Tory members vote for the most impressive and most disappointing Coalition policies

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

More than 1,500 Tory members were asked to rate Coalition policies as impressive or disappointing. the numbers below capture the result of those voting impressive minus those voting disappointed:

1. Making work pay for the unemployed: 81.8% - 5.8% = 76.0%
2. Abolition of ID cards: 81.9% - 9.0% = 72.9%
3. Elimination of the deficit by the end of the parliament: 77.4% - 9.1% = 68.3%
4. Freeze in council tax: 74.8% - 7.4% = 67.4%
5. More school academies and free schools: 73.0% - 9.1% = 63.9%
6. Lower corporation tax: 71.0% - 9.2% = 61.8%
7. Higher income tax thresholds: 68.2% - 12.8% = 55.4%
8. Higher basic state pension for all: 64.7% - 11% = 53.7%
9. All overseas aid to be transparent: 61.3% - 16% = 45.3%
10. More freedoms for local councils: 58.5% - 13.8% = 44.7%
11. Reducing immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands: 62.2% - 23.4% = 38.8%
12. Cancer drugs fund: 50.1% - 13.9% = 36.2%
13. Encouragement of charitable giving: 44.0% - 22.2% = 21.8%
14. Reform of tuition fees: 41.3% - 26.6% = 14.7%
15. Four million extra third world children to be vaccinated: 40.8% - 30.7% = 10.1%
16. NHS reforms: 38.5% - 31.2% = 7.3%
17. Elected police chiefs: 38.9% - 34.5% = 4.4%
18. Protecting NHS funding: 36.3% - 34.3% = 2.3%
19. High speed rail: 29.8% - 45.6% = -15.8%
20. Operations in Libya: 27.5% - 46.6% = -19.1%
21. The Green Deal to encourage energy conservation: 15.4% - 57.3% = -41.9%
22. Green investment Bank: 12.5% - 61.2% = -48.7%
23. Increasing the overseas aid budget: 15.0% - 70.7% = -55.7%

Continue reading "Tory members vote for the most impressive and most disappointing Coalition policies" »

House of Lords defeat for elected Police commissioners shows the Liberal Democrats are becoming the Coalition's anti-reform faction

Matthew Barrett

The Coalition government has been defeated in the House of Lords over the policy of introducing directly elected Police commissioners. A Liberal Democrat amendment won by 188 votes to 176. Labour and Lib Dem peers joined to block the reforms - and potentially opened up a long fight to pass legislation on the issue. The Police Reform Bill now goes back to the House of Commons. 

The Coalition Agreement specifies the introduction of "measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual". On Sunday, Sky reported:

A Lib Dem party source told Sky News the relationship between the two parties would become more businesslike, with them determined the Government stick to the coalition agreement.

So, are Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition failing to uphold their new emphasis on sticking to the Coalition Agreement? 

There is also a general pattern emerging: Liberal Democrat opposition has brought progress on the NHS reforms to a standstill, watered down any potential radicalism in the public sector reform White Paper, and now stopped elected Police commisioners, the cornerstone of reformist Conservative policy. The Liberal Democrats are becoming the anti-reform faction of the Coalition. 

Localism: what should happen next - including real local policing

by Paul Goodman

On Tuesday, I examined localism in principle, probing tensions between localism and growth, and between localism and other good outcomes (such as integration and cohesion).

Yesterday, I looked at it in practice, examining the Government's aims, and making five predictions.

Today, I want finally to look at what the Government should do next - in other words, look at the interplay between localist aspirations and political reality.  How important is localism to the election of a Conservative Government next time round?

To answer the question, it's important -

First, to try to work out what the main issues at the next election will be.  I suspect much as follows -

• The economy.

• The public services - and, in particular, schools and hospitals.

• Law and order.

These, along with immigration control, are the staple concerns of voters during recent elections, and there's no reason why this should change, short of the eruption of war or terrorism.  Localism will help to deliver on the issues.  As I hope I've made clear to date, I believe that although there are short-term tensions between localism and growth, it's a big long-term role to play in improving public services.

Second, it's important to grasp that elections are about character as much as issues.  Localism will help to show character - to illustrate what's important to David Cameron, what gets him going, what makes the Government tick.  The Big Society, the post-bureaucratic age, localism, social justice: all these are integral parts of his Burkean pitch, which is why part of the reason why he shouldn't drop them.

Continue reading "Localism: what should happen next - including real local policing" »

An audit of localism - and five forecasts about what will happen next

by Paul Goodman

I wrote yesterday about the limits of localism (to which Matthew Sinclair wrote a well-argued response).  I ended my piece by promising to examine today how localist the Government's being - and thus try to answer some of the questions I raised.

Let's start by looking at the Coalition Agreement, which declares in its introduction that -

"We have...a determination to oversee a radical redistribution of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation.  Wherever possible, we want people to call the shots over the decisions that affect their lives."

Continue reading "An audit of localism - and five forecasts about what will happen next" »

The limits of localism

by Paul Goodman

David Cameron's vision of public services reform, set out yesterday, isn't just about localism - in the sense of local people taking more control over the lives they live, the services they use, and the communities they inhabit.

His Big Society ideal also involves private companies and other providers bidding for and winning contracts, thereby helping to repair "the breakdown in our society".  But let's stick with the localist theme, and imagine a British localist political settlement.  Its main features would be roughly as follows -

• Local authorities would take control of housing, planning, social security, urban policy, and sustainable communities.
• Local authorities would be free to levy new taxes.
• Ring-fenced grants would be abolished.
• NHS targets would be abolished.
• Schools would be freed from central government and local authority control, while new providers would be able to set up free schools.
• Local sherrifs would be responsible for policing and have oversight of criminal proceedings.
• Community groups, voluntary organisations, clubs, charities, faith groups - in other words, civil society - would supply more public services (as of course would private companies).

Continue reading "The limits of localism" »

Coalition launches its 'Power to the People' Bill

Tim Montgomerie

Graphic from BBC1's Politics Show

We don't cover localism and local government very often on ToryDiary. We leave that to Harry Phibbs on the dedicated Local government blog but we'll make an exception today. Harry will continue to examine some of the detail in coming days.

Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark has been working on the Localism Bill for much longer than since he was appointed in May. I worked alongside Greg in CCHQ in the early part of this decade. He was then head of the party's policy unit and produced a long paper called 'Total Politics'. It was an account of how too much of national life had become both politicised and centralised. Today's Bill marks a culmination of Greg's work and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles explains its ambition in an article for today's Telegraph:

"The Localism Bill is a centrepiece of what this Government is trying to do. For too long, everything has been controlled from the centre – and look where it’s got us. Uneven and unstable economic growth, frustrated public servants stuck following the rulebook to the letter and residents and community groups left without a reason to get involved. By pushing power out and letting councils and communities run their own affairs, we can restore civic pride and democratic accountability – and build a stronger, fairer Britain. It’s the end of the era of big government: laying the foundations for the Big Society."

The FT (£) sees today as a continuation of Mr Pickles' 'Bradford agenda' from twenty years ago when his controversial stewardship of that city became a symbol of the Thatcher revolution:

"Monday’s localism bill is a continuation of a crusade Mr Pickles set out on more than 20 years ago as a rising Tory star at Bradford council. Taking control of it in 1988, the then 36-year-old forced through radical cost-cutting measures as he sought to inject a little more private sector attitude into public life."

Continue reading "Coalition launches its 'Power to the People' Bill" »

Gove considering voucherisation of education funding, with headteachers running school budgets

By Tim Montgomerie

A massive story on the front of the FT(£) today. Alex Barker and Chris Cook report that Education Secretary Michael Gove is considering the introduction of direct funding of schools. If the reform went ahead there would be at least three big and very positive impacts:

• Schools will no longer get money at the discretion of local authorities but in proportion to the number of pupils they attract and retain. This will allow good schools to grow more easily and under-performing schools to learn that it will be improve-or-die. This is essentially voucherisation of schools funding.
• Headteachers will receive money directly. They will decide how to use their budgets, choosing whether to invest more in buildings, teachers and a hundred other judgments.
• Money would flow directly to the new free schools that Michael Gove hopes that voluntary groups, faith communities and businesses will establish. 25 are already in the pipeline after a slow start.

The big losers would be local authorities. Although they would retain some role in providing services to schools they would lose a great deal of power if this localisation-to-the-frontline were to go ahead. Although Orange Book Liberal Democrats would probably welcome the proposal there would be resistance from the powerful local government wing of our Coalition partners (and, indeed, from Tory local councillors).

The reform would have to be phased in as many schools currently receive much more money per pupil than others. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that more than 60% of secondary schools and 40% of primary schools would lose out from a per pupil direct allowance.

As the FT notes, this is a bolder reformer than anything considered by Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair. It is potentially transformational - empowering parents, forcing schools to offer better services and retrain or sack under-performing teachers. Go for it, Mr Gove.

***

The graphic below (from the FT(£)) summarises the change.

10.45am: On his blog Douglas Carswell sounds a note of warning: "It puts in place the architecture of even greater central state control.  Can you imagine ministers starting to attach various conditions in return for the funding schools get?  We might like the bit about "proper history", but what about the things lefty ministers will demand?"

Five problems with the Big Society

By Paul Goodman

One regular media conference season stunt is for journalists to note, time and measure which bits of the leaders' speeches their activists clap and cheer.  It wasn't hard for them to spot earlier this week that David Cameron's passages on the Big Society - the main theme of his speech - won less applause than, say, his attacks on Labour.

The Prime Minister's clearly sensitive to this, and to the reporting that's followed.  He's written a piece about the Big Society in this morning's Sun which is noticably defensive in tone: the headline reads "Yes, my Big Society plan is ambitious, but I make no apology for that."  The article repeats one of Cameron's main messages - that the idea's about "giving millions of people more control over their lives".

So why aren't activists and MPs cheering the Big Society from the rafters?  (Jo Johnson, Boris's MP brother, described it last week as "a kernel of a good idea trying to get out and no one can argue with the broad thrust of it, but up until now it's been a bit intangible and incomprehensible, making it an odd and unpersuasive theme to some people.")  Are we just a cranky and obdurate lot?  After all, most Conservatives lap up all that stuff about the little platoons, civil society, the voluntary sector, non-professionals helping to run state services, and so on.

Futhermore, quite a lot of us are the voluntary sector, so to speak.  Many of the Wycombe Association members and supporters when I was the local MP were volunteers, helping to run the local Red Cross or raise money for the Iain Rennie Hospice.  The situation won't have changed in the six months or so since I left.  So why weren't some of us more enthused by the Big Society bit of the Prime Minister's speech?

I think that there are five main reasons -

• The main problem facing Britain is the state of the economy - and the Big Society idea seems distant from it.  The country faces its biggest spending scaleback in modern times.  The speech was a chance to level with voters about why it's necessary - and make them an offer about better times to come after it's over.  It didn't grasp the opportunity.

• To some, it's a bit paternalistic.  I don't agree with this view, but I know people who do - who think that the Big Society conjures up an image of comfortable types in rural settings helping to run the village fete, and risks sketching a caricature of the Cameron leadership as a bunch of out-of-touch toffs.

• To some, it risks irritating voters.  "So you're cutting my services, raising my taxes - and now you want me to run the local school.  Get lost - that's the Government's job."  This is the response that some Tories I know fear the electorate will give to the Big Society concept.  I think the problem's managable, but I see the point.

• It's a bit vague.  I suspect that this is intrinsic to the Big Society concept.  Lots of good and often little things happening locally are hard for voters to grasp, and for government to package in a big way - unlike, say, selling council houses to their tenants or shares to individuals.  Those policies gave people concrete, personal gains - and government clear, hard numbers of winners.  The Big Society isn't a retail offer.

• It's not clear what the Government's plan is for helping to make the Big Society happen.  I think this is the biggest difficulty.  Activists would wear the Big Society more easily if they could see how the Coalition's going to help deliver it.  They want to know answers to such questions as: which Department's in charge?  How many are involved?  What's their collective plan?  Will there be a Big Society bill and, if so, why?  How much will it cost?  How much will it save?  How will progress be measured?  How will it be presented and sold to voters?

None of these problems are insuperable.  I repeat: the Big Society's a great idea.  But I'm not convinced it should have been the final focus of the Party's Conference week.

The age of centralisation is over, declares Cameron

By Tim Montgomerie

In an article for this morning's Observer, the Prime Minister states that "the age of centralisation stops here." He offers three key reasons why centralisation needs to be reversed:

1. "There's the efficiency argument – that in huge hierarchies, money gets spent on bureaucracy instead of the frontline."
2. "There is the fairness argument – that centralised national blueprints don't allow for local solutions to major social problems."
3. "And there is the political argument – that centralisation creates a great distance in our democracy between the government and the governed."

Mr Cameron then lists key components of the Coalition's decentralisation agenda:

• "More power to neighbourhoods. Neighbours will be able to shape the look and feel of local housing developments, take over the running of local parks and post offices, and generate their own energy."
• "We will give more power to local government [by] ending excessive ring-fencing of local budgets and giving councils new powers to set up banks and own assets... In terms of revenue, we are allowing councils to keep money when they attract business to their area or build new homes."
• "In welfare, drug rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending, we are opening up the system to new providers, letting them get on with the job and paying them by the results they achieve. No interference from on high – just real power for professionals."
• "For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture – and it's called transparency... From next month we will be launching our new Transparency Framework online to replace the previous system of top-down targets and control. It will contain an unprecedented amount of information about what each department is doing – the reforms they plan and the impact they're making."

***

PS I'm very glad to see the PM name check Douglas Carswell MP in the article. Carswell and Dan Hannan deserve enormous credit for their Direct Democracy agenda. It put devolving power on the map and is an agenda that Liberal Democrats instinctively share.

How blue is the Coalition? Part Five: the Environment and Local Government

By Paul Goodman

This is the final post in a five-part series looking the Government's record and prospects.  In doing so, I'll examine its work under the same headings that Conservative backbench committees follow.  It goes almost without saying that my view on what a Tory view or policy is won't be everyone's.

Environment and Communities

There's a clear Conservative consensus on localism and transparency - that much more of both is needed after years of Labour's centralisation.  And although there's disagreement about man-made global warming - both over whether it's happening at all, and what should be done if it is - Tory views tend to converge on the need for more energy security.  Chris Huhne's executing a slow U-turn over nuclear power at the Environment Department, though it's very doubtful whether the Coalition's responding decisively enough to our energy security needs.

On localism and transparency, there's much better news.  Eric Pickles has made a terrific start at the Communities Department, beginning a big bonfire of Labour's Professor Branestawm apparatus of central control.  Some of the best parts of the Coalition's transparency and accountability programme are local, such as the local referendum and recall ballot provisions (though there are questionmarks over the way the latter will work).  On housing and planning, the Government's making a cautious start at restoring the link between local taxation and revenue.

This backbench committee bundles a lot of issues together, and Pickles' performance drags the average up.

Conservative credentials: 7/10.

Thatcher was the first British politician to sign up to the global warming consensus.  She also hurried up the centralisation drive which has been been taking place for many years, and which gathered further speed under Labour.  Major continued both policy approaches To date, the Coalition looks, on the whole, more authentically blue than either - and certainly more radically innovative on transparency.