CentreRight

Why was the Archbishop of Canterbury silent when Iain Duncan Smith set out an agenda for the family?

Consider this. Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith makes an impassioned speech about the social and economic importance of family stability, underlining his support for marriage (Tim covered it yesterday in the second half of this post). The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England and as such - one might hope - committed to the institution of marriage, remains silent.

Two days later, the Welfare Secretary outlines proposals to get the long-term unemployed back into work, by requiring them to participate in community projects: in other words, an opportunity to get used to regular hours and to give something back to the neighbourhood, instead of merely drawing benefits. The Archbishop does not hesitate to criticise the proposal, claiming that it would cause the unemployed to spiral deeper into despair.

Leaving aside the apparent irrationality of his criticism - surely such work schemes are about breaking that spiral?  - I'm baffled by the selective nature of the Archbishop's interventions. One might credit him with insight into the sacrament of marriage and its worth to individuals and to society; his grasp of welfare reform programmes must necessarily be more limited - so why choose to comment so freely on the latter, whilst refraining from discussion of the former?

Jill Kirby: Does the Coalition really believe in better for less?

The Coalition has to demonstrate that its purpose in government is not simply to cut public debt and rein in spending, but to govern better for less. George Osborne opened his remarks today by outlining what he described as the principles governing his spending review: public service reform, 'fairness' (defined as 'we're all in this together') and promoting economic growth.

But missing from this list was the overriding principle which might have been expected to set the basis for the whole exercise: that increasing government spending on services is not inherently virtuous. Perhaps the Chancellor felt that this would be to state the obvious, and he must be commended for sticking to (most) of his Budget plans and for reasserting his determination to deal with the deficit and get spending back down to 2008 levels. But his failure to remind his audience that more public spending does not = better outcomes (as ten years of Labour profligacy comprehensively proved) meant that there were some worrying inconsistencies in the review.

Given that the cuts are also hugely variable across departments, these inconsistencies add up to a very confusing message. Why should we commend as "good" the decision to inflate the already-massive spend on the NHS, when we see prison places being slashed through lack of funds? It's very hard to discern a principle here. And since Sure Start has been proved a colossal waste of money, failing the most vulnerable children, why continue to fund it?

Most controversially of all, if the government believes that working families should keep more of their earnings (to spend more effectively than government can) then why means-test child benefit - the only remaining recognition in the tax system of the cost of raising a family - in order to preserve free bus rides and winter fuel payments to well-off over 60s?

If you believe in the general principle that money is better spent by individuals on their own behalf and worse spent by government in their name, then you will, like me, have been rather disappointed today.

A billion quid saved, a reputation lost

One of the lines being spun by the Treasury team this week is that the child benefit press storm was not just anticipated but positively desired, clearing the way for a general culling of benefits. The more the middle class mums squeal, the easier it will be for the Coalition to justify capping Shameless multiple-benefit households. By misdescribing higher-rate taxpayers as "top rate taxpayers" (a mistake which has occurred on air too often to be accidental), grouping £45,000 a year families with millionaires and categorising them as the "broadest shoulders", the Government may temporarily succeed in convincing the public that this cut is about confiscating the pocket money of ladies-who-lunch.

But in engineering this particular row, the Treasury has chosen a uniquely bad target, and at a stroke has undermined a narrative painstakingly crafted by the Prime Minister over the last five years: that his brand of modern Conservatism is pro-family.

Being pro-family is not just about supporting marriage through a token, long-postponed £150 a year allowance. It is about much more: understanding the interdependence in a family where one parent works and the other parent cares; acknowledging that responsible parents who work hard and raise children are net contributors to the social good (as well as to the Revenue); that a mother (for it is usually she) who leaves the workplace to be with her children for a few years need some recognition (not to mention pension protection, currently tied to the receipt of Child Benefit). Being pro-family is also about understanding that Child Benefit (as Paul points out) has a long and respectable history as a tax allowance for families, not a welfare handout. Unlike the Brown crowd-pleasers of winter fuel allowance and free travel for all those baby-boom pensioners, Child Benefit is not an electoral bribe.

Yet another Daily Mail-inspired re-announcement of "recognition for marriage in the tax system" will not mend this particular broken pledge. A billion saved has been dearly bought.

What kind of dad is that?

Ed Miliband's curious failure to register as the father of his first child is surprising in all sorts of ways.

"Too busy" is just not plausible -  we know this guy is ambitious, but no-one is so preoccupied with ascending the political ladder with that he can't find time to carry out this basic token of parental commitment. Or is he?

His partner Justine Thornton took the decision to register the birth alone-  yet presumably she was quite busy too, having recently given birth?

And it certainly throws a whole new light on the statistics about sole registration - previously assumed to be the preserve of single mothers wanting no further contact with the father of the child. Certainly that was the assumption underlying the 2009 Welfare Reform Act, passed by the government in which Ed Miliband served, which aimed to end the practice of sole registration. Requiring parents to register jointly unless "impossible, impractical or unreasonable",  the intention of the 2009 law was to promote the child’s best interests by ensuring that all fathers took responsibility for their offspring.

As Miliband's colleague Ed Balls explained at the time, putting your name on your child's birth certificate is an important part of that responsibility. Most of us assumed the legislation’s purpose was to stem the rise in welfare dependent mums and deadbeat dads. But maybe it was also about reminding career-obsessed left-wing politicians that there are some things in life for which "too busy" is not an acceptable excuse?

The Revenue’s power grab: what’s yours is mine first

Just as taxpayers finally lose confidence in the ability of the Revenue to calculate PAYE correctly, HMRC offers to take the matter out of our hands and present us with a fait accompli. The power grab implicit in the latest HMRC proposals – currently under consultation - to receive all salaries direct from employers, process all deductions and then hand to us what remains, should worry anyone who values freedom.

On Wednesday HMRC Chief Executive Dame Lesley Strathey told the Treasury Select Committee that the Revenue was backing down on its threat to charge taxpayers interest on repayments of tax underpaid through Revenue error. But there is no sign yet that “Centralised Deductions” will be strangled at birth.

Presented as a way of reducing administrative burdens on employers, this proposed system would put much greater power in the hands of HMRC. According to the consultation paper Improving the operation of Pay As You Earn (PAYE) (see customs.hmrc.gov.uk):

“The employer would send the gross payment through the electronic payment system to a central calculator where the deductions calculated by HMRC would be made automatically. The resulting net payment would then be sent to the individual’s bank account and the deductions would be paid directly to the Government.”

The consultation paper acknowledges that this could also increase what is described - with delicious irony - as “avoidable contact” with HMRC officials. In other words, endless frustrating telephone calls to your tax office trying to find out if you really have paid the right amount of tax or if the deductions are based on pure guesswork (or on someone else’s records).

The consultation, which opened at the end of July and closes on 23rd September 2010, invites “all groups of people who might be affected” to discuss the practicalities and issues involved. But there is a strong hint that the proposals will not be lightly abandoned; HMRC is “interested in hearing proposals that could deliver a similar or better outcome through different means.” In other words, if you don’t like it, come up with something better.

The acceptance by citizens – albeit reluctantly - of the concept of direct taxation might be said to rest on an unspoken understanding between tax collector and taxpayer that tax will be levied fairly and accurately. We surrender a part of our earnings to the State in order to share in a social good. But when an agent of the State takes the goodwill of its citizens for granted, especially when its own fairness and accuracy are in question, institutional arrogance threatens to undermine the social compact. This is no time for  a taxpayers’ revolt – so let us hope the Treasury will change tack and halt the Revenue’s power grab.

Has the Electoral Commission has already made up its mind to ditch our voting system?

A national referendum on AV next May (on the same date as Scottish and Welsh and some but not all local elections) is "deliverable" according to Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission on the Today programme this morning. Wilfully missing the point of John Humphreys' questions, Ms Watson took refuge in the kind of Nu-Lab speak which still pervades most of the quangos the Coalition has not yet had time to abolish. Yes, Ms Watson, many things are "deliverable" but the Commission has to consider whether such a crucially important referendum will be distorted by the uneven turnout which is inevitable in elections which are not consistent across the country. Humphreys pointed out that back in 2002 the Commission ruled that issues of national importance should be considered separately from other elections; Ms Watson said that "evidence" had since persuaded the Commission to change its mind. Curiously, Ms Watson also said that one of the reason the present electoral system is "at breaking point" is because "lots of things happen on the same day."

So much of the content of this interview betrayed Ms Watson's antipathy to the present voting system that it is hard to see how the Commission's participation in the preparation of the AV referendum can be regarded as impartial. Reflecting on the "trust-based" nature of our present system, she regretted that it was "designed for a previous era" - an echo of her dismaying TV reaction on election night when she blamed a "Victorian system" for the difficulties experienced at some polling stations, rather than apologising for any shortcomings on the part of the Commission. The Electoral Commission will play a hugely important role in overseeing the AV referendum. Ms Watson's performance this morning does not inspire confidence in that process.

No-frills Budget - the return of the Red Book

Can you judge a book by its cover? The design of today's Budget text (online and hard copy) tells us something important (and welcome) about the new Government. Labour had long abandoned the plain red covers that traditionally wrapped the budget statement, in favour of a glossy brochure advertising its achievements; in 2009 it was shamelessly entitled Building Britain's Future. Today we see a welcome return to tradition. Plain red, no hype, it's called Budget 2010. With a minimum of fanfare, the text carries clear, descriptive headings and sub headings. No pictures. Great.

OK, so there's still a message the Government wants us to receive: austerity, honesty, no more waste. But it's a good message and if this new style permeates every department, every government announcement and consultation, so much the better. Every enthusiast for smaller government should be pleased about this.

Keep hold of the map, George

Reading today's programme for coalition government feels like long walk through some very mixed terrain - in typically British weather. One moment the turf is springy underfoot, the sky is clear and you have real momentum. The brisk language, short sentences and firm commitments in the section on civil liberties gladden the heart, after so many years of Big Brother Labour. For localists and quango-haters there's some nice fresh air: more local decision-making, an end to Standards Boards, "regionalisation" and Comprehensive Area Assessments. Then a few clouds of uncertainty - will Local Enterprise Partnerships just be RDAs under a new name? A few spots of rain turn to a heavy shower as you hit the section on Equalities. It's back to Harriet Harperson country: gender equality on boards of listed companies, gender balance in the "early years workforce"; schemes for "Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic" business start-ups - how patronising and tokenistic is that?

The skies clear again when you get to education: plenty of firm commitments for school freedom - but then the path seems to narrow on faith schools, required to be more 'inclusive' in their admissions. Welfare reform seems promising at first but then gets a bit overgrown:

"We will investigate how to simplify the benefits system in order to improve incentives to work." Plenty of long grass there, in an area where urgent action is needed.

As to the tax section - over which much Conservative ink has been spilt in the press this week - well, it's very short on detail. It gives George Osborne room to choose the path to growth: lower corporation tax, increasing personal allowances to incentivise the low-paid, tax breaks for entrepreneurs. But if he doesn't keep a grip, there's enough small print for some of his colleagues to steer Britain into the muddy ground of redistribution, where growth is stagnant and opportunity gets trampled underfoot.

Ultimately, will coalition life be an interesting walk or just a dispiriting ramble ?  If George - and Michael, and Iain - keep a very firm hold of the map, then we might just about get there. But if I were you, I'd take a very stout pair of boots, plenty of rations - and a tent. Because you might not get home before nightfall.

A great day for think-tanks

As the fuzzy outlines of the new Libservative government gradually come into focus and a new, very different political landscape emerges, this feels like a great day for think-tanks - especially those who stand for freedom and opportunity. Party politics has had a huge shake up. Many Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicans will be out of their comfort zone; party allegiance is no longer taken for granted and old loyalties - and antipathies - must be stifled. The future is precarious and within each party the need for stability will force dissidents to suppress their unease.

But for those of us who trade in policy and ideas, free of political preferment, this new landscape creates huge opportunities. Each and every policy idea can be examined on its merits, not according to its party political provenance. Shrinking the State, closing down quangos and databases, taking the poor out of tax, freeing up schools,localising decision-making - these are great policies which the Centre for Policy Studies, among others, has long advocated and will be delighted to see implemented. We shall also be making the case for more freedom and diversity in energy supplies and strongly pro-growth policies for business and enterprise. Some of these policies will be more controversial in a coalition era, but the driving force behind them will be to pull Britian out of recession and make us a free and prosperous nation once again.

Policies which are 'liberal' in its classical sense are those which limit the power of the State. Every think tank on the centre right can therefore have reason to be confident of its purpose, its donor base, its supporters and - most of all - a ready audience for its ideas. In the world of ideas, everything is possible.

No one will trust politicians after this

Last week's election was the voters' opportunity to pass judgment on a politcal class badly damaged by expenses-gate, and there were many constituencies where an an individual MP's expenses record clealry affected the outcome. But the election also provided Westminster with the opportunity for a fresh start.

Depressingly, the last few days have done little to inspire confidence in politics and yesterday's events provided a new low. Whatever kind of deal is stitched together today (or tomorrow, or this week), it is hard to see how any of the parties involved can rebuild public trust - or inspire confidence in their ability to restore Britain's battered economy.

The 'phantom' Labour government remains in denial, ignoring the electorate's decision and the advice of its more principled old hands, refusing to relinquish the perks of office whilst neglecting to run the country - all the while clothing itself in pieties about the 'Consitution' which it has shown itself so ready to rewrite. The Conservatives, who might have been expected to defend the constitution and at least to hold true to the modest electoral changes pleged in their own manifesto, are apparently so desperate for power that they will found themselves in a Dutch auction of electoral reform, continuing to negotiate with a party despite finding that it has been two-timing them all along. And the Liberal Democrats deserve only contempt - whether they are entirely duplicitous or merely ill-disciplined matters little, they are clearly unsuited for government. If either of the main parties makes an accommodation with them now, it cannot be built on trust and is unlikely to last much beyond teatime - let alone through the stormy economic waters ahead.

I do not see how anything palatable can be retrieved from this. Maybe the best hope is that the whole fragile edifice collapses sooner rather than later and we have another election. May the least-worst party win.

How do you feel about privacy now, Gordon?

Through an unprecedented expansion of surveillance and data collection, this Labour government has relentlessly invaded the privacy of the British people over the last thirteen years. Their rationale: if you've nothing to hide,you've nothing to fear.

What a splendid irony that the remarks Gordon Brown thought he was making in private have now sealed his fate.

Don't go back to 2005, Dave

David Cameron's good tempered conversation with Evan Davis on the Today programme was in welcome contrast to Gordon Brown's defensive and irritable performance yesterday, and Davis made little headway in his attempt to wrongfoot Cameron on Tory plans to 'pay' for their NI proposals.

But Cameron's admission that the Tories made the same arguments about tax and spend in the 2005 election risks trapping them in a boring, static and ultimately unwinnable debate based on Government numbers: x billion tax cuts 'paid for' by y billion spending cuts. Instead,  Tories needs to capitalise on the initiative seized by George Osborne when announcing their NI plans, and press home the argument for a dynamic approach to the economy. Even Alistair Darling has admitted that Brown's NI rise will put jobs at risk; independent forecasts suggest 57,000 jobs could go as employers retrench. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue and more welfare expenditure; by contrast a healthy economy means more jobs, more revenue and less welfare to pay out.

By choosing NI as the tax to hike, Brown handed the Conservatives the perfect weapon for deploying a positive, growth-based argument against Brown's negative, destructive approach. So let's hear it for growth, dynamism - and tax cuts. As Margaret Thatcher would say, stop arguing about how you cut up the cake -  and bake a bigger cake!

Banking on confusion

What do we want of our banks? In particular, what do we want of those banks in receipt of taxpayer funding? Should they be making a profit? Yes of course, so that they can be sold off and the tax payer reimbursed as soon as possible. Will the threat of punitive taxation make them more or less likely to be profitable? err, can we get back to you on that one... What about Alistair Darling's leaked Budget proposal to force banks to provide accounts for the homeless and 'financially excluded'?  Socially just perhaps - but good for the balance sheet? Weren't there some state-owned US mortgage lenders just a year or so ago who were instructed to be more financially inclusive...? And today we learn that the Government is so unhappy with the banks' failure to make enough loans to business that it has set higher targets - notwithstanding reports of low demand for lending due to lack of business confidence.

I guess the banks could achieve their new targets by lending to higher risk customers on lower security and easier terms... if the loans go bad, well they can always repackage them and sell them on.... hang on a minute....haven't we been here before?

Freedom cannot be imposed by the State

Jonathan Sacks' defence of religious freedom in today's Times provides a neat definition of personal freedom, I urge you to read it. The Chief Rabbi compares the English and French version of human rights - but subsitute 'Labour' for 'French' and 'Conservative' for 'English' in the following extract, and you will have a pretty neat encapsulation of why the Blair/Brown government has got 'freedom' all wrong:

"The English version saw rights as defining the space in which governments may not intervene. In the social contract, we hand over some of our liberties to government for the sake of law and order and defence against foreign powers. But there are certain rights — such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that are inalienable, meaning that we do not and cannot sign them away. They define an area of freedom by setting limits to the power of the State.

The French approach was to see rights as an ideal description of humanity that it is the task of politics to enforce. Politics is about the transformation of society by the force of law. English liberty sets limits to the State. French liberty is imposed by the State. That is the difference."

A time limit for 50p tax?

City lawyers tell me of the new stream of work for London law firms, working with their Swiss counterparts and the major Swiss banks, to provide relocation advice to high net worth clients currently resident in the UK but planning their move to Switzerland. Packages have been designed not just for individual clients but for hedge funds moving their top teams. Nice work – in the short term – for the lawyers  and good news for the Swiss economy – not such good news for Darling’s plans to use increased tax revenue to cut the deficit.

Now that Lord Mandelson has admitted that the 50p tax rate could have adverse consequences and should be abolished as soon as the economy permits, how about a pledge to reverse the increase after, say, 12 months? By presenting the tax hike as a one-off windfall measure, the Government could save face, skim off some revenue and reassure the City that it does – after all - understand that high tax deters enterprise and lowers revenue over the long term. Just as the Centre for Policy Studies pointed out last summer in What's wrong with 50p?.

Breakfast on Planet Mandy

We already know that Lord Mandelson is the self-styled hero of his own personal drama, living in a world created and fashioned by his vivid imagination, and affording spectators much amusement. It's important, however, to be aware that Mandy is chiefly a work of art, not reality. Reading Rachel Sylvester's column yesterday, I began to wonder if the distinction is becoming blurred, since Rachel seems to have joined His Lordship in his own work of fiction. Was there ever a more improbable scene than this reported exchange (alluding, presumably, to breakfast at Waddesdon, chez Rothschild)? I quote:

'Lord Mandelson seems determined not to be blamed for switching off what one friend calls “Gordon’s life support machine”. But there is no doubt that he has become increasingly disillusioned with Mr Brown. At breakfast in a stately home a couple of months ago a small child asked him why he continued to back the Prime Minister. “That’s the only toy I have to play with,” he replied archly.'

Try imagining the "small child" asking such a question and then ask yourself - is this life - or art?

Just tell us the truth Alistair

As the details of today's Pre-Budget report emerge, amid the leaks and pre-briefings, one thing is already clear: Alistair Darling will be more concerned with scoring political points than telling us the truth about the dire state of public finances. With less than 6 months to go before a general election, this is not surprising. But as John Kay points out in a thoughtful FT column today, this Government has a long record of turning Treasury forecasts into political constructs. Instead of "objective, technical affairs" which used to provide important, if complex, information, background papers to Budget statements are now "written in the style of the corporate PR executive." I have blogged here before about the importance of truth-telling to restore trust in politics and, in my CPS report The Reality Gap, identified the technique which Kay describes - Labour's relentless manipulation of data to present the best case scenario. A too-credulous, or plain lazy, media (most notably the BBC) too often presents government material as fact. The result? Opposition parties need to work harder than ever to extract the truth, and should at all costs avoid conducting the argument on the Government's terms. This afternoon, the Conservatives need to be ready to pull apart the Chancellor's claims and make the case for an entirely different approach to handling - and communicating - the state of our public finances. And if anyone thinks that taxing bankers' bonuses will get the British economy growing again, let's hear some economic forecasts to support that contention.

Under Labour, poverty has grown

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has just published its 2009 report on poverty and social exclusion and it’s a bleak indictment of the Labour years. Whilst you would expect jobs and incomes to shrink  in a recession, the most shocking fact highlighted in this report is that unemployment (especially youth unemployment) and child poverty were rising well before the onset of the downturn. A few key facts:

• The unemployment rate among 16- to 24-year-olds is now higher than at any point since the series began in 1993.
• Unemployment has been rising since 2005, and the young adult unemployment rate stopped falling as long ago as 2001.
• The number of children in low-income households where at least one adult works is, at 2.1m, the highest it has ever been.

So in all those years of plenty, when Labour claimed it was closing the gap between rich and poor, as well as pouring money into public services, the underlying rate of poverty and its causes were actually growing. The Foundation says that the report is not all bad news, citing a recent decrease in the number of children attaining fewer than 5 GCSEs. Leaving aside the question of whether this is simply due to easier exams, it’s clear that this increased ‘attainment’ is not resulting in greater employability – so the reported 65% increase in education funding since Labour came to power cannot be judged a good investment, by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone still believe the Government’s pledge – now enshrined in law – to “end child poverty”? Does Gordon Brown think that a record number of NEETs represents a good outcome for twelve years of Labour rule?

The power of positive thinking

Does belief in smaller government make you a heavy breather? It's no surprise that Dave Aaronovitch wants to characterise those who favour less state intervention as slash-and-burn, salivating rightwingers. In much the same spirit over at the FT Philip Stevens frets that David Cameron mustn't show too much zeal for downsizing the state, and the Indy's Steve Richards laments the end of Tory 'pragmatism.'

But what about the positive arguments to be made for reducing the size of the state? Do we all have to sound like bloodthirsty axe wielders? David Cameron must surely hope not - and there are plenty of reasons for him to be optimistic about winning over the public to a new way of governing, that doesn't rely on state action at every point in our lives. Aaronovitch may favour of the Government's latest 'database state' initiative - the Independent Safeguarding Authority - yet public reaction to it has been so negative that even Ed Balls is wondering how to back off. Big government has lost its shine, so let's hear it for the alternative.

As Reagan (always a positive thinker) put it "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." So why be nervous of cutting it down to size?

Localism - or postcode lottery?

One of the most able and articulate members of the Shadow Cabinet, Grant Shapps has been an enthusiastic proponent of localism. His radical proposals for housing policies, giving local people the final say on how and where new houses should be built, provide a practical example of how power can and should be transferred out of Whitehall and into local communities. But today Grant finds himself arguing passionately against localism, dismayed by the results of his own research showing how different NHS trusts are making different decisions about eligibility for IVF. As a spokesman for one PCT puts it "We commission services within allocated funds based on priorities set to meet the needs of our local population." In other words, localism in action.

As every politician knows, attaching the words "postcode lottery" to a news story will garner far more media coverage than "victory for local decision making." Has Grant just illustrated the limitations of Tory localism?

Help the dying - or build a Next Stage Review?

A news item in today's Times provides a textbook example of the reasons why this Government has failed us so badly. A year ago Health Secretary Alan Johnson announced £286m extra health spending for palliative care (to honour a manifesto commitment).But nearly all the local health trusts surveyed recently by Help the Hospices said they not seen the money and that it had been lost in the system. If you want to know what happened to it, take a look at the Department of Health's first annual report on the 'End of life care strategy'' (62 full colour pages) which asserts that the initiative is off to a great start: it is establishing a National Implementation Advisory Board and a National Coalition to raise public awareness, has published a set of Quality Markers and core competencies, built monitoring into Operation Finance Guidance, tendered for a pilot of a national survey and begun the process to set up an Intelligence Network. It has also published no less than four separate strategic frameworks for SHAs, who have, the report claims, spent the first year "establishing the infrastructure which will support activity in the context of the Next Stage Review."

Does that sound to you like a good way to spend taxpayers' money? If the Government had given £286m - or even a quarter of that money - direct to the hospice movement, wouldn't that have been a better way to improve the lives of the terminally ill? As I pointed in a report last week for the Centre for Policy Studies, the "reality gap" between government rhetoric and real life in Britain today is dangerously wide, and nowhere more so than in our public services. Indeed, as this latest example shows, it's a matter of life and death.

Truth v lies: the stakes are high

Today George Osborne sets out the Conservatives' claim to be the party of truth in the great public spending battle, laying down the dividing line for the general election. Honesty looks set to be the dominant theme in all political discourse from now on. It's a theme I exploited to the full on Any Questions? last Friday, because it seemed to me the thread which linked the biggest issues raised. And Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun today challenges the Tories to nail the 'Big Lie' that the Government has become. If the Conservatives can get on top in the battle of truth and lies, they will stand to gain not only a big majority but also a mandate to govern. It's not going to be easy: politicians of all parties (with a few brave exceptions) have lost the habit of providing direct answers to direct questions. If David Cameron and his team can break the trend, and surprise the public with a different style of politics, they really will 'be the change' the country needs.

Just how much is Mandy enjoying this?

There's a neighbourhood cat that comes to hunt his prey in our garden and the other day from my window I saw him toying with a fieldmouse. The mouse, part-chewed, was trying to get away; the cat would allow it to run a short distance before picking it up again, roughing it up and then putting it down again, allowing it to run a little further. Unhurried, the cat had an air of composure betokening absolute control over his victim. If cats could smile, the resemblance to Lord Mandelson would have been complete.

No more cuddly capitalism

If, like me,you didn't have the appetite to read about Julie's home life in today's Times, you might have turned to Carl Mortished's explanation of why it's all over for corporate social responsibility - as well as profligate government spending. In the age of austerity, he argues, newly-assertive shareholders demand a return on their investment and don't want their businesses spending money on environmental and diversity initiatives. The new imperative is to stay slim and efficient. It sounds tough, but it's a change in culture that might be welcomed by Britain's engines of growth: the small businesses and new start-ups who don't have the resources to pay for these kind of extras. A point picked up by that scourge of CSR, Irwin Stelzer in today's FT, who detects a shift in US policy away from protecting the big corporations and towards tougher anti-trust enforcement. As Stelzer has long argued, big business can live with heavy regulatory burdens, but if we want innovators to succeed, we have to give them a break or two. And surely the same goes for our public services - if we want to encourage innovative schools and healthcare providers then we mustn't saddle them with pointless bureaucracy and box-ticking. Lean doesn't have to be mean - in business or in government.

Respect!

As Michael Martin concedes that the game is up, attention shifts to the list of his potential successors. One thing is clear: the personal qualities of the new Speaker, especially his or her attitude to expenses (the new proxy for decency and integrity) will override all party political considerations.

 Rachel Sylvester in today's Times believes that the balance of power has shifted away from organisations and towards individuals, because we've lost faith in institutions and will no longer defer to elites.Certainly Michael Martin has discovered to his cost that he cannot rely on the protection afforded by deference to his office. But Sylvester omits an important point: that the reason why we are reluctant to accept the authority of institutions is because the holders of office have abused their position. This is not about institutional failure, but personal failure. Institutions which still command popular respect do so because of the personal qualities of those who represent them, the Queen being a conspicuous example.

Rebuilding public trust in politicians will be dependent on their personal conduct. But the ultimate objective of those politicians must be to gain respect for Parliament, rather than the pursuit of individual success. The health – indeed, the survival - of a free society depends on the strength of its institutions. Yes, the new Speaker should have a clean expenses record. But he (or she) must first and foremost believe in the institutional significance of the office of Speaker and the sovereignty of parliament.