Across the opinion pages: the Master, technical schools, open spaces and prisoners

Nik Darlington 2.15pm

The Times (£) has a brilliant range of comment pieces published today, worth venturing behind the paywall to read. Opinion genuinely is one of the newspaper’s USPs, along with its beautiful and accessible multi-platform digital interface.

Tuesdays typically mean Rachel Sylvester’s unmissable column, and today she plays on a favourite theme, ‘the Master’. Often enough she has commented how Conservative party modernisers afford Tony Blair deified status, his autobiography a fixture of Tory bedside tables and playbook for the contemporary political scene. This week, however, it’s all about how everyone’s wrongly reading the Blairite tea leaves, including Ed Miliband.

The truth is that Mr Blair was authentically of the centre in a way that neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband is. He was an entryist who had taken control of his party, whereas the current Tory and Labour leaders are both, in background and beliefs, far more of their tribes. The success of new Labour was based on turning this reality into a political strategy that was pursued with ruthless efficiency and consistency. Everything that Mr Blair did and said - to begin with at least - was dedicated to demonstrating that he was more at home on the middle ground than in the Labour comfort zone…

Mr Blair took office promising new Labour would be the “servants of the people”. He lost power when the perception took hold that he wanted to be a Master of the Universe and his MPs turned on him. Neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband have yet shown whether they are the servants of the people or their parties.

Rough reading for both leaders, who feel the weight of the former prime minister on their shoulders in more ways than one. And a reminder, yesterday, of Mr Blair’s uncommon talents.

Meanwhile, Lord Baker, an honorary life member of the TRG, writes about “a new wave of university technical colleges”. The Government is nearly doubling the number of these colleges, which supported by universities provide technical training to pupils between 14 and 19-years-old. Britain’s school leavers need more technical nous to compete in a challenging global marketplace.

We had a few technical schools at the end of the war but these were killed off by English snobbery. Everyone wanted to go the grammar school on the hill, not the one in the town with dirty jobs and oily rags. Germany didn’t make the same mistake: they adopted and still have the 1944 English education system and it is one of the reasons why Angela Merkel is ruling the roost. These colleges are our chance to rectify that mistake.

Under the Labour government Lord Baker, a former Education Secretary himself, convinced Andrew Adonis to trial two of these UTCs. Their expansion was supported by the Conservative party at the last general election, a pledge that has been wholeheartedly fulfilled by the coalition government.

The outgoing Director-General of the National Trust, Dame Fiona Reynolds, eulogises on the centenary of Octavia Hill’s death. With a theme that I also used in an article earlier this year for the Richmond Magazine, Dame Fiona writes that the protection of open green spaces is a battle still being waged, and one still very much worth waging.

When [Octavia Hill] died in 1912, the National Trust had 713 members. We now have four million. While she would no doubt be impressed, she would not be surprised, and she would certainly not be complacent. She believed, as we do, that beauty, nature and heritage are fundamental to the human condition. She spoke of everlasting delight. If she were here now, she would describe the past hundred years of the Trust and what we stand for as one of enduring relevance; a cause which we must never cease to pursue.

Finally, the experienced barrister and chairman of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, writes that Britain should give in to the European Court’s ruling to award the vote to prisoners.

Far from being harmless, giving prisoners the unqualified right to vote has positive values. How better to promote peaceful coexistence in society than to remove any sense in prisoners of second-class citizenship. It is precisely what the Government is preaching in its recent legislation on sentencing reform - namely, greater efforts to make the rehabilitation of prisoners more vigorous in penal institutions.

The right of every citizen to vote is acknowledged to be a constitutional right. It is in truth not a human right but it certainly is a civil liberty guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, which the UK ratified as long ago as 1952.

Egremont has long been favourable to the Government’s principled and correct stance on penal reform, and last year we published an excellent article by the Howard League’s Sophie Willett. The ‘bang them up and lock away the key’ school of justice is outmoded and discredited; Britain’s prisons are at bursting point. That much is true.

However, the right to vote is not God-given, as Sir Louis agrees. Nor should it be beholden on any sovereign government to afford certain constitutional rights to individuals who transgress this country’s laws and bring harm to fellow citizens.

Reform the nature of a criminal’s penance, certainly; but that penance must still be served.

Follow Nik on Twitter @NikDarlington

A One Nation defence of the Church of England

David Cowan 6.01am

At the beginning of Holy Week this year, David Cameron made another foray into religious affairs. It was a rare glimpse of that elusive aspect of the Prime Minister’s character - his Christian faith.

Mr Cameron’s most significant defence of Christianity to date was during the celebrations for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible (see Jack’s and Daniel’s comments). He claimed:

“Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so… the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.”

It is Christianity’s conceptualisation of the nation that is at the heart of Mr Cameron’s moral code. This is evident in his vision for a ‘Big Society’, where responsibility, duty and community are most valued. And of course the institution that upholds the Christian faith and defends these values is the Church of England.

The local church is often at the heart of our communities. It provides spiritual support as well as voluntary assistance to charities, social enterprises and, importantly, schools.

The Church of England currently educates one million children in 4,800 schools, making it the biggest single provider of education in this country. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has reaffirmed the Conservative party’s commitment to supporting faith schools by urging the Church to run more academies.

Throughout the Conservative party’s long history, the defence of the established Church has been second nature. Christian morality has been a significant guide for many One Nation Conservatives, including Harold Macmillan, who said:

“If you don’t believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don’t think it’s enough.”

A Christian ‘fightback’ should be supported by One Nation Conservatives within the context of greater toleration. We live in a pluralistic society. Other cultures must be respected. Yet Christians have become somehow exempted from the toleration afforded to others and fair game for discrimination by aggressive secularists.

Wearing a cross at work, holding town hall prayers (see Jack’s comments on these pages), Norwich County Council’s banning of a local church from a community centre.

It is appalling that this victimisation of ordinary Christians is happening at the same time that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is allowed to stay in this country, be embraced by Labour’s London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone, and defend suicide bombing, wife beating and the violent persecution of Jews and homosexuals.

Discrimination against Christians has also been a defining feature of the debate about same-sex marriage, in which opponents are brazenly dismissed as homophobes. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, for instance, is opposed to gay marriage but supports civil partnerships and has certainly not expressed hatred towards homosexuals.

It also says a lot about the current state of the debate that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is forced to ban “gay cure” adverts from the capital’s red buses, while Christians offended by gay rights charity Stonewall’s campaign are denounced as bigots.

How can we possibly have a grown-up debate about an important subject such as same-sex marriage if senseless demonisation is allowed to trump rational discussion?

Whatever side you take, there is a principle at stake here. Toleration has to incorporate toleration of those people who we disagree with or believe to hold intolerant views. It is time for toleration in Britain to live up to Voltaire’s famous and apocryphal quotation: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Regrettably, Mr Cameron’s attempts to tackle aggressive secularism have been undermined by George Osborne’s recent blunders over the so-called ‘charity tax’ and ‘heritage tax’.

The Government is launching a formal consultation on charity tax relief and will hopefully heed the advice given by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, on BBC’s Newsnight recently.

But we have yet to see if the Government will reverse its decision to slap a VAT bill of £20 billion on the 12,500 listed church buildings. There is already an e-petition with a growing number of signatures demanding that the VAT zero rate on alterations to listed buildings be revived.

This hit to charitable giving and listed buildings threatens irreparable and unnecessary harm to churches such as Wakefield Cathedral. Many churches stand as bastions of beauty and monuments to tradition. Several have stood since Norman times. It would be a crime against our common heritage to allow these tax policies to continue.

Once upon a time it could be said, with some truth, that the Church of England was ‘the Tory party at prayer’. David Cameron and other One Nation Conservatives should have the courage of their convictions to defend and praise the established Church’s role in the spiritual life of the nation and the wellbeing of communities; to fight for full religious toleration; and to conserve our precious buildings.

Follow David on Twitter @david_cowan

After Hilton, Conservative radicalism looks set to continue unbounded

Michael Burgess 10.32am

So David Cameron’s closest adviser has embarked on a year-long American sabbatical. Meanwhile, the coalition is experiencing its roughest ride since the tuition fees rise, as the Health & Social Care Bill struggles its way on to the statute book.

As a backdrop, the run of opinion polls in which the Tories have enjoyed virtual parity with the Labour party at around 40 per cent appear to be ending. Some people believe now is the perfect opportunity to rein in the Conservative radicals and show the party’s ‘modernisers’ that the programme of reform is not worth the political pain it is inflicting. Will the British public tolerate tough austerity measures and sweeping reforms of beloved public services? Can that radical approach deliver the all-important Conservative majority in 2015?

These un-enlightened souls may also ask themselves: why are the Tories using up political capital on this scale of change when, after all, they are meant to be ‘conservatives’? Surely recent events have shown that it is better to adopt a ‘steady-as-she-goes’ approach for the next three years, placating the Liberal Democrats at every turn and doing their best not to upset the vested interest groups?

Wrong.

Now more than ever, the Government has to have the focus and determination to push through this essential programme of reform.

Tony Blair was not afraid to cast himself as a reformer, but even he only scratched away at the surface, often being held back by the trade unions, the Labour party or the media. Spin truly is not substitute for substance.

The coalition, on the other hand, has driven onwards with reforms to education, policing, healthcare, public sector pensions, university finances, welfare and local government. A valiant effort as it approaches only its second anniversary.

It is a mistake, therefore, to believe that Steve Hilton’s departure signals the beginning of the end for Conservative radicalism. He leaves behind a Tory party dominated by those of a similar reforming zeal. In Cabinet, Michael Gove, Francis Maude and Iain Duncan Smith are the current poster boys, but there are plenty of others hanging on their coat tails or blazing their own paths.

As we approach the Budget on Wednesday, all eyes are on George Osborne. He is not wanting of advice, with calls for reducing the top rate of income tax, cuts to corporation tax and raising of the personal allowance.

Post-Budget, the focus will surely switch to the Queen’s Speech. Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat colleagues will want to set out a programme of constitutional reform, presenting perhaps the biggest test to the wider Conservative party’s reforming credentials. Reform of the House of Lords is a polarising topic but the Tories should embrace it, for no true moderniser should advocate a wholly unelected second chamber.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge is for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to keep to their radical course. Strong leadership and communication of policies and ideas will be vital. Now is not the time to shy away from making and defending tough decisions for the sake of short-term politics and tomorrow’s headlines. We saw where that got the last Labour government, whose chronic infighting and a constant battle for favourable press coverage consumed their energies, leaving little space for reforms to see the light of day.

As for Steve Hilton, perhaps it was the Civil Service that did for him in the end. Or maybe he just wanted what most people would want - to spend more time with his family.

Whatever his reasons, Conservative radicalism looks set to continue unbounded. Long may that be the case.

Follow Michael on Twitter @SuperMacmillan

George Osborne has to dump this toxic 50p tax rate

Craig Barrett 11.48am

Time and time again, I am reminded of those words of Sir John Major, spoken early on in the Blair maladministration:

“The Conservatives are elected to govern, Labour governs to be elected.”

So nightmarishly often in those thirteen years was policy made on the hoof. We endured a bewildering array of ill-thought out responses to opinion polls, designed to retain an unnecessary lead with no election in sight.

Of all the policies adopted by the last Labour government, none was more cynically designed to make life difficult for a future Conservative government than the 50 pence tax rate.

A lot has been written saying it is unlikely to cover the costs of its administration. But even to analyse its economics is to give Messrs Brown, Balls and Miliband the undeserved courtesy of implying they have any kind of grasp of basic economics.

Put simply, the 50p tax on incomes over £150,000 was designed to be eye-catching, a demonstration to the masses that Labour was prepared to soak the rich until the pips squeaked, so to speak.

Much of Gordon Brown’s fiscal policy during his tenure at the Treasury was less about raising revenue and more about making the tax system too complicated for people to understand.

Faced with a possible Conservative election victory, Brown’s Labour government knew the 50p tax policy was one that a future Chancellor Osborne would find difficult to reverse. The left-wing media would instantly bash it as a tax cut for the rich.

Yet abolish it Mr Osborne must. I have written before about the dangers of punitively high and unjustifiable taxation in a mobile global economy. This applies both to individuals and companies - the news earlier this week that Prudential may shift its headquarters to Hong Kong demonstrates our loss of competitive advantage.

Nearly 30 per cent of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 1 per cent of the earning population. We would all have to work a lot harder to replace one high earner who fled abroad to protect their salary. Many people may not hold much of a candle for high earners these days, but surely it is better that they and their companies remain on these shores so their taxes pay for British hospitals, rather than Chinese ones.

I welcomed the news yesterday that 537 entrepreneurs have written a letter to the Telegraph calling for the Chancellor to abolish the 50p tax rate. I understand that self-assessment tax revenues have fallen by £509 million year-on-year, which these entrepreneurs attribute to the toxic top tax bracket.

A tax that costs more to administer than the revenue it generates is no tax at all. It is just a soundbite. An embarrassing sop.

As the Chancellor prepares this month’s Budget, fully three years before the next general election, he must take note to use the opportunity to announce that Britain is open for business and encouraging of growth.

And there is one lesson he could learn from Gordon Brown, the old master of hiding bad news amidst the details. Just as Brown silently abolished the 10p tax band (doubling the tax rate on the lowest earners), so must George Osborne silently abolish the 50p rate.

Labour MPs, rightly, wailed with fury at that earlier sleight of hand. Conservative MPs will only cheer, rightly, at the sight of the second. The loss of a tax rate whose only effect is to tell the world the UK is not on the side of the wealth generator is nothing worth crying over.

Follow Craig on Twitter @mrsteeduk

Labour attacked from left and right for its morally corrupt blanket opposition to health reform

Nik Darlington 10.48am

Two important blogs appeared this morning. One is by a Conservative MP, one is by a former Labour party General Secretary. Both are about the NHS and, in their different ways, both identify the same problem: the Labour party’s stance on NHS reform.

Chris Skidmore is one of the most thoughtful of the 2010 Tory intake (he used to be an adviser to David Willetts, of course, where two brains are better than one). His blog for ConservativeHome is not exactly cerebral - it is more factional than phrenic - but it has a clarity of expression and fight that sadly has too often been lacking. Mr Skidmore is also an articulate historian. That he can write well clearly helps.

Burnham and Labour have set their face against an NHS that is centred around the needs of the patient, precisely what the Coalition’s reforms seek to achieve. They have become the party of anti-reform, anti-competition, anti-choice, and above all, anti-patient.

Peter Watt also happens to be one of the more thoughtful people in the Labour party. He regularly stands out as a voice of reason amid the silly squabbling, neither a fully-signed up Blairite nor a dyed-in-the-wool statist. In a blog for Labour Uncut, he attacks the Health & Social Care Bill in its current form - “a largely unnecessary piece of legislation” - which I cannot claim is an unreasonable position to take having questioned it myself.

But like Mr Skidmore, Peter Watt insists that the NHS must change. Reform is desirable and inevitable, which makes the Labour party’s opportunistic opposition to reform untenable.

…more reform is exactly what the NHS needs. The current legislation is clearly ill thought out and is rightly being resisted, but that does not mean that the NHS does not need to change. And if the Labour party really wants to save the NHS, it must aggressively embrace further change, not reject it. Because budgets will continue to be squeezed and efficiencies will still need to be found. At the same time patients will demand greater and greater choices, higher standards of care and service. This simply can’t be achieved without reform, even if money were no issue.

Labour’s shadow health secretary, Andrew Burnham, is censured from the left and from the right for hypocrisy and hysteria. Mr Skidmore writes:

…to listen to Andy Burnham, you would be forgiven for thinking that he was never a keen Blairite reformer of our public services. As Secretary of State for Health, he helped oversee an expansion of new providers in the NHS, particularly Independent Treatment Centres, the same expansion that this government backs, and that he now derides as privatisation. It was Andy Burnham who was happy to back an increase of £10 billion going to the private sector, between 2006-2010.  It was Andy Burnham who fought an election on a manifesto pledge to ”support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care, particularly where they bring innovation.”

What a difference opposition makes. One of his first actions as shadow secretary was to fly in the face of expert consensus and declare that it was “irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”, turning against the Coalition’s real-terms increases in NHS spending, despite knowing that the NHS is facing the toughest efficiency program in its history.

While Mr Watt, portraying Burnham more captive than co-opted, says:

Andy Burnham may be a supporter of competition and choice, but many of those rallying to the cause certainly aren’t. The Tories inept handling of a largely unnecessary piece of legislation has given them their chance. This is an opportunity to finally put a nail in the coffin of further reform and they are going for it. You can hear it in the rhetoric, the old cries of the NHS being “the best in the world”, of its great efficiency and how we need more cooperation and not more or any competition. All of which are highly debatable, no matter how much you love the NHS. So all in all, the prevailing mood within the Labour party is for less reform not more.

I have made no secret of my discomfort with the Bill, its presentation and its parliamentary management. But healthcare reform is essential.

The Labour party, lone sensible figures like Peter Watt aside, has behaved reprehensibly: a spiteful spasm of collective amnesia and nitwittedness.

Reforms begun under Tony Blair, by Alan Milburn and John Reid, were producing improvements in NHS outcomes. And the stubborn, statist and vested interests within the Labour party hated them for it. They hated them viscerally, for proving that the introduction of some choice, competition and independent provision could work.

The Labour party is, as Peter Watt writes, in its “comfort zone”, at the same time as the NHS, says Chris Skidmore, “faces a perfect storm of an ageing population and a boom in chronic illness and lifestyle-related diseases”. It is a thoroughly miserable, and morally corrupt, state of affairs.

So Ed Miliband is now a One Nation Conservative?

Nik Darlington & Alexander Pannett 10.09am

In a speech in London on Friday, Ed Miliband did something quite curious. He tried to emulate Tony Blair.

Mr Miliband’s latest tactic is to call for a “One Nation” approach to banking.

The Labour party leader wants banks to spend less time concentrating on bonuses and more time lending to small businesses and families. He has also called for more transparency and responsibility.

This is a sly attempt to steal the One Nation clothes of conservatism. It is exactly what Tony Blair set out to do when he positioned New Labour as the political “Third Way”, as noted by Nik on these pages last year.

Following a small spate of Blairite defections (see Paul’s cheeky overture), his own brother’s critical epistle, and *that* moment of booing at party conference, it is hard to know what to make of Mr Miliband’s reversion to the Blair political playbook.

If Miliband is going to adopt a truly One Nation approach to banking then he needs to do more than just devise gimmick headlines and populist rhetoric.

His only policy of substance - putting employees on to the remuneration committees of banks - is already in practice in Germany, where they still hand out large bonuses. It is not clear either how he will force banks to lend more to small businesses.

Mr Miliband also fails to understand that One Nation politics is about opening up opportunities and social mobility for the more disadvantaged in society rather than rabble rousing about excessive pay. To this end, the coalition has already stolen a march on him by implementing an innovative new approach to banking - the launch of Big Society Capital.

The Big Society Capital, formerly known as the Big Society Bank, was recently approved by the European Commission and it is hoping to be operational by the end of the first quarter of 2012.

This new bank will use assets in dormant bank accounts to invest in enterprises that provide social value. It will develop an investment market on the basis of positive social impact as well as financial returns. In so doing, the Big Society Capital will boost the ability of social enterprises, voluntary and community organisations to deal with social issues.

Such policies that concentrate on generating real social value, such as the Big Society Capital, are genuinely One Nation approaches to banking. Populist attacks on bonuses may earn some headline kudos but, considering the globalised market that banks operate in, it is not realistic to believe that British banks could compete with uncompetitive remuneration. 

Mr Miliband would do better to have a constructive dialogue with banks about increasing opportunities for small businesses and families rather than slinging invective. But that would require some well-considered policies.

While we thank Mr Miliband for the free publicity, we note that his Tory Reform Group membership fee has not yet been paid. We would kindly ask that he ceases from borrowing our ideas until he has properly been accepted as a member of the group.

And if he asks nicely, we may even lower his joining fee.  

Share this article on Twitter 

@NikDarlington

@alpannett

Let Blairites join the Conservative party for £1

Paul Abbott 7.06am

I was not old enough to vote in 1997, but - like millions of others - it would have been hard not to vote for Tony Blair.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of his premiership, in 1997 he was the candidate for law and order and for small businesses. He got aspiration, and why people wanted choice in the public sector. He was pro-America and pro-democracy abroad - as his interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone bore out.

His appeal, in a nutshell, was to be a Conservative with a heart. Of course, he happened to be in the wrong political party. But no one is perfect.

As his legacy is now disastrously unpicked by Ed Miliband, and Ed Balls, a number of Blairites are jumping ship.

There are a few high-profile examples (http://statementtofollow.com/), but beneath the radar there will be far more. This is unsurprising. They signed up to a principled cause, not to a party label. Ed Miliband - who pockets around £10,000 a month in salary - has declared war on “top earners” without any sense of irony. Blair is getting booed at Labour party conference. Why stay put?

The Party Co-Chairman, Lord Feldman, is running a serious membership drive at the national and local level. I believe we should help him along, and offer Blairites the chance to join the Conservative party for £1.

Follow Paul on Twitter @paul_t_abbott

Why the Conservatives could lose in 2015 unless we value the public sector

Paul Abbott 6.03am

A defining moment of the 2010 general election was when George Osborne, at a private meeting of candidates and volunteers, said: “We didn’t lose in 1997, 2001 and 2005 because a few thousand people went to fringe parties. No. We lost because millions of people went to Labour.”

This is the most basic and fundamental political insight for the Conservative party. It should be writ large on the wall of every Minister, Member, think-tanker and researcher. It should scroll across our PC screensavers, and be inscribed on our mobile phones.

Why? Because as soon as we forget it, we will all be back in Opposition again for another thirteen years.

There is a strain of language out there today that confuses a desire to cut the deficit with a dislike of the pubic sector. Thus we hear constant attacks on Civil Service salaries, or libertarian fantasies about a no-holds-barred economy. We hear endless calls for tax cuts for millionaires, but not enough about tax cuts for the millions of people on ordinary wages.

This has to stop. Many low-paid workers voted Conservative in 2010. In fact, in June 2009, of the public sector workers questioned who were “certain to vote”, Ipsos MORI reported that 32 per cent would vote Conservative, 29 per cent for Labour and 19 per cent for the Lib Dems.

Everyone wants the public sector to be good value for money. Of course this means thinning out the quangos and endless back office administration. But surely we are happy to pay for positive outcomes? What is wrong with higher salaries for nurses, teachers, university lecturers, immigration personnel and police officers, if they are doing a good job? If we do not pay good wages, how else can we persuade bright young graduates to become public servants, rather than City solicitors?

There will inevitably be some hardliners who say that this argument is soft, liberal sogginess. To them, I say this: remember 1997. And 2001. And 2005.

There is nothing socialist about standing up for the admirable parts of the public sector. One of Tony Blair’s great domestic triumphs was to rebuild the public realm, which had been neglected in the 1990s. This was a large part of his electoral appeal.

The first political office that Margaret Thatcher held was in the Conservative Trade Unionists. One of her first acts as Prime Minister was to increase the wages of rank-and-file police officers.

Too many dodgy PFI deals were struck and billions of pounds were wasted, but there was a genuine public appetite for things like better motorways and more police officers. Such public policies should not solely be championed by the Left.

This is so often merely a matter of emphasis. Many Conservative Ministers are already quietly finding ways to reward deserving public sector workers. Academies and Free Schools can pay good teachers more than the national union rate. Nurses can set up co-operatives and have a stake in the success of their clinic. George Osborne has protected the pensions of the lowest paid civil servants, and boosted their income by £250, despite a general pay-freeze. There are lots of other examples. But we need to make more of them. Champion them.

I accept that Britain is still too dominated by the public sector, and that we need to rebalance our economy. I accept that Labour wasted our money, and hopelessly ran up debts. I accept that Ed Balls in particular seems to have an almost criminal disregard for our financial stability.

But we are in Government now. It is our public sector. We should look after it.

Follow Paul on Twitter @Paul_t_abbott