quangos.

> Policy explanation

As often observed, the best disinfectant is sunshine. And the best antidote to government waste is information.

Government spends £550bn pa of our money (43% of our income), but wastes huge amounts of it - over £80bn pa according to the ECB. A key reason is that taxpayers aren’t given enough information on where their money’s actually going. Of course, we know the big numbers because politicians like to boast about them. But when it comes to scrutinising the detail of spending, it's a lot harder to unearth the facts.

We have a right to know, in particular, who’s getting the £170bn pa the government spends on procurement and capital projects, and the £60bn pa it gives away in grants and subsidies (that’s excluding social benefits). And what it’s for.

Some of this you can already discover - if you've got a degree in government accounting, no day job, and you're prepared to spend your life burrowing through mountains of obscure accounting appendices. But a lot of the information is simply missing: short of a lucky FOI, the government does not feel obliged to tell us.

This has to change. We need our own Transparency and Accountability Act, modelled on the bipartisan bill currently going through the US Senate. That will require the Federal Government to establish "a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each entity receiving Federal funding... for the last ten years...an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action".

The National Review describes the proposed database as a “Google-like tool for federal accountability”.  After all the years of Labour incompetence and deceit, the Conservatives should claim the sunlit uplands of modern accountable government by offering it here.

> Political risks and opportunities

The main political risk is that open accessible reporting would make life more uncomfortable for governments of all complexions, Conservative included. It would become much easier for political opponents to gather stones to throw.

But against that, this is a great opportunity to reinforce our Conservative brand as the anti-waste party. We know that the issue increasingly resonates with voters, but right now they don’t believe any politicians’ promises to grip it (e.g. see TPA poll). Pledging a Transparency and Accountability Act would show that the Conservatives are serious.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

1. Should there be a cut-off point for small payments (say below £5,000)?
2. Is it appropriate to exclude social benefits?
3. Other than national security, should there be any exemptions (eg commercial confidentiality)?

> Costs

In principle, this ought to be cheap: all departments and agencies already have a duty to record all payments, and half a century into the electronic age, all data should be in electronic form. So we just need some simple software to pull it all together and make it available online - maybe we could even coat-tail the US version.

Of course, things are less straightforward in practice. According to the NAO, there are “some 250” separate accounting systems across central government, and some government accounting (e.g. at the Home Office) is shambolic.

But these are problems that must be fixed irrespective of this proposal, and we are given to understand urgent work is already underway to do so. Apart from anything else, much of the Gershon “efficiency” programme to drive better procurement deals depends on being able to work out how much is being spent right across government with individual suppliers.

Against that background, we are entitled to expect that the cost of this additional openness requirement would be small - tens rather than hundreds of millions. And remember, even at £800m it would pay for itself if we just saved 1% of government waste in one year alone.

 

Adrian Owens: Abolish the Insurance Premium Tax

Adrian Owens has been a Parliamentary candidate and is on the candidates’ list.  Now a business consultant he also volunteers as a Princes Trust business mentor.  He is a former General Manager of CREATE Liverpool.

> Policy summary

Abolish the 5% insurance premium tax (IPT) charged on household, motor, liability and other general insurances.  The tax discourages a public good and is also regressive.

> Policy explanation

In the November 1993 budget, Kenneth Clarke introduced IPT at 2.5% as part of a massive £5billion tax increase package that included cuts in the married couples allowance and mortgage tax relief.  In 1996 he increased it to 4% and Gordon Brown has subsequently increased the tax to 5%.

When it was first introduced concern about the tax was low.  John Butterfill MP questioned the effect on the insurance industry.  Iain Duncan Smith was the only Conservative MP to express concern in the Finance Bill debate that followed the budget.  It was left to the LibDem treasury spokesman David Rendel to articulate the traditional Conservative position, though of course he did so merely to mock our party as it struggled to control a massive budget deficit. 

Rendel said:

“One would have thought that insurance premiums were close to the heart of the Conservative party. Have not the Tories said that people should stand on their own two feet and look after themselves? Surely one way in which members of the public can look after themselves and make sure that they do not rely on the state to finance them when disaster strikes is through insurance policies, but here are the Government discouraging people from insuring themselves.”

This thinking is at the heart of this proposal.  Tax should not be imposed on people who make the choice to insure against disaster.  Such people will make less call on the state when disaster strikes.

Opposition to IPT has grown over the years.  As early as 1996 Gallup found that 71% of the public thought insurance premium tax was unfair.  By 2002 business was calling loudly for a reduction in IPT led by the Forum of Private Business on behalf of SMEs, as employers’ liability premiums soared.

As with almost all taxes on consumption, IPT is regressive.  The poorest 20% of the population pay a 4 or 5 times greater proportion of their household income on basic home and motor insurance than those at the top of the income scale.

> Political risks and opportunities

The upsides of this measure are numerous.

Symbolism - The tax was imposed, against the grain of Conservative thinking at a time of great financial difficulty.  To propose its reversal would clearly symbolise that the next Conservative Government is determined to regain the mantle of economic competence through reversing tax measures that the last Conservative Government was forced to introduce as a consequence of its previous poor economic decisions.

Effective - Given the highly competitive insurance market, the removal of tax on insurance would likely feed through to the consumer, reducing insurance costs and encouraging people to insure and at the same time reducing the extent of under insurance. 

Conservative - Greater insurance take-up and reduced under insurance will encourage greater self-reliance and confidence among the population.

Positive press - This targeted tax reduction is likely to generate much positive press comment from the mainstream Conservative press.  As the current tax is regressive, any proposal to scrap it also has the potential to reach across the political divide.

The downsides are that arguably there are “sexier” areas for any tax reductions we can offer, and with all proposals for tax reductions - where will the funds come from?

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

Do you agree (as I do) that the higher rate of IPT – 17.5% - the same rate as VAT - should continue to be charged on travel insurance and extended warranty type insurances for white goods, cars etc?

Are there any other taxes introduced by the last Conservative government which go against the grain of conservatism and should be scrapped?

> Costs

This proposal would cost around £2.15 billion.  I’ll leave aside Laffer curve arguments for the moment and assume that spending would have to be reduced by a corresponding amount.  Where then do we get the £2.15 billion?  My personal favourites would be to scrap the British Council.  This saves £200 million and has the added advantage of making Neil Kinnock unemployed.  Add to that a drastic slimming of the DTI which costs more than £6billion a year and a freeze on central civil service recruitment and we’d have more than enough.  But the choice is yours – just spend 5 minutes on Burning Our Money, the Taxpayers’ Alliance or here at ConservativeHome to identify your preferred waste reduction.

 

Dominic de Mariveles: National Domestic Waste Strategy

Dominic lives in South East London and has been a party member and activist for 10 years, previously he was head of Conservative Future for Surrey Heath.

> Policy Summary

A new national policy framework in the form of an update of the 2000 Waste Management Act is needed to provide us all with a clear procedure for domestic recycling and waste disposal.

> Policy Explanation

Over 100 million tonnes of waste is created in the UK each year and various governments have legislated on disposal of this waste over past 2 decades and yet the UK is still left with only 23% of waste being recycled. Business has been heavily influenced by European regulation and the record for their recycling and disposal of waste is rapidly improving and business are realising the benefits to be had of selling green credentials. However, domestic waste policy has been left to local councils; and a mixed bag of success these have proved. Some council's such as Woking are held up as paragon’s, others such as Scarborough are disliked for imposing a complex, autocratic and typically bureaucratic system. People want to recycle and play their part but suffer from variable quality of services across the country.

This has led to very unequal levels of recycling across the country and more specifically if you ever move house you will find a bewildering array of different boxes/bins/bags to fill with your domestic waste; to cap it all there is even no promise to actually re-cycle any of the waste that you have carefully sorted.

We need to learn from more advanced countries here such as Germany and Denmark. They have clear colour coding across the nation for all waste, dedicated bins for all households in the same colours and indeed more waste disposal capacity from the home, in the street and at re-cycling centres. All of this means they have rates of 80% compared to our goal of 25%.

Councils should and will be in charge of waste disposal organisation, but the current system whereby they can design Byzantine systems and are now even talking about extra-charges for these demonstrates their desire for revenue over fairness; a national policy will be a saviour for householders and taxpayers alike.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The positives here are manifold:

- Householders who wish to recycle will have a much better idea of what they should be doing, all over the country and wherever they move. This policy builds on the Vote Blue, Go Green message.

- Repetitions of the Scarborough revolt will be reduced as councils lost their power to develop unfair strategies.

- Councils can dispense with unnecessary consultancy projects and staff designing their ever more complex individual strategies, let alone expensive fact-finding missions for councillors. A national policy can even make them work together to share the burden on resources.

- Councils will also gain transparency of cost by their waste management contractors allowing for a better pricing market to develop across the country.

- Taxpayers will benefit as the current threats of some councils to increase charges and demand greater re-cycling or impose fines.

- Finally, although a national issue it is about local priorities and could potentially help us in every ward election.

As for the negatives, the main one as ever is that the Conservatives are against centralisation and in favour of devolving power to the local level. However, this policy is not about budgetary control and oversight; just more effective guidelines for domestic waste disposal. Councils may complain that the national policy may add to their local waste management costs and this will need to be managed as part of a careful policy formulation.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What do you think the specifics of the policy should look like?
• How do we persuade councils to agree to this after Labour centralisation fiascos?
• How much of our campaigning should we devote to green issues?

> Costs

We have to set a policy and enforce it nationwide, although Defra exists already to set the policy and the councils to carry it out; the new policy may mean extra spending on waste disposal nationally, conversely it may lower the overall cost through efficiency savings.

Owen Meredith: Fines to discourage speeding, not generate revenue

Owen Meredith is Chairman of Newcastle-under-Lyme & Keele University CF, Area Chairman of Staffordshire CF, and Deputy Chairman (Membership) of Newcastle-under-Lyme Conservative Association.

> Policy summary

Reforming the administration of speeding fines, moving the emphasis away from cash generation towards a system that truly acts as a deterrent to speed.

> Explanation of policy

As it stands, in the UK, if you are caught by a fixed camera, or police patrol, you will normally receive a fixed penalty, regardless of the speed you are travelling (subject to a cap at which point a fixed penalty is not issued).

This is not a deterrent to speeding, it does not discriminated against an individual who has not properly monitored their speed, and an individual intentionally speeding.

Let me give examples:

A pensioner driving home from the supermarket at 34mph, in a 30mph zone, because they are not watching the speedometer, will receive a fixed £60 and 3 penalty points.

A businessman late for a meeting, driving at 40mph in the same 30mph zone, will also receive a fixed £60 and 3 penalty points.

This does not reflect the danger posed by the two drivers. They do not pose equal threat to the public, but are punished equally, a pedestrian hit at 30mph has an 80% chance of survival, at 40mph, this cuts to 30%. So the businessman driving at 40mph poses a much greater public threat than the pensioner at 34mph.

What I am proposing is a change punishing drivers according to the danger they are creating.

A system on fines and points similar to what I have given in the following example for a 30mph zone:

Speed              Fine        Points

31-33mph          £0               0
34-36mph     £40-60              2
37-39mph     £70-90              3
40-45mph     £100-120           4
45-50mph     £130-150           5
Over 50mph                 Driving Ban

As you can see, this system fines drivers at a rate of £10 per 1mph over the speed limit, keeping current 10% discretion, and banning drivers at 50mph. Making the system fairer and punishing those who pose the greatest threat.

A system that operates in this way also acts as a greater deterrent to speeding, as drivers know the faster they travel, the heavier the fine will be. Whereas the current system encourages driver who will speed, to speed further e.g. a driver travelling on the motorway at 80mph, has no incentive not to travel at 90mph, as if caught they face the same punishment.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is political benefit to be gained from correcting a injustice that is viewed by the public as an unfair and money making system rather than a deterrent to law breaking. Correcting this balance to make the system focus on deterrent should serve to correct public opinion.

Road safety groups should support the measures that shift the emphasis of government strategy to slowing down speeding drivers.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• At what level should such a system start?
• Should such a system operate on an excess mph basis, or a percentage basis?

> Cost

Without adequate access to the full data with relation to speeding penalties issued, it is impossible to know the cost of this policy. I would expect it to be cost beneficial, raising more through fines.

Victoria Borwick: Police officers should not usually patrol in pairs

Victoria Borwick is a Councillor in Kensington & Chelsea, and is running to be the candidate for London Mayor.

> Policy summary

Proximity policing to strengthen the fight against crime. Police should walk their local beat within sight of, but not alongside, another officer. Although this idea is aimed at London, it is applicable to any major city. 

> Policy explanation

Police are needed on the streets to prevent crime and to catch criminals. Their presence has one other vital effect to reassure the public. Their physical presence gives them the opportunity to get to know the neighbourhood, and who lives and works there.  A local bobby who lives and works in an area, and is known and trusted by his community is a more effective officer.  Police on the streets not only cut crime, but also cut the fear of crime.

Community policing is most effective when a group of officers are responsible for a particular patch. By operating singly – and not in pairs – they can cover a wider area and engage more directly with the public, be they shopkeepers, tradesmen, residents, or passers-by. Human nature being what it is – if they walk down the street together, they will tend to talk to one another and not the people who can tell them what is really going on.  Proximity policing means that they can be close enough to give each other support in a crisis such as when making an arrest or catching a mugger red-handed but still gather the information essential to good intelligence.

To quote the police adage:  “We don’t solve crimes, people tell us who did it.” To get people to tell the police what is going on, they have to know and trust the police. This means that people have to be able to talk to the police routinely, not just after a drama.

This is not an approach for new or untrained policemen, nor one for dealing with crime scenes, violence and riots. It is the right way of dealing with day to day prevention of crime and long term community policing. 

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The political risk is low. The opportunity exists to reduce crime, reduce the fear of crime, and to reinforce the reputation of the Conservative Party as the party of law and order.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

In London we have seen an increase in police numbers, but that is not the same throughout the country where we have continued to see the closure of local police stations, police stations not manned overnight, and crime rising in quiet country towns because of the reduction in manpower.

David Simpson: Fund political parties through a flat rate levy per elector with the recipient chosen via a tickbox on the tax return

David Simpson runs his own computer services company.

> Policy summary

Each year every adult is asked to indicate on their tax return or to their employer where they wish their ‘contribution’ to be sent – this contribution would be about £1 or less per adult, paid by the Treasury to the party, organisation or individual of the voter’s choice. If they do not specify, no contribution is made to anyone. The recipient can be any UK based organisation or individual, whether involved in politics or not.

> Policy explanation

The advantages of public funding through a flat rate levy per elector:

Voters are fed up with politicians generally. Party funding for both Labour and Tory is a focus for that unhappiness. Public response to proposals for the state to fund the parties has been largely negative. But the existing methods are clearly unacceptable, whether it be union money, cash for peerages or large donations from anonymous millionaires. In addition the totals spent by the major parties are grotesque and it's debatable whether they actually contribute to the democratic process. Adequate funding through membership & local fundraising appears to be impossible. It is arguable whether local fund raising is of any real benefit (yes it gets the activists and members involved, but it doesn't raise much and takes a great deal of energy away from what are arguably the more important activities of canvassing, creating and developing policy and bringing pressure to bear on MPs and parties).

This would provide 100% transparency for the parties’ sources of funding.

It would impose an absolute limit on the total spend of each party (the national gross, not just the existing individual member limit) – parties could only spend what they receive through the levy and are not allowed any other sources of funding.

There would be no undue or hidden influence by private individuals, corporations or pressure groups because of their contributions to part coffers. The electorate as a whole will dictate each year how much is given to politics and to the individual parties.

There would be a clear separation between party spending and government spending with a watchdog to check that the government is not abusing its position to promote its own political agenda. Political advisors, 'spin doctors' etc and spurious government PR campaigns would have to be funded from the levy. There would be no Short Money or any other special funding for parties.

This will create a direct link between the individual and what he/she chooses to fund.

There will be a direct link between the success or popularity of a party and its share of the cake, reassessed annually (because decided by the choice on the tax return), regardless of the relative economic strength of its supporters.

Potential disadvantages:

In effect, politicians can decide how much to fund themselves – but all Parliament can set is the amount given per adult – not where it goes, or even if it goes to a political party. If the electorate objects to the global total, they can choose not to give it to anyone, or to send it to their own pet causes and not to politicians at all.

This may promote an even greater separation of the electorate from the political process (because they will have no need to join, participate in or actively support political parties)

A further encroachment of the state into what has been hitherto in the private sphere

There would be no need for a mass party membership (but this might encourage other forms of participation e.g. open caucuses for candidate selection)

A box on our tax returns where we indicate where we want our slice of the funding to go - which can be anywhere, including back to the Treasury (which would be the default if nothing is selected). Anywhere means anywhere that's not actually illegal, and any size - e.g. not just "CofE" but my Parish Church, not the Tories but my MP or prospective candidate - political parties, charities, pressure groups or my Great Aunt Joan. The recipient must be a UK citizen or a UK incorporated body (so no donations to Osama).

Absolute limit - no other donations of any kind to parties (cash or kind) are allowed apart from what is raised through the levy.

A new party/group can decide not to take the levy money, and rely on donations. They must declare everything (gifts, loans and sources - no anonymity). Once established, they can then choose to be funded by the state system. There would be an upper limit on private funding through donations or loans so we don't have some billionaire taking over the country.

Parties would not be allowed to borrow more than say, 20%, of their annual funding. Any borrowing would have to be from a conventional, independent third party i.e. banks or other mainstream financial institutions.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

All parties would be forced to have ‘clean hands’.

The party apparatus would lose control over funding (other than how to spend their allocation); party machines may be weakened.

Parties would need to keep close to their supporters throughout the electoral cycle.

A blip in the polls at end of the tax year could lose a party a disproportionate share of the levy.

Parties may become more cautious, over-sensitive to public opinion – but at least it won’t be sensitivity to opinion polls or focus groups, but to where voters actually send their money, that influences the parties.

Special interest pressure groups could become more grassroots based and richer and therefore more influential (if voters choose to fund special interest groups rather than parties).

Contributions to 'extremist' parties such as the BNP, Islamic or Christian fundamentalists etc may increase.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you think it's a bad idea if the party machines are weakened?
• This would give more power, potentially, to the grassroots - is that bad?
• Do you think current levels of spend by political parties are too low, about right, too high?
• Would this reduce the attention the parties pay to the key marginals?
• Would that be a bad thing? (i.e. the 'safe' seats might find that their electors’ money is going to special interests, or not to politics at all in the conventional sense)
• Should there be a tick list on tax return?

> Costs

Say a total per year of £30 million – the cost per adult would be less than £1 p.a.

The cost of capturing choices, especially idiosyncratic ones (e.g. Aunt Ethel) from tax returns etc Show the details on each adult’s P60.

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

This email has just gone out to all A-list and selected candidates.  Remind anyone of anything?

"TO ALL PRIORITY CANDIDATES AND SELECTED CANDIDATES.

This year's Party Conference will include three sessions devoted to giving selected and priority candidates the chance of a conference platform. Modelled on the BBC's Dragon's Den series, candidates will be invited to speak briefly to set out the one policy they are most passionate about and why they would like to see the Party adopt it.

They will present this on stage, and then be challenged and questioned by a guest panel. At the end of the session, conference will vote for the policy they would most like to see included in the Party's policy review and the winner will be entitled to make a submission to the policy review panel.

This is your chance not only to speak in front of conference but also to try to get your favourite policy adopted by the Party. It is the chance to show your speaking skills, but also your innovative thinking in front of people who will be selecting candidates in the coming weeks.

It's also a chance for the Party to show the quality of our candidates, the diversity of ideas being developed within the Party and that we are open to new thinking.

So please send in your ideas to [email protected]. We need a very short précis of your policy idea - no more than 100 words by 9am on September 25th

Obviously there is a limited number of speaking slots and we will want to see a variety of policy areas being covered and a diversity of ideas, so we will not be able to accommodate everyone. We will let you know before conference if you have been successful.

This is the first time the Party has devoted sessions to candidates in this way so help us to make this a success and get thinking!!

Please include full contact details."

David T Breaker: Westminster representation for Britain's overseas territories

David is about to start studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Essex (see his Community profile).

> Policy summary

The granting of Westminster representation to Britain's overseas territories subject to local referenda.

> Policy explanation

Around the globe, Britain has 14 overseas territories. Most are very small or uninhabited apart from military staff - such as Diego Garcia or South Georgia - and obviously this policy does not refer to them, however several are very different. In the post devolution landscape, the powers of Westminster on local policy vary between the four home nations that currently make up the United Kingdom, just as its power varies between the overseas territories. So why then shouldn't our overseas territories be granted equal status through representation?

Their residents are British citizens, and although they have their own legal and political systems, this is no different to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Their foreign policy and defence is run from Westminster, in which they have no representation, and which could potentially transfer their sovereignty without consent. Take for instance Jack Straw's talks with Spain over Gibraltar's sovereignty, while Gibraltar passionately called their wish to remain British. Would this insult have happened with an MP from Gibraltar on the defensive? Or take the Falkland Islands, which could easily have been or in future be handed to Argentina without local consent. An elected representative could give them a voice.

Although no territory quite has the number of residents a normal English constituency has, they could be combined or act as part of an existing constituency. For example, Gibraltar already votes in European elections as part of the South West England region. By granting Westminster representation to our overseas territories - as France has done for many years as overseas communities and like America has in Hawaii - we will be securing their right to self-determination, liberty and freedom. Above all, we will be showing them the respect of equal treatment within the United Kingdom as our partners instead of as second class citizens in 'dependencies' or 'colonies'.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The policy has huge opportunity in two areas. First in showing a more respectful and equal regard to our overseas territories, and second in putting Labour on the back foot, particularly given their disgraceful negotiations over Gibraltar and their behind-closed-door mentality. It would of course be highly beneficial to democracy. The new seats might even vote to be Conservative.

In the risk corner, poor presentation could lead to labelling as 'empire defenders', when this is actually far removed from the policy of giving equality to these areas. It could damage some relations, such as with Spain over Gibraltar and Argentina over the Falklands, and any such policy would need to be implemented skilfully and with tact. The options of independence and transfer could be included under some form of alternative vote system to smooth these relations and draw a line under the sand.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is it too risky for the Falklands? What about Gibraltar? And could we feasibly do one without the other?
• Which territories should the offer be made to and how should constituencies be arranged given their populations (Anguilla 12,800; Bermuda 64,500; Virgin Islands 21,700; Cayman Islands 58,000; Falklands 3,000; Gibraltar 28,000; Montserrat 9,000; Saint Helena 6,500; Turks and Calcos Islands 26,000)?
• Should independence and/or transfer be included on the referenda?
• What about the crown dependencies of Jersey (pop 91,000), Guernsey (pop 65,000) and Mann (76,000)?

> Costs

The salary and expenses of the additional MPs, possibly with added expenses for travel to the constituencies and video links. This could be funded by reducing the number of MPs elsewhere.