access all areas - renewalaccess all areas building a majority edited by david skelton 1 contents...
TRANSCRIPT
ACCESS ALL AREASBuilding a majority
Edited by David Skelton
1
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
Foreword, Patrick McLoughlin MP 3
Broadening Conservative appealBeyond the party of the rich, David Skelton 6
White van conservatism, Robert Halfon MP 23
Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters, Nadhim Zahawi MP 29
Winning over ethnic minority voters, Paul Uppal MP 33
Winning in the cities, Greg Clark MP 38
Engaging with Ordinary Working People, Shaun Bailey 42
Conservatism for the peopleConservatism for the consumer, Laura Sandys MP 50
Conservatism for the low paid, Matthew Hancock MP 54
Conservatism for social mobility, Damian Hinds MP 58
Conservatism for every part of the countryWinning in the North, Guy Opperman MP 66
The North in retrospective, Lord Bates 74
Winning in the Midlands, Rachel Maclean 80
Winning in Wales, Stephen Crabb MP 84
Reforming the partyTransforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation, Gavin Barwell MP 92
Watering the desert – a forty for the North, Paul Maynard MP 98
iDemocracy and the new model party, Douglas Carswell MP 104
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Renewal would like to thank Colm Reilly, James Kanagasooriaam, Charlie
Campbell, Michael Stott, Simon Cawte, Owen Ross, Maria Agnese Strizollo,
Tim Chilvers, Shane Fitzgerald, Mary-Jay East, Peter Franklin, Luke Maynard,
Matthew Harley, Victoria Cavolina, Aidan Corley, William Hensher, James
Jeffreys, Mario Creatura and Ben Furnival for their assistance with the project.
3
FOREWORD
PATRICK McLOUGHLIN MP
There should be no such thing as a ‘traditional Conservative’ background.
Our party should give no quarter to media stereotypes of leafy suburbs, gravel
drives and the ‘Tory heartland’. Ours is a party for all parts of Britain and for all
types of people, brought together not by background or wealth but by a shared
understanding of the power of freedom, the potential of people and the great
things that come from effort, enterprise and ambition.
In short, ours is a party which helps people up not holds them down. I grew
up in Staffordshire. My father was a miner and so was his father. I worked on a
farm and in a coal mine and I joined the Conservative party because it represented
me and stood for the things I believed in.
What was true in the 1970s and 80s is true again today. As we prepare to win
a majority in 2015 the fight has rarely mattered more. To win outright we must
not only persuade people already drawn to our cause. We must win the active
support of those who share our beliefs but until now have not been drawn to our
party. People in cities and minority groups, away from the south-east of England.
People who have been let down most of all by the bloated state and debts Labour
left behind.
So I welcome this new collection of essays and I welcome the campaign of
which it is a part. By widening the Conservative cause we will win.
PATRICK MCLOUGHLIN is Secretary of State for Transport and is the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales
5
BROADENING CONSERVATIVE APPEAL
6
BEYOND THE PARTY OF THE RICH
DAVID SKELTON
The Conservative Party has a huge opportunity to become the party of choice for
ordinary working people. As the Labour Party becomes ‘lattefied’ and ever more
out of touch with its traditional, working class support base, the Conservatives
can fill the gap to become the new ‘worker’s party’. For the first time in decades
the votes of millions of traditionally Labour voters are up for grabs if the
Conservatives are bold enough to take advantage. To make the most of this
once in a generation opportunity to broaden their appeal, Conservative must
continue to be bold and imaginative, but the electoral prizes for getting it right
are glittering.
The party also faces considerable, and overlapping, challenges that it must
overcome if it is to benefit from the withering away of Labour’s support base.
And these challenges are overlapping. The party is still seen by a majority of
voters as being on the side of the rich, rather than ordinary people. A 2012 poll
for Policy Exchange showed that 64% of voters agreed with the statement that
Conservatives look after the interests of the rich and powerful, not ordinary
people.1 Polling by Lord Ashcroft reaffirms this impression, with only 24% of
voters saying that Conservatives are “one the side of people like me” and only
17% saying that the Party “represents the whole country, not just some types
of people.”2 This perception is a major contributory factor to the fact that the
Conservatives haven’t won an election with an overall majority for 21 years and
a stubbornly high 42% of voters say that they would never vote Tory.3
The Party continues to perform indifferently outside of its South Eastern
heartland. In their heartland, the Conservatives hold nine out of ten seats. In the
1 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights 2 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, p193 YouGov poll for IPPR, cited in the Observer, 24 September 2011.
7
Midlands, they have about half, in the North about a third and in Scotland they
hold only one seat. And the Conservatives struggle particularly in urban centres
outside of their heartland. There are 124 urban seats in the North and Midlands
and the Tories only hold 20 of them – that’s 16%. Many seats outside of the
South East also have a higher than average proportion of public sector workers
– a group of voters which are less likely to vote Conservative.4 And research for
Renewal has shown that the majority of key battleground seats are constituencies
with above average public sector employment.5
In many Northern cities, such as Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester and
Liverpool, there’s not a single Tory Councillor and voting Conservative has
become counter cultural– meaning that the Party is lacking an activist base
in some of the most populated parts of the country. In Liverpool, which was
once a bastion of working class Toryism, the Conservative candidate came a
poor seventh in last year’s Mayoral election. Over the past few decades, Liberal
Democrats have also replaced the Conservatives as the main opposition to Labour
in several cities outside of the Tory heartland. This book includes contributions
from Greg Clark, Guy Opperman, Lord Bates, Stephen Crabb, Paul Maynard
and Shaun Bailey considering how the Conservatives can appeal to voters outside
of their heartland.
Conservatives also continue to struggle in attracting ethnic minority voters.
As the chart below shows, only 16% of non-white voters backed the Tories at the
last election, compared to 68% who backed the Labour Party. Polling conducted
by YouGov for Renewal has also shown that only 6% of ethnic minority voters
believe that the Conservatives are the party that is most in touch with ethnic
minorities. Failure to win over non-white voters in 2010 may have cost the party
a number of seats, such as Birmingham Edgbaston and Westminster North, where
there is a higher than average proportion of ethnic minority voters. As part of this
book, Nadhim Zahawi and Paul Uppal put forward their proposals for reaching
out to ethnic minority voters.
4 Research by Policy Exchange (Northern Lights, 2012) showed that households where both adults work in the public sector and 30% less likely to vote Conservative and households where one adult work in the public sector are 18% less likely to vote Conservative.
5 Research conducted by James Kanagasooriam for Renewal analysing the demographic make-up of parliamentary constituencies. We will be publishing more detailed research soon.
8 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
Chart 1 – 2010 voting by ethnic group6
WhiteAll ethnic minorities Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Caribbean African
Labour 31 68 61 60 72 78 87
Conservative 37 16 24 13 18 9 6
Lib Dem 22 14 13 25 9 12 6
Other 11 2 2 3 1 2 1
All of these challenges are overlapping and none of them are new. If the
Conservatives are to make the most of the opportunities that are rapidly
emerging, they have to make a sustained effort to overcome these challenges.
This book sets out how the Conservatives can widen their base and build a
substantial new coalition of voters. It might not be easy reading for those
Conservatives who think that ‘one more heave’ is all that is needed to turn
round two decades of electoral underperformance. Nor will it please those who
are content with re-running failed campaigns of the past in the facile hope that
this will deliver different results.
Building on changeThe Conservatives have already changed under David Cameron’s leadership
and his changes to the Party were enough to give the Party its biggest swing
since 1931, but not quite enough to push it over the line towards winning an
overall majority. Under Cameron’s leadership, the Party has adopted policies,
such as the pupil premium, taking the poorest out of tax, a bank levy, increased
capital gains tax, exempting low paid workers from the public sector pay freeze
and gay marriage, which would have been unthinkable earlier. The changes that
Cameron has already made to the party means that the Conservatives have a
strong platform to build on as they seek to become the new workers’ party.
Despite this welcome progress, the party still has to do more to show that it
is in touch with ordinary voters and make inroads outside of its heartland. Above
all, the Conservative Party needs to change to set out a clear message that it is
not the ‘party of the rich’. To paraphrase Shelley, it needs to become the party of
the many not the few.
6 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study, February 2012, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/EMBESbriefingFINALx.pdf
9
This collection of essays examines how the Conservative Party can become
a genuine mass party, with genuine mass appeal – described by Robert Halfon
as ‘white van Conservatism’. They show how the party can start attracting those
voters it has failed to reach for decades. We want to provoke debate about how
the Party can broaden their appeal and not everybody writing for Renewal is
going to agree about everything.
Broadening appeal is about winning key marginal seats in 2015 (and we
illustrate that these marginal seats have key characteristics, such as, in many
cases, higher than average proportion of public sector workers), but it’s also about
recovering second place in seats where they have become also-rans. By doing this,
Conservatives can start to build a lasting foundation for the coming decades.
Further focus on the cost of livingSince the crash in 2008, working families have suffered the biggest squeeze in living
standards since the Great Depression. Pay has failed to keep up with considerable
increases in the cost of fuel, energy, transport and housing. That’s why cost of living
issues are the biggest day to day concern for most voters.7 Between 1999 and 2003,
average wages, accounting for inflation, increased by 2% a year, from 2003 and
2008, they rose by 0.1% a year, and between 2008 and 2011, they fell by 1.9%
a year. 8 2010 saw the largest fall in real household income for over thirty years.9
Real wages since 2008 have fallen by more than in any comparable period and real
wages have taken the biggest fall outside of London.10
All other issues become peripheral when people are worried about their jobs
and how to make their pay packet last. The ‘cost of living’ has to continue to be
at the centre of any attempt to widen the appeal of the Tory Party and ensure that
ordinary voters feel that the Conservatives are on their side.
The Government has already made considerable steps in the right direction
and they should be commended for that. The focus on the cost of living should
continue over the coming years. The freeze in fuel duty in the autumn statement
and in the budget was absolutely the right thing to do, but, within the realms
7 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights8 Resolution Foundation, cited in The Times by Gavin Kelly, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/
article3768335.ece9 Guardian, 29 March 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/29/real-incomes-fall-30-years10 IFS study, cited in the Guardian, 13 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jun/12/workers-
deepest-cuts-real-wages-ifs
10 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
of affordability, it should be frozen and, if possible, cut for the lifetime of this
parliament and beyond.
The cost of fuel, like the cost of energy, is something that affects the poorest the
most. And energy bills have been increasing at a staggering rate in recent years, with
an increase of nearly 30% in three years.11 That’s well ahead of inflation, meaning
that energy bills are taking up a larger and larger proportion of income. The price
of household fuel increased by 110% in the 2000s, compared to only 11% in the
previous decade.12 Conservatives need to make it clear that this type of increase is
unacceptable – with corresponding policies that ensure that energy companies cannot
abuse their oligopoly status. The Government could also scrap the wasteful EU
Renewable Energy Directive, which would save bill payers hundreds of pounds a year.
Standing up against vested interestsConservatives must make clear that they are prepared to stand up forcefully
against vested interests, whether they’re public sector trade unions or rent-
seeking corporations. ‘Crony capitalism’ should have no more of a place in today’s
economy than centrally controlled nationalised industries. Being the party of
capitalism is not the same as being the party of big business. The Conservatives
should be the party of the majority, standing up for consumers, small businessmen
and hard-pressed workers.
For inspiration, they should look no further than the great US President,
Teddy Roosevelt – a great defender of free enterprise and competition, who also
had no truck for monopolies abusing their power. He called for a ‘square deal’ for
ordinary citizens, famously arguing that:
Every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a
vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any
public office. The constitution guarantees protection to property, and
we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of
suffrage to any corporation.13
11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10043967/How-energy-bills-have-soared.html
12 Cited by Gavin Kelly, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3768335.ece13 Theodore Roosevelt, New Nationalism speech
11
And there are many ways in which the Conservatives can make clear that
they are comfortable taking on vested interests in the private sector and backing
the active consumer. The first is by relentlessly standing up for consumer
rights and consumer protection. This includes empowering the consumer by
insisting on transparency and the provision of information to consumers. Big
business, whether they are mobile phone companies, train companies, banks,
big utilities (including what Robert Halfon described as ‘semi-privatised water
monopolies’) or oil companies, shouldn’t be allowed to get away with practices
that are seen as ripping off the consumer, from overdraft charges to roaming
fees. As Laura Sandys argues, a Minister for Consumers should be appointed
and be given real powers to protect the consumer. It might also be time to
reconsider how competition policy works in the UK. The free market drives
innovation and benefits the consumer when companies are incentivised through
competition. When that incentive is removed, it is the consumer who suffers.
The Government should also continue to lead by example by ensuring that
government procurement doesn’t rely on a cosy monopoly – discouraging
innovation and being more expensive for the taxpayer.
Being the party of house buildingConservatism has always been at its most successful when it has been optimistic
and aspirational. That is why house building is so important to broadening Tory
appeal. 1.8 million people are stuck on the housing list, the average age of a first
time buyer is now 37, and the cost of housing and rent continues to contribute
significantly to the cost of living crisis (private rent has increased by 37% in 5
years).14 In 2012 it would have taken a low to middle income family 22 years to
save up for an average first time buyer deposit, compared to 11 years in 2003
and 3 years in 1983.15 The last government consistently failed to meet their
housing targets and the recession has meant that the number of housing starts
has remained well below the level of need, meaning that, according to the census,
in the first decade of the century, home ownership fell for the first time in 60 years,
from 68% to 63%.16
To tackle the shortage of housing, Conservatives must position themselves
14 New Statesman leader, 1 May 201315 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3768335.ece16 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6719c40c-7c49-11e2-91d2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2U6znTkt3
12 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
13
squarely as the party of house building. In doing this, they would draw upon
a distinguished past – Noel Skelton and Anthony Eden’s vision of a ‘property
owning democracy’, Harold Macmillan’s house building programme and
Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy. As the poster on the following page from the
1955 election shows, house building has always been a key part of an optimistic
Tory message.17
Such a mission could help bring down the cost of living and add a new
moral purpose to the government – again informed by the mission of spreading
property ownership and giving the opportunity to younger people to share in
property ownership. Housing Minister, Nicholas Boles was quite right when he
argued that:
If we believe in anything, we believe in the power of home ownership
to motivate people to work hard, raise strong families and build
healthy communities, to put down roots, take responsibility for their
surroundings and look out for their neighbours.18
Top-down planning laws continue to hold back house building. Planning rules
mean that housing is built where local authority bureaucrats think that people
should live, rather than where people actually want to live. These rules should be
changed to put more power in the hands of local people. Brownfield land, empty
properties and ‘change of use’ – converting empty business premises to residential
use, should also be used. But that isn’t going to single handedly tackle our housing
crisis. Whilst protecting areas of natural beauty, some building on the greenbelt
should be allowed, where it has local support and where the local community is
adequately compensated.19
But changing planning rules are only half of the answer to boosting house
building. The Government needs to act against the vested interests amongst the
developers who are sitting on plots of land with planning permission (so called
land banking) waiting for the value of the land to increase. A ‘right to build’
scheme, where local authorities allow local people to design their own homes
17 Conservative Party Archive Poster collection 18 Nicholas Boles MP, speech to Policy Exchange, 10 January 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/
speeches/housing-the-next-generation 19 See Policy Exchange, Cities for Growth, 2011
14 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
and build on land that has already been granted planning permission could also
boost house building.
Economic renewal and job creationSince the 1980s, the Conservative vote has collapsed in parts of the North, the
Midlands and Scotland. The economic and social dislocation that followed
de-industrialisation made the Tory brand toxic in many places as it became
associated with mass unemployment. Although a shift from a predominantly
industrial economy (as has happened in most other Western countries) was
probably inevitable, there’s little doubt that it brought with it substantial
hardship, from which some towns, such as my home town of Consett, have barely
recovered. The black spots of ‘worklessness’ are generally towns that were once
dominated by heavy industry.20
The Party needs to take steps to ensure that it becomes associated with job
creation and tackling unemployment in parts of the country where it has long
been associated with mass unemployment. Regional disparities in the UK are
stronger than ever and the UK’s economy is the most regionally imbalanced in
Europe.21 Old solutions have failed to narrow disparities that have existed for
generations and the creation of public sector jobs hasn’t created the economic
dynamism that de-industrialised areas need to get back on their feet.
Conservatives need to put themselves at the forefront of a movement to
restore hope and vitality to areas that long ago fell behind economically. ‘Things
not getting worse’ can no longer be an option – it’s time for an ambitious vision
of growth and renewal, driven by the private sector Although Enterprise Zones,
Local Enterprise Partnerships and the regional growth fund are all welcome, there
is a real need for the Conservatives to be bigger and bolder when it looks to
re-energising high unemployment towns.
Industrial policy could be crucial to creating regional growth. This isn’t
about ‘picking winners’, but, instead, is about ensuring that the right conditions
for growth, such as transport and digital infrastructure and support is given to
potential high growth sectors.
As Ed Glaeser has pointed out, strong and dynamic cities are always at the
20 See, for example, JRF, ‘Are Cultures of worklessness passed down through the generations?’ http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/worklessness-families-employment-full.pdf
21 http://www.edmundconway.com/2013/05/1673/
15
centre of economic growth in the globalised world and the Government has the
opportunity to build on its existing City Deals and encourage a renaissance of the
Northern economy, driven by its great cities. Planning must be a crucial element
of this. Preston was one of the highest growth towns of the past decade because
it was able to take advantage of a liberal planning regime and excellent transport
links. The Government should look to build on the Preston example by devolving
planning powers to the great Northern cities, meaning that rules that are set
nationally would be set by the cities. This would help make Northern cities hugely
attractive places for companies to be based. As opposition to planning reform
largely comes from the overcrowded South, Northern cities could take advantage
of this to narrow the economic gap, expand without impediment and become
dynamic job creators.
The Government should also consider devolving elements of welfare policy
to major cities. In particular, elements of the welfare to work scheme or welfare
conditionality could be devolved to cities, so they have the power to decide
about conditions that are set around welfare payments. This could mean that
Northern cities take the lead in making work pay and getting people off welfare
and into work.
Such an approach would ensure that Conservatives became associated
with job creation in areas where they are generally, at present, associated with
unemployment. Conservatives should make clear that, as a party, one of their
key priorities is tackling the waste of human potential that is unemployment,
positioning themselves at the head of a war on unemployment and associating the
party squarely with job creation and economic renewal.
A Tory approach to low pay and economic securityConservatives have always been too ready to abandon the field to the left when it
comes to low pay. Their continual holding out against the minimum wage before
the 1997 election was unnecessary – making the party look uncaring. They must
be careful not to make the same mistake again, particularly as the arguments
that the minimum wage would price people out of jobs haven’t been borne out
by evidence.
And there’s evidence that the impression created by opposition to the
Minimum Wage has lingered. Only 9% of voters think that the Tory Party best
16 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
stands up for the interests of low paid public sector workers, 14% for low paid
private sector workers and 18% for skilled manual workers.22
The Resolution Foundation has produced some excellent work putting ‘low
pay Britain’ into context. Around one fifth of employees, or around five million
workers are still paid below the ‘living wage’ level. This includes 27% of women,
16% of men and 41% of part time workers.23 Low paid workers are much less
likely to move their way up the income ladder as time goes on, as well as being
harder hit by the rising cost of living than other income groups.24 Conservatives
should be the champions of the low paid, but it can often appear that the party is
only interested in the views of the employer, not the employee.
The measures taken by the coalition to take the lowest paid out of tax together
have certainly helped the low paid, but they need to go further to show that they
are on their side. Conservatives must be enthusiastic, rather than grudging, in their
support of the minimum wage. And, as Matthew Hancock argues, Conservatives
shouldn’t just support the minimum wage, they should strengthen it. There have
only been a handful of cases of the minimum wage being enforced in the past 10
years. Strengthening powers to enforce the minimum wage would be the right
thing to do and would help make clear that Conservatives were on the side of
the low paid.
Of course, there’s also a next step beyond the minimum wage and
Conservatives should be careful not to put themselves on the wrong side of
the argument about low pay. Whereas Labour’s approach to tackling low pay
through child tax credits and above inflation increases in welfare damaged
incentives to work, the Tory approach of increasing real incomes through the
tax system increases incentives to work and acts in tandem with Iain Duncan
Smith’s welfare reforms
Lifting the poorest out of tax altogether has been the most beneficial policy
for low paid people since the introduction of the minimum wage. It stands
in stark contrast to Gordon Brown’s cynical scrapping of the 10p tax band.
Continuing to lift the poorest out of tax altogether will, of course, also help to
create a genuine ‘living wage’ for the poorest and increase real incomes. The
22 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, p3523 Resolution Foundation, ‘Lifting the lid on low pay Britain’, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/blog/2011/
Oct/04/lifting-lid-low-pay-britain/ 24 Resolution Foundation, ‘Snakes and Ladders’ , November 2011, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/
media/media/downloads/Snakes_and_Ladders_Final_Report.pdf
17
Conservatives need to build on this policy and consider further ways to help the
low paid. This should include considering ways in which the minimum wage
could be increased without damaging job creation, such as through changes to
the system of employer’s taxation. Renewal will be publishing further work on
this in the coming months.
Ultimately, of course, it’s important that skills of low paid workers are
increased in order to allow them to rise up the career ladder. This is why it’s so
important that the Government stick to their education and welfare reforms –
giving people the skills to compete and making work pay.
Sticking to the right reformsThe Government is implementing important and radical reforms. And many of
these reforms are likely to help the Conservatives broaden their appeal amongst
target voters. Immigration reforms, for example are indicative of the fact that
uncontrolled immigration hit working class voters the hardest, acting, in the words
of Jon Cruddas, as a ‘21st Century incomes policy, mixing a liberal sense of free
for all with a free-market disdain for clear and effective rules.’25 Welfare reform,
particularly popular amongst working class voters, is right to emphasise making
work pay and ensuring that those who can work do work. But it’s the education
reforms that will have the biggest long-term impact. As Damian Hinds points out,
social mobility should be a potent weapon in the Conservative armoury.
The Government’s reforms to education, from the pupil premium to Free
Schools and Academy expansion, are radical attempts to improve the life chances
of the poorest in society. The fact that the 7% of the population who attended
fee paying schools dominate the professions illustrates quite how much the state
education system has let down the poorest. And the success of education reform
in improving education in London shows that reform shows the importance of
reform to the life chances of the poorest. It’s important that education reform
is accelerated in the coming years, with ideological objections, such as to profit
making firms running schools, not getting in the way of helping the poorest make
the most of their potential.
25 Jon Cruddas MP, the Guardian, 17 May 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/labour-leadership-jon-cruddas
18 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
19
PeoplePolicy will always make an important difference to the Tories’ party of the
rich problem, but it’s hard to ignore the look and feel of the party as well.
Research for Policy Exchange showed that voters believe that the priority
for the Conservatives as they look to better reflect the country should be
recruiting more working class candidates, as well as recruiting more candidates
from outside of politics.26 Polling conducted for Philip Cowley at Nottingham
University also showed that there is strong public demand for working class
and local MPs.27
Despite progress in recent years, the Parliamentary Conservative Party
still comes from a relatively narrow social base. Whilst 7% of the population
attended fee paying schools, some 54% of Conservative MPs attended
independent schools. Only 11 of the 306 Conservative MPs (just over 3%) are
ethnic minorities, compared to 14% of the British population. It’s clear that the
Conservatives have to go further as they attempt to look and sound like the
country as a whole.
It’s also clear that being a parliamentary candidate can be hugely expensive,
which puts off many people from a lower income background from even
considering standing for Parliament. Even the assessment centre to become a
Conservative candidate costs almost £300 and there are numerous other costs
involved in candidacy – such as travel, accommodation and lost income. More
needs to be done to diversify the range of candidates and the A List failed
to do that. A bursary scheme should be provided to help poorer potential
candidates become involved and the party should consider waiving the cost of
the assessment board in certain cases. As Gavin Barwell points out reforms such
as open primaries could increase the diversity of candidates.
The hugely effective campaign poster from the 1992 election on the opposite
page is proof that the Conservatives have both attracted working class voters and
have promoted working class leaders in the past.28
The Conservatives must also broaden their councillor base by lowering the
barriers to involvement – minimising the cost of membership, making local
26 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights, p42 27 Philip Cowley, ‘The public do want more working class MPs – and more local ones too, http://nottspolitics.
org/2013/02/01/the-public-do-want-working-class-mps-and-more-local-ones-too/28 Conservative Party archive
20 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton
meetings less stuffy and bureaucratic and, as Douglas Carswell argues, using
social media effectively.
A successful Tory Party won’t win on the back of billboard advertising.
It needs to consider how it can become involve in real and digital social networks,
particularly in areas where Conservatives have been near extinct on the ground
for years. This means getting involved with community groups, sports clubs and
other organisations that make a real difference to people’s lives. In his essay, Paul
Uppal sets out how Conservatives have to be on the ground for the entire five
years of a Parliament, not just a few months before an election, particularly in
areas where Labour have dominated on the ground for decades.
Just as the Primrose League, set up in Disraeli’s memory, created a working
class Tory base that was more numerous than the trade unions in certain Northern
towns in the late 19th and early 20th century, so a new digital Primrose League
could help widen the base of the Tory Party further.
PresentationSome have argued that Conservatives have the right policies, but are poor at
presenting them in a way that appeals to target audiences. This is a comfort blanket,
preventing the party from asking difficult questions. But that doesn’t mean that the
Party should ignore issues of presentation – getting the message right is imperative.
Empathy is crucial when policy is being presented. Conservatives must make
it quite clear, and repeatedly so, that they understand the problems faced by lower
and middle income voters, struggling with constantly squeezing living standards
and are working hard to do something about it. And this must be at the core of
policy presentation.
Policies must be presented in a way that resonates instinctively and
emotionally with hard-pressed voters. Politicians should use straightforward,
no-nonsense language that cuts through to voters. Most voters don’t have
the obsession with politics or policy that those in the Westminster bubble
do. But they care about the big issues that affect themselves and their
family directly. This is why Conservatives must be careful to relate every
communication to how it affects ordinary people who are struggling with the
cost of living. New policies and communication should be measures against
this ‘blue collar’ test.
21
Conservatives should also remember that public sector workers and trade
unionists are both crucial sets of voters, who shouldn’t be insulted using
overzealous rhetoric. There are almost seven million trade unionists in the UK
and almost as many public sector workers. Conservatives can disagree with
trade union leaders and their political statements, but still acknowledge the role
played by trade unions and take steps to appeal to ordinary union members. They
should remember that more trade unionists voted for Margaret Thatcher than
Jim Callaghan in 1979 and ‘Conservative Trade Unionists’ was once a significant
organisation. Conservatives should make clear that they value the important work
of trade unions, despite the grandstanding of union leaders. They could, as Robert
Halfon has suggested, offer discounted Tory membership for union members or
give more choice to ordinary union members about where their political levy
should go. Reviving an organisation such as Conservative Trade Unionists would
also be a good start.
Equally, Conservatives must make clear that they value the role and the duty
of service that public sector workers provide. Research for Renewal shows that
the majority of top target seats in 2010 have a higher than average proportion
of public sector workers, making appealing to public sector workers one of the
party’s big pre 2015 tasks. Our analysis has shown that just over half of Tory held
battleground seats have a higher than average (mean and median) proportion of
public sector workers. Some 60% of Labour held battleground seats, which the
Conservatives must win in order to gain a majority, have a higher than average
(mean and median) proportion of public sector workers. In the top 20 Labour
held seats that will be targeted by the Conservatives in 2015, 12 contain a higher
than average proportion of public sector workers. This includes 5 of the 9 seats
where Labour has a majority of less than 1,000.
A similar pattern occurs for Liberal Democrat held seats that will be targeted
by the Conservatives. Of the top 20, Liberal Democrat held seats that will be
targeted by the Conservatives half have a higher than average (mean and median)
proportion of public sector workers.
This illustrates the importance of Conservatives building bridges with public
sector workers and not being seen as too anti public sector in their rhetoric.
It should also be remembered that public sector workers account for over 60%
of trade union membership and over 56% of public sector workers are trade
22
union members, meaning that Conservatives should be aware that overzealous
anti-union rhetoric is unlikely to help them in many target seats.29
A new Tory electoral coalition One of the Tory Party’s enduring strengths has been its ability to broaden its
appeal. The Party survived successive extension of the franchise, two world wars,
the rise of organised labour, the fall of Empire and other seismic events precisely
because of its ability to adapt to changed circumstances. It reacted to defeats in
1832, 1906, 1945 and 1974 by understanding the need to do more to broaden its
appeal, build new electoral coalitions and change to reflect changed circumstances.
Disraeli understood how Conservatives could reach out to the newly
enfranchised working class voters in the towns through a message of social
reform and patriotism. Macmillan saw the importance of house building and
jobs to successfully appeal to working class voters outside of the South East. And
Thatcher used the language of aspiration and measures such as the Right to Buy
and privatisation to bring aspirational working class voters back into the Tory fold.
And there’s a real opportunity to build a new, and broader, electoral coalition
today. Labour’s vote amongst the skilled working class dived from over 50%
under Tony Blair to a mere 29% in 2010.30 The Liberal Democrat vote amongst
working class voters has also hemorrhaged since the last election. Labour is now
much more rooted in Islington than in Durham, with its leadership and its policies
increasingly out of touch with the ordinary working voters they once represented.
The cultural affinity towards the Labour Party that once existed in large parts of
the country has now all but disappeared.
This provides the opportunity for Conservatives to forge a new coalition of
voters that could dominate British politics in future decades. The Conservatives
can become the real worker’s party, standing up for ordinary, hard-working people
trying to get on in life. With boldness and big thinking, the Conservatives can renew
themselves and Britain in a way that strengthens Conservatism for decades to come.
DAVID SKELTON is founder of Renewal. He was the Conservative candidate for North Durham in the
2010 election.
29 James Kirkup, ‘shrinking unions take shelter in the public sector’, September 12th 2012, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100180096/the-tuc-shrinking-unions-take-shelter-in-the-public-sector/; BIS, Trade Union Membership 2010, p18, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32191/11-p77-trade-union-membership-2010.pdf
30 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=101
23
WHITE VAN CONSERVATISM
ROBERT HALFON MP
Many polls tell the same story. Conservatives made substantial progress in 2010,
but are still not viewed as the party of One Nation in Scotland and the urban
North.31 For right-wingers, there is little comfort in the mirror image of this in
Labour’s retreat from England’s southern countryside.
As Policy Exchange’s Northern Lights report points out:
Conservatives have no councillors at all in Newcastle, Liverpool,
Manchester or Sheffield, having been replaced by the Lib Dems as
Labour’s opponents during the 1990s.
What characterises these Northern cities?
First, a large public sector workforce. In some urban constituencies, the share
of public workers is higher than 60%, compared to an average of 20% across the
country.32 Figures from the House of Commons Library show a strong correlation
between the concentration of workers from ‘public sector proxy industries’ and
voting Labour. Of the top 50 constituencies by public sector workforce in 2008,
more than 86% had elected a Labour MP. There were only four Conservative
exceptions to this trend, and they were all in areas surrounded by rural
Conservative seats outside of the main Midlands and Northern conurbations.
Persuading public sector workers to vote Conservative remains a key priority for
2015.
Second, we see a higher concentration of trade union membership in these
Northern cities, because of the economic dependence on the public sector.
31 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights, http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/northern%20lights.pdf
32 http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05635
24 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP
Of Britain’s 6.4 trade union members, more than two thirds work in public
service.33 That is why Conservatives must moderate our language if we wish to
speak better to these parts of Britain, where trade unions and their historic culture
(for example, the Durham Miners Gala) are a stronger part of the landscape. One
example springs to mind. Last year, there were reports that Unite were offering
unemployed workers a chance to join for as little as 50p a week. In exchange, they
got legal support and education facilities. Instead of welcoming this as a brilliant
Big Society idea to help the jobless, some on the right indulged in their traditional
union-bashing – making no distinction between the politics of Len McCluskey
and the services that were being offered to vulnerable people. Helping those who
have lost their job is something that every Conservative should support. The more
help that can be offered to those without work, the better. I wish that our party
offered these services as well.
Third, many of these urban constituencies have pockets of severe deprivation.
These include problems of low wages, benefits dependency, dysfunctional families,
drug addiction, struggling hospitals and schools, entrenched health inequalities,
and higher violent crime.34 Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world, and
yet even quite close to the UK’s areas of affluence there are still acute levels of
deprivation of the kind that Iain Duncan-Smith saw in Glasgow’s Easterhouse
estate, where he was inspired to found the Centre for Social Justice. To be a
genuine party of One Nation, Conservatives must speak up for people who
find themselves trapped in those places, through no fault of their own. This is
especially necessary, as polls repeatedly reflect a suspicion among voters that the
Conservatives are ‘the party of the rich’ and not for people like them.35
So, what is the answer? Instead of knocking socialism, which at its heart has
a noble message about helping the poor, we have to offer a stronger and more
compassionate alternative. That is why I have started talking about ‘White Van
Conservatism’: the ethos of people who wake up early; who work hard, save
hard; who have hopes for themselves and their children. Last year’s conference
in Birmingham, and especially the Prime Minister’s speech, showed that the
Conservatives are the true Workers› Party now. Whilst Labour remain the party of
33 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100180096/the-tuc-shrinking-unions-take-shelter-in-the-public-sector/
34 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/31/deprivation-map-indices-multiple35 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/10/suspicious-strivers-hold-the-key-to-
tory-election-prospects/
25
state welfarism and a dependency culture, Conservatives re-took the battleground
of aspiration — a primary Tory story through the ages.
Many people have referred to this as ‘Blue Collar’ Conservatism. I am anxious
about this term. Very few British voters will self-identify as ‘Blue Collar’, as the
phrase is an Americanism. It also has old fashioned attachments to the phrase,
and could signify that ‘Conservatism’ on its own is not friendly to lower earners.
So, what is White Van Conservatism? It is not based on ‘right wing caricature’,
as painted by our opponents. White Van Conservatives want strong policies – such
as lower taxes for a fair wage, more purposeful and skilled immigration, and the
chance of owning a home – but policies that are compassionate too. They want
solid financial support for public services, especially schools and the NHS; a more
sympathetic ear to Trade Union members, nurses, and Police officers; and a safety
net for those who fall off the ladder. It reflects the fact that work in the 21st
century has become much more individualised, as more and more people become
self-employed (currently at around 4.1 million, and growing all the time), and
micro and small businesses are the mainstay of the economy.
White Van Conservatism is also a message for women. It is
emphatically not just White Van ‘Man’ Conservatism, and it is patronising to
caricature it this way. For example, between 2008 and 2011, self-employment
rose in the UK by 147,000. Crucially, 80% of these new workers were women.
According to the FSB’s 2012 member survey, a higher proportion of younger
businesses are now micro businesses run by women.36 71% of small firms now
have female owners or directors. Survey data shows that women entrepreneurs
are especially well-represented in the following economic sectors:
• Financial services;
• Education;
• Business services;
• Retailing;
• Creative services;
• Personal services (eg. dry cleaning, hairdressing);
• Health and social work.
36 FSB Membership survey, http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/assets/uk%20voice%20of%20small%20business%20member%20survey%20report%20feb%202012.pdf
26 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP
However, for White Van Conservativism to triumph — and win electoral
dividends in 2015 — the Government needs to build on its 2012 Conference
platform. A relentless focus on tax cuts for the low-paid, not because we believe
in an abstraction of a ‘smaller state’ but because we believe that everyone should
be able to earn a Living Wage. A determination to reduce the cost of living,
particularly through a wholesale assault on utility companies and further cuts
in fuel duty; certainly no more rises. Support for smaller and micro businesses.
Attacking vested interests, such as Britain’s semi-privatised water monopolies.
Fighting the EU where it is crushing our living standards. Making it even easier
to buy a council house; perhaps even for just the price of a deposit.
On immigration, we need an approach rooted in the common ground. This
is important, because peoples’ views about migration and race relations are far
more nuanced than sometimes is credited to them. For example, the Ipsos MORI
Issues Index shows a widely held feeling that immigration has been too high
over the last decade. This view is especially held by older people over the age
of 65, and started to become widely held in 2002.37 But, more specific polling
questions reveal that attitudes depend on the type of migrant in question.
Foreigners who come to Britain to work in our public services are actually quite
popular. For example, a 2010 survey found that 72% of British people would
support admitting more foreign doctors and nurses, if they came to boost our
NHS.38 There is also majority support for admitting more care workers to help
with the burdens of an aging population.39 In a 2001 ICM Research Guardian
poll, 67% said that they were in favour of permitting entry to those who can
provide for their own financial support, even without high levels of needed skill.
These results need further study, but it important to note that perceptions of
migrants are rather like perceptions of that other unpopular group: Members
of Parliament. Namely: that there is a general dislike of the group, but the local
example tends to be quite popular. Migrants in one’s own neighbourhood
tend not to be a problem, say polls. As the Migration Observatory in Oxford
University states:
37 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3154/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March-2013-Issues-Index.aspx
38 http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
39 Transatlantic Trends 2010
27
In something of a paradox, while vast majorities view migration as
harmful to Britain, few claim that their own neighbourhood is having
problems due to migrants. Apparently, much of the opposition to
migration comes from general concerns about Britain as a whole rather
than from direct, negative experiences in one’s own community. For
example, in an Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by the Sun newspaper
in 2007 only 15% said that migrants are causing problems in their own
neighbourhood, while 69% said that migrants were not having a strong
local impact, either good or bad (Ipsos MORI 2007).
So, a White Van Conservative view of immigration and race relations is not a
simple UKIP position of a flat ‘five year ban’. Instead, it would champion ethnic
minorities who have come to Britain to work hard; especially in our NHS and
Armed Forces. At the same time, it would press for much tougher controls on
illegal migration; migrants who lack useful skills; those who abuse the welfare
state; and those who refuse to learn English.
On education, White Van Conservatives want better opportunities for the 60%
of young people who do not go to university. Sadly, the latest annual report from
Lord Baker’s EDGE foundation found that 23% of A-level pupils say their school
is still more concerned with ‘sending students to university’ than concentrating
on what is right for the individual. This contrasts sharply with parents’ wishes,
where a clear majority 78% would support their child if they choose to take a
vocational qualification.
To be fair, Labour did spend millions on various schemes – like Train to Gain
for example – trying to boost the take up of vocational routes. However, the
results were patchy and over one million young people across the country were
not in work or training by the time the Government left office. The Coalition’s
push to strengthen the quality and quantity of apprenticeships is not just about
economic efficiency. It is about social justice as well. If you give young people
real opportunities of skills and training, you get them off the street, give them
stability and a real chance of a job for the future. We are opening 24 University
Technical Colleges – pre-apprentice schools – in this Parliament. That is a good
start but we need more: 100 new UTCs should be our ambition. We have boosted
apprenticeship starts to 500,000 a year. Excellent. But we need to radically expand
28 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP
the number of Level 4 and 5 ‘Higher’ apprenticeships, to compete with university
courses. There are only a few thousand at present. The Technical Baccalaureate
is welcome recognition that vocational courses should have the same rigour and
prestige as A-Levels. But we must be relentless in schools and Colleges across the
country, in our message that apprentices deserve equal prestige with students.
If A-Level students can get free school meals in our schools, apprentices should
also get them in our FE Colleges. Apprentices should have the same graduation
ceremonies, the same preferential bank accounts and recruitment schemes.
Whitehall should lead the public sector, with clear apprenticeship career paths
in Government Departments and their major suppliers. Other Government
Departments should study the DWP’s new model contract, introduced in July
2011, which encourages their contractors to hire apprentices as at least 5% of
their workforce. We must also do more to allow parents and their children choice,
over which school or apprenticeship they go to.
None of the above is rocket science. But, it is often much harder to provide
a clear direction and a story, than to set out the policies themselves. White Van
Conservatism must be our narrative. A washing line, to hold all the clothes pegs
together.
ROBERT HALFON is Member of Parliament for Harlow
29
THINKING BRAVE AND BIG TO WIN OVER
ETHNIC MINORITY VOTERS
NADHIM ZAHAWI MP
At the 2010 general election just 16% of ethnic minority voters put their cross
in the box marked Conservative while more than two thirds voted Labour.40 Our
failure to appeal to ethnic minorities should send loud alarm bells ringing in
Downing Street and Central Office. As Lord Ashcroft points out, ‘not being white
was the single best predictor that somebody would not vote Conservative’ at the
last election’, more than age, gender, geographical location or household income.41
Unless we act now this electoral penalty will only get worse. Ethnic minorities
make up 14% of the population, a figure which is on an upward trend and
predicted to grow to at least 20% by 2051.42 More importantly, we cannot claim
to be the Conservative and Unionist Party if large numbers of non-white Britons
continue to believe we aren’t capable of representing them.
It’s a cliché of this debate that many ethnic minority voters are naturally
sympathetic to the Conservative values of hard work and free enterprise but still
find themselves unable to support the Conservative party. I recently commissioned
some polling to test this idea out, asking a sample of BME voters what they
thought about flagship Conservative policies.
On the benefit cap, our poll saw 55% of the sample in favour with only
15% opposed. Support for raising the personal allowance to £10,000 saw 75%
in favour. 72% agreed with our decision to ring-fence NHS spending, and 57%
supported devolving planning power to local authorities. As you might expect,
40 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study 41 Lord Ashcroft, Ethnic Minority Voters and the Conservative Party, April 2012, http://lordashcroftpolls.
com/2012/04/ethnic-minority-voters-and-the-conservative-party-2/42 2011 Census; University of Leeds study, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10607480
30 Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters | Nadhim Zahawi MP
immigration was further down our sample’s list of priorities compared to the
population as a whole, but there was still support for Conservative positions.
41% were in favour of reducing non-EU immigration with only 23% opposed,
while 66% were in favour of charging non-residents to use the NHS.
Finally, when we asked which political party was most in touch with the needs
of ethnic minorities 6% said the Conservatives, compared to 53% citing Labour.
This suggests to me that the problem isn’t primarily the Conservative policy
platform. It’s far deeper than that, a gut feeling which says ‘these people aren’t on
my side; they don’t have my best interests at heart.’ Partly this is a legacy issue.
Though both were repudiated by the party, many non-white Britons have never
forgotten Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech, nor the notorious slogan from
the 1964 Smethwick election ‘if you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour’.
The handling of the Brixton riots, as well as the inquiry into the murder of Stephen
Lawrence, convinced many others we were indifferent at best, downright hostile
at worst.
Given this history, it’s not going to be easy for us to gain the trust of ethnic
minority voters who have never considered voting Conservative before. Under
David Cameron the Parliamentary Party has become more representative of
modern Britain, but we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that this alone
will fix our problem. Lord Ashcroft’s research suggests that some voters believe
Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds have only been accepted by the
party because they are ‘rich’ or ‘posh’. Combating one stereotype can reinforce
another.43
It’s small comfort that we’re not alone in this predicament. The centre-right
parties of Germany, France, Australia, and of course the United States, all face the
prospect of long term electoral irrelevance. One nation does stand out from the
international trend however: Canada. In 2006 an ethnic minority voter was three
times more likely to vote Liberal than Conservative. In Canada’s 2011 federal
election 42% of voters born outside Canada voted Tory, a greater than Canadian
born voters.
Just as in the UK, the Canadian Tories conducted polls and focus groups
which showed that minorities were often conservative in outlook, but strongly
averse to voting Tory. The Canadian Conservative Party’s answer was simple:
43 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/04/ethnic-minority-voters-and-the-conservative-party-2/
31
start a dialogue. Party strategists would work to identify small, symbolic issues
which mattered a lot to particular communities. The party would then get
behind those issues to show it was listening. To gain the trust of Vietnamese-
Canadians who’d arrived as refugees in the 70s for example, Conservatives
issued a strong condemnation of Vietnam’s one-party state. As a gesture to the
Croatian community the process of visa applications for the relatives of Croatian-
Canadians was sped up, and so on. This wasn’t about dispensing patronage, it
was about opening up a conversation. Once the party had got the attention of
a particular community it then became much easier to get a hearing for its core
messages on tax, crime and enterprise.
The same approach, a strategy of genuine dialogue rather than empty
platitudes about ‘shared values’, should be tried here. One example of how this
can work comes from my own community, the British Kurds. Earlier this year
Conservative MPs led a debate in Parliament to formally recognise Saddam’s
war against the Kurds as an act of genocide. This had a huge impact, I received
hundreds of emails from British Kurds thanking me and the Party for our support
and I firmly believe those people will now tune in when we engage them on
other issues.
Yet some of the polling makes for such grim reading that you wonder if a
more seismic shift in policy is needed to signal our good intentions. We shouldn’t
be afraid to think outside of our comfort zone. In the United States Republican
Party senior figures like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio now openly champion the
idea of a temporary amnesty for illegal immigrants, as has Boris here in the UK.
Economically, a one-off amnesty would make sense. There are an estimated
570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK; this vast hidden economy cheats the
Treasury out of billions while undercutting the pay and conditions of low income
workers. At a time of austerity, moving these people into the legitimate economy
has obvious attractions, not least because the state of UKBA’s backlog means they
already enjoy effective amnesty.
Of course the objections are equally obvious: that we would be rewarding
criminal behaviour and potentially putting further pressure on public funds. The
latter could be solved by giving those under the amnesty some form of leave
to remain rather than full citizenship. Such leave to remain would give them
restricted or no access to the benefits and housing system and no ability to bring
32 Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters | Nadhim Zahawi MP
spouses and dependents to join them. They would also have to meet certain
criteria such as having no criminal record and the ability to pass an English
language test and the Life in the UK test. For the former, I would suggest that the
amnesty was part of a comprehensive reform of our borders policy, with more
and tougher enforcement action against businesses employing illegal workers,
and crucially, overhauling the long term international migration survey so that we
finally have a realistic idea of who is actually here. We should also ensure proper
exit checks are carried out to provide a new UKBA rapid reaction team with the
information required to start searching for visa over-stayers on day one of their
overstay. At the same time a British Bill of Rights could ensure that over-stayers
and fresh illegal immigrants can’t use the Human Rights Act to continually delay
and put off their deportation.
This would be on top of the significant changes to the immigration system
we’ve already made. In fact it’s only because we’ve been so robust on immigration
in government that we’re able to have this conversation with the electorate. We’ve
earned the credibility to think outside the box.
This is not to say an amnesty should be in the next manifesto, but we do need
a serious debate within the party about what needs to be done to improve our
standing with ethnic minority voters. That’s why I’m delighted that David Skelton,
the former deputy director of Policy Exchange, is founding Renewal to focus on
winning Tory votes in the North, ethnic minority communities and urban areas.
What’s clear is that on their own the A-list and photo ops of Cabinet Ministers
at their local temple or mosque, are not enough. If we want to recreate the
electoral triumphs of the 1980s we must be Thatcher-like in our willingness to
think brave and think big.
NADHIM ZAHAWI is Member of Parliament for Stratford on Avon
33
WINNING OVER ETHNIC MINORITY VOTERS
PAUL UPPAL MP
The problemAs a Party, we have asked questions about why our performance in urban areas
was not what we had hoped for. Whilst much has been attributed to our image
with working class inner city voters, a new study suggests that our results with the
ethnic minority voters also played a significant role. I will be developing this theme,
exploring the problem that the Conservative Party faces and finally providing
strategies to improve the Conservative party’s standing amongst BME communities.
A recent major study, the Ethnic Minority British Election Study (EMBES)
published by Runnymede Trust shows that at the 2010 General Election, only
16% of ethnic minorities voted Conservative.44 We must increase ethnic minority
voting for the Conservative Party if we are to win in urban areas and adapt to
the changing face of Britain. In David Cameron’s first conference speech in 2005
this issue was highlighted with Cameron saying what we need is ‘fundamental
change ... that shows we’re comfortable with modern Britain and that we believe
our best days lie ahead.’
This message is as true today as we sit in a coalition government as when we
were recovering from electoral defeat. The Conservative Party must be willing to
change and listen to become a strong electoral force in this modern Britain. Whilst
Britain has changed over the past decade; the non-white British population has
grown from 6.6 million in 2001 to 9.1 million in 2009 – or nearly one in six, the
Conservative Party has been too slow to adapt.45
Whilst working harder to fight the image of the Party as one that only
represents the rich is key to reaching working class voters, it is noticeable that
44 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study 45 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons
34 Winning over ethnic minority voters | Paul Uppal MP
the Runnymede Trust study shows class is not a major factor in voting behaviour
of ethnic minorities. Ethnic minority voters tend to vote Labour regardless of
their class.
This is supported by research shows that the Conservatives under performance
in seats with above average BME populations. Amongst seats with a high percentage
of British Asians, Conservatives trail Labour by an average of 16 percentage
points and won just 11 out of 58 seats. I believe that this underperformance
amongst BME voters was a contributing factor to the Conservative Party failing
to win an overall majority. There were eight target seats out of the top 100 that
the conservative party failed to take from Labour, all but one can be described as
having above average BME populations with half being described as having very
large BME populations. If the Conservative Party continues to fail to win seats
such as Westminster North and Birmingham Edgbaston, with relatively high BME
populations of 31.4% and 18.9% respectively (according to the 2001 census),
then I cannot envisage the Conservative Party governing alone.
SolutionsIt may seem that we have a mountain to climb, but I think we can be encouraged
by what the Canadian Conservatives have achieved in transforming their success
with BME voters. The Canadian Conservative Party achieved a landslide in May
2011 whilst also significantly increasing their appeal to ‘new Canadians’. In 2000
the Liberal Party had a 60 point lead with ‘new Canadians’ At the 2011 election,
the Canadian Conservative Party turned this around to take a 20 point lead with
‘new Canadian voters’. Whilst I acknowledge every country is different, I do think
we can be encouraged by their success and also learn some lessons.
I disagree with some who would say our message needs changing; the barrier
is largely one of perception of the party. This is the barrier we need to break down
before we can realistically expect to significantly change our electoral success
amongst the BME population. Disappointingly, studies such as Lord Ashcroft’s
degree of separation have shown that one of the main drivers for not voting
Conservative amongst BME communities is the perception that the Party is hostile
towards black and ethnic minorities, and does not care about them. I find this very
disappointing as this is not the Party I see today. Whilst we can’t change history
and what has gone before, we can change perceptions. The Prime Minister, David
35
Cameron has done a lot to revitalise and grow the modern Conservative Party.
Evidently, however, a lot more needs to be done to relay this to the voters.
If the Conservative Party isn’t engaging with BME voters, if councillors
and MPs aren’t attending celebrations at the mosques or temples and visiting
community initiatives and if senior politicians aren’t recognising cultural events
or being seen in the BME media then this message will continue to not reach
BME voters. Our absence allows Labour in addition to other groups to define
us to BME communities, entrenching negative perceptions further. To change
perceptions we need to be engaged and visible from the grassroots to the top.
Better awareness and better engagement are key, but as Baroness Warsi has
said, ‘we won’t win hearts and minds overnight’. This cannot just be a strategy for
2015, but a long term process that becomes part of our ethos. Superficial efforts
near an election won’t change longstanding perceptions. It’s important we grasp
the importance of this now and are consistent with delivering the change. This
is not just a message to be taken on by BME MPs or candidates with marginal
or seats with a high BME population. If our strategy is to be effective and to be
lasting it needs everyone from the Conservative Future, local Associations, MPs in
safe seats and senior politicians. Lord Ashcroft’s study showed rather than feeling
Conservatives were actively hostile, some felt that the party didn’t care about
BME communities and did not value and respect them.
It is important that we see better representation of BME communities amongst
our MPs in Parliament and I know this is something the Party are committed to.
But this won’t solve the problem for us. Whilst ethnic minorities are encouraged
to see someone from their own community working as an MP, the Sikh population
do not just want to see me addressing them on issues of importance on Sangat
TV for example, but also want to see the Prime Minister and other Cabinet
members. They want to know they are being listened to and taken seriously.
Consequently this is a message for all Conservative MPs, to encourage them to
actively be seeking to engage with all communities in their constituencies as the
demographics of seats continue to change. I know many of my colleagues already
do this and it enriches their work, enabling them to champion and bring to the
fore issues they may not have been aware of without this engagement.
Our counterparts in Canada have seen the importance of this, the need
for serious engagement from the grassroots level right to the top. As through
36 Winning over ethnic minority voters | Paul Uppal MP
engagement we learn the issues, through learning the issues we can take action and
through action we show credibility, understanding and support for communities.
What was demonstrated in Canada was a deliberate strategy to deliver on
the issues that mattered to BME communities, politicians went out into these
communities listened and then responded. In raising issues such as the searching
of Sikh turbans at airports and the theft of Asian jewellery the Conservative Party
can mimic the strategy employed by the Canadian Conservatives and deliver a
message that resonates with BME communities in the UK.
If we can break through the barriers created by perception and history I believe
we will see success as our message is one that will resonate with many BME voters.
Whilst I certainly do not think BME voters can be seen as one homogenous group,
many people from BME communities would be considered to be conservative in
their values. As Katharine Birbalsingh wrote in The Telegraph, ‘It is difficult to talk
about ‘ethnic minorities’ since they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, classes,
religions, interests and motivations. But there is one thing, more often than not, that
they have in common: ethnic minorities tend to be conservative with a small C’.46
As Jason Kenney, Minster for Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada
noted, part of their success was through ‘making a sustained effort to reach out
based on shared values – turning small c conservatives into big C Conservatives’.
From my experience with the Indian Diaspora, who incidentally, from the
Runnymede Trust study, are the most likely to vote Conservative, is that many
British Indians are naturally small c conservatives in their values, lives and
aspirations. As a candidate in Wolverhampton South West I found that when we
spoke about the familial or grandparental responsibility, it seemed to resonate
widely amongst these voters.
Our message is not a difficult one, but perhaps we need to speak up our values
more rather than allowing Labour to flood our message as being one of unfairness
and ‘out of touch’. At our core we are a Party that stands for justice, personal
responsibility, strong families and aspiration. Whilst tackling the deficit has rightly
taken precedent since our election, in the years left in this term we must ensure
that we are talking up Conservative values and bringing policies that support and
reflect them, ensuring voters feel they can identify with us.
46 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100105353/why-do-the-tories-do-so-little-to-court-ethnic-minorities-theyre-natural-conservatives/
37
Breaking down the barriers created by perception and history is a long term
task. There is no single reason why BME communities are resilient to voting
Conservative and there is no single message or approach that will remedy this.
The facts are simple though; without the increased support of BME communities
it is difficult to imagine a Conservative government, governing on its own. With
simple steps and a genuine commitment I do believe this future is not inevitable.
Once we have broken down these barriers the rest is simple, be careful in our
language and strong with our message.
PAUL UPPAL is Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West
38
WINNING IN THE CITIES
GREG CLARK MP
There are 158 constituencies in the North of England. Just 43 of them returned
a Conservative MP at the last general election. By way of comparison, Labour
took just ten of the 197 constituencies in the South of England outside London.
We could comfort ourselves with the thought that Labour has the bigger problem,
but complacency won’t win us a majority. Nor is national unity best served by
the polarisation of the electoral map. Of course, in any democracy, there will be
geographical variations in support for different parties – but few countries are as
starkly polarised as our own.
It’s therefore time to take the North-South divide seriously. And to do so we
need a better understanding of the nature of that divide. For instance, this is much
more than a matter of physical distance from Westminster – after all, you can
travel hundreds of miles from Big Ben and still find yourself in true-blue territory.
We also need to look past differences in the socio-economic make-up of North
and South. Though these do exist, it’s also the case that if you compare people
from the same backgrounds, Northern voters are less likely than their Southern
counterpart to support Conservative candidates.
Clearly, there’s something else going on – a lot of things, in fact; but for me the
biggest single factor that distinguishes the North from the South is cities. If you
look at where people actually live, the North is much more urban place than the
South. Of a total Northern population of 13.5 million people, 8.5 million – almost
three-fifths – live in the metropolitan counties of Merseyside, Greater Manchester,
South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. Other heavily urban areas
such as Hull and my native Teesside are home to much of the other two-fifths.
Of course, the South has cities too. But leaving London aside, they’re fewer in
number and generally smaller in size. Of England’s eight ‘Core Cities’ (the largest
39
cities beyond the capital), five are in the North, two in the Midlands and only one
(Bristol) in the South.
And if one doesn’t leave London aside? Well, in many ways, this only increases
the contrast between North and South. London is in a category of its own – an
order of magnitude bigger than any other city in Britain, a world city of enormous
economic, political and cultural importance. So while the North is a region of
cities, the South is a region of smaller communities centred on a single metropolis
in which wealth and power is concentrated to an extraordinary degree.
In my view, there is no serious analysis of the North-South divide that doesn’t
begin with this vast difference in economic geography.
As a capital without a counterweight, London’s sheer size helps explain how
Britain became one of the most centralised countries in the free world. At its
height, the industrial revolution provided the North – and its growing cities –
with the dynamism they needed to escape London’s gravitational pull. But the
technological and political products of that revolution gave Whitehall the means
and the justification required to exert its control to an ever-greater degree.
There are those who say that cities that were once in the right place to exploit
the opportunities of industrialisation are now in the wrong place in the era of
globalisation. But this utterly misses the point. The greatest strength of cities
is their ability to innovate. By providing the greatest possible concentration of
people and institutions, cities are where new ideas have the best chance of taking
wing. Furthermore when it comes to applying new ideas to their own governance,
cities – as spatially coherent, living communities – are ideally placed to know their
own strengths and weaknesses and to adapt accordingly to changing economic
conditions.
This is why over-centralisation has been such a disaster for urban Britain.
Over-mighty and over-extended, central government has, for decades, robbed our
cities of their trump card: their ability to do things differently. This has been bad
for the country as a whole, but particularly bad for the North – being a region
characterised by its distinct and diverse cities. Each of these communities should
have been empowered to plot its own course to the post-industrial future, but
they were instead subject to the uniform prescriptions of a distant bureaucracy.
It is this deliberate policy of disempowerment, and not geographical
determinism, that explains the economic decline of the North.
40 Winning in the cities | Greg Clark MP
In 2012, the Government published its Unlocking Growth in Cities report,
which compared England’s eight core cities (the largest cities outside London)
with their equivalents in Germany, France and Italy. In Germany all eight of the
biggest cities outside Berlin outperformed the national average in terms of GDP
per capita. The same was true of all but two of the Italian core cities. In France,
three of the eight outperformed the national average, while none fell significantly
below it. Moreover, it wasn’t only GDP that followed this pattern, it could also be
seen in respect to the percentage of the workforce with higher qualification and
rates of innovation (as measured by patent applications).
Patterns like this don’t form themselves over night. They are the result of
decisions taken over a century of ever increasing centralisation. In more recent
decades, there have been signs of economic renewal in our great cities, which are
especially visible in the regeneration of their city centres. But huge reserves of
untapped potential remain. The progress that had been made since the 1980s is
only the start of what is both possible and necessary.
Our cities have already proved that they can make good use of whatever
freedoms that national governments have granted to them. But halting, fitful
experiments in localism are not enough. Only a sustained and expanding policy
of radical decentralisation will do.
There need to be qualitative differences in the process of reform too: The irony
of previous attempts at decentralisation is that they have been highly centralised
in nature – Whitehall has decided which resources and responsible to devolve,
making a one-size-fits-all offer to each community on a take-it-or-leave it basis.
The City Deals programme, which I’m responsible for as Cities Minister, takes
a completely different approach. Each deal is bespoke, not off-the-peg. It is agreed
in a two-way negotiation between central government and the city in question.
Each community has a right of initiative – to propose what it wants in the deal.
And rather than the city having to show why it should have this or that item in
the deal, the burden of proof – in the event of a disagreement – is on Ministers to
show why it shouldn’t.
The first wave of City Deals have already been agreed with the core cities
of Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham
and Sheffield. The second wave, involving twenty additional urban areas, is
currently in progress. With the publication of Lord Heseltine’s landmark report
41
on promoting growth in local economies – No stone unturned – decentralisation
will move to an even higher gear.
From the moment that this Government took office and set about dismantling
the apparatus of top-down state control, we made it clear that each decentralising
reform represented a point of departure not a destination. To remove a central
control, to devolve a decision-making power doesn’t just serve a purpose in itself,
it lays the foundation for further decentralisation – by reducing dependency on
the centre, building up local capacity and inspiring further city-led initiatives.
I believe that this dynamic process of change will produce positive economic
results for our cities long before any shift in party political allegiances. However,
it is pretty clear to me that the old order of disempowered Northern cities,
prevented from shaping their own futures, was very much to the advantage of
our opponents.
All the time the main question is ‘what can the Government do for our cities?’
then the party of tax, borrow and spend will have the upper hand. But if we can
change the question to ‘what can this city do for itself?’, then many good things
are sure to follow.
GREG CLARK is the Minister for Cities, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Member of Parliament for Tunbridge Wells.
42
ENGAGING WITH ORDINARY
WORKING PEOPLE
SHAUN BAILEY
This essay will seek to examine why it is important that the Conservative Party engage
with the working vote, and the methods and policies that can be used to do so.
Look – Acknowledging the ProblemThis essay will define the ‘working vote’ to be those who work, and those that do not
work but want to, who earn between £15,000 and £40,000 a year. According to The
Resolution Foundation this translates to around a third of working-age households,
and 7.8 million workers.47
What happens in this group affects everyone: if you’re one of the lowest
earners in the country, you’re trying to move into this group, and if you’re beyond
this group, there is a strong likelihood that your children are in this group. This
group touches all vocations, genders, ages and ethnic groups in society. Ultimately
though, this is the demographic that the Conservative Party finds hardest to reach.
Whether it’s young people, ethnic minorities, public sector workers, or
Northerners, we have to repair the relationship between the Conservatives and
working people, in the run up to the next election. We’ve got to realign voters
with the party and disrupt the relationship that Labour have simply assumed they
hold with British workers.
We must establish trust between the party and the public, and focus on
combating the ‘out of touch’ narrative. We have to show that the Conservative
Party do understand the difficulties that people face. When 52% of people who
earn less than £20,000 and 46% of those who earn between £20,000 and £39,999
47 The Resolution Foundation, Squeezed Britain 2013, p.5.
43
believe they are going to be worse off in 2015 than at present, we need to give
them a reason to believe we’re the right party to run the country.48
To do this, we need a dual focus on both communication and policy.
Talk – Establishing Effective CommunicationRegular and Often
The foundation of our communication needs to be an understanding of ‘regular
and often’. People only absorb a message when they hear it repeatedly, and it’s
our job to make sure they are hearing the right messages.
The leadership and the Party need to match their rhetoric and communication
with continual, planned actions that show an ability to follow through on
promises. There has to be a consistency of message coming from MP’s as well.
This repetition might appear dull to the press, but the public never grow tired
of hearing how their concerns are being dealt with. This cannot be done only in
the top levels of the party; it must be spread throughout the entire party to show
widespread understanding and empathy.
This activity needs to challenge the very powerful twin notions that ‘the
Conservatives aren’t for me’, and ‘Labour understand me better’. Lord Ashcroft’s
report suggested that, only 30% of white voters agreed the Conservative Party
was ‘in touch with the concerns of people like you’; Labour did rather better on
45%, a lead of 15 points. Among Asian voters, though, Labour led by 37 points
on this measure (65% to 28%), and among black voters by 59 points (75% to
16%).49 This pattern is a damaging one. The party need to look, talk and act
more diversely.
At the last election the Party increased its number of BME MPs from 2 to 11
which was a big improvement. Yet we still remain behind Labour with 16 BME
MPs. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand have no BME MPs. Despite our
progress, you would never know there was diversity in the party by looking at
the front bench. This failure robs the Conservatives of appeal, on both television
and in the media more widely. By not visually presenting our diversity, we
are missing out on opportunities to demonstrate that the Conservatives are
for everybody.
48 The Resolution Foundation, The Living Standards Election, p.9.49 Lord Ashcroft KCMG, Degrees of Separation: Ethnic Minority and the Conservative Party, p.28
44 Engaging with Ordinary Working People | Shaun Bailey
We are a meritocratic party but we have to ensure that this is matched with
diversity; politicians from working class and minority backgrounds must be
visible to the public. Whether it’s on the front bench or in the House of Lords
or party spokespeople, people from these backgrounds need to be seen to be
supporting the party. This will help us build momentum. It isn’t about offering
token placements, but recognising the strength and ability within our ranks and
talking about how valued this is.
Alongside this, we need to put down new markers about what it is to be
British and repeat this message of inclusivity time and again. Talking about a
colourless Britain is not as powerful as talking about a diverse and integrated
Britain. The public need to understand what we are aiming for, and the fact that
this is underpinned by a belief that integration is absolutely the right thing to do.
It’s time to redefine the civic test. Could the Party be the ones to galvanise the term
‘Black British’? How we welcome this new notion of ‘Britishness’ is important.
Diversity must be talked about as a point of strength. We need party members to
realise that an inclusive party is the only way to win a majority. We cannot settle
for the guilty, left-wing take on diversity that gives token roles to token people;
we need a cohesive understanding that diversity makes us stronger.
Our words are only going to hold meaning, though, if they are backed by
actions. It is imperative, therefore, that we are use events to demonstrate our core
beliefs. We need to be running quality events that are based on problems working
people are concerned with, focussing on issues like the living wage, house prices,
the cost of living, crime, and the cost of food. We must be seen to put the public
ahead of big business, and display our concern if we hope to find a platform
for dialogue that connects with working people. By carefully choosing speakers
and venues that are designed to add to the effectiveness of our message, we can
align ourselves with the right kind of third party endorsement that will show our
diversity as we work alongside others.
Holding Labour to account
Alongside these actions, it is right that we develop a narrative on Labour and their
policy. We should look to expose how their policies are destined to fail and are the
‘same old same old’ – that they’re still committed to tax and spend, the hypocrisy
of Ed Miliband attending the anti-cuts march and later saying Labour would also
45
have to cut, their lack of investment in the sectors that provide high paying jobs,
skilled and unskilled, to benefit the groups that they claim to have affinity with. We
must question all of their rhetoric to challenge its apparent attractiveness, before
revealing the inherent weaknesses. Whilst none of this is new, it does need to be
done in systematic fashion, using a ‘language pallet’ designed to be memorable.
Similar to the tactic used to highlight the failings of Gordon Brown’s policies
in the last election, simple, emotional phrases that ‘stick’, and can be repeated time
and time again, should be developed. When Brown left our criticisms, to some
extent, became invalid because they were based on his leadership. Learning from
this, we have to build strong arguments against the Labour Party ethos.
Equally, we have allowed the Liberal Democrats to assume a position of a
civilising force on the Conservatives. This happened because we have not talked
enough about the positive changes we have made for working people whilst in
government. Reading this, you may be thinking ‘yes we have’ but my contention
is, if the message is not delivered again and again by a diverse group of people we
have not. Achievements such as the massive amount of low paid workers moved
out of the tax system and the delivery of a fairer benefit system are all important
issues to this group; but the message will only be heard when coming from
the right people. The Liberal Democrats have shown a pattern of inconsistency
which makes them unpopular, and yet we have not engaged with this narrative
to show contrast between their work and ours, if we hope to gain soft Lib Dem
votes at the election we should use this opportunity to show we have delivered
our policy pledges.
Act – Being Proactive in PolicyPolicy action is vital to reach the 42% of people that have stated they would never
vote Conservative. Policies need to reflect an understanding of what working
people face in day to day life. These recommendations are a starting point for
some for the policy direction that could be taken:
• The Prime Minister making a speech addressing working people, and the
desire to see Great Britain working again, thus showing from that this is a
Party wide initiative. This should be approached as a compelling invitation
to those who have not ever voted Conservative to do so; then lay out why.
46 Engaging with Ordinary Working People | Shaun Bailey
• A cost of living task force to look at how the Government and commercial
companies can reduce/control the cost of living. This task force could look at
things such as access to cheap credit for low income households, utility bills
and petrol prices.
• Increased support for credit unions to encourage low income families/ people
to establish savings. Savings are the single biggest factor in helping people stay
positive. Just over half of low – middle income households have no savings at
all and two-thirds have less than a month’s income in savings. This leaves them
vulnerable to unexpected costs that are beyond their means. By vocalising our
support for credit unions, we establish an understanding that savings equate
to security and stability; something many people they do not have.
• A housing strategy that builds a large number and wide variety of homes
including council houses. We have all the necessary resources and components
to make this happen, but we don’t have the culture. This is something that the
Government can step in and change. These homes should be available to be
bought by the average household.
• We should consider tagging particular types of offenders systematically e.g.
Convicted paedophiles or other serious violent offenders to allow police and
other authorities to track their location 24 hours a day.
• We should legislate on policy that supports small businesses by setting a
standard of 30 days in which small businesses must be paid for goods or
services provided. Cutting red tape, providing a VAT holiday, and any other
initiatives that encourage business development.
Anybody who has been involved in the front line of Conservative politics
for the last ten years or more (councillors and activists) will know the need for
clear domestic policy in order to win the doorstep battle. To anybody involved
in national Conservative politics, you will know the long-term battle we have
had with our ‘out of touch’ reputation, and our retreat to the South. But make
no mistake; this can be changed. For years we have let The Labour Party control
our relationship with the working vote by setting the conversation; in effect,
controlling our PR with certain groups. It has not always been this way; most
people don’t believe me when I tell them there was a time when most trade
unionists voted Conservative, but there was and it was not so long ago. It is time
47
that the Conservative Party took control of this because if we don’t winning a
majority will be impossible. I feel like the change is underway, with the advent of
groups such as Renewal. We now need to build on this, and do it quickly; clear,
powerful, simple and most of all consistent messaging.
SHAUN BAILEY was the Conservative candidate for Hammersmith at the 2010 election and is the Government Youth and Community Engagement Champion.
49
CONSERVATISM FOR THE PEOPLE
50
CONSERVATISM FOR THE CONSUMER
LAURA SANDYS MP
It is important that the Conservative Party has a clear, coherent consumer policy
that informs departmental thinking, and places consumers centre stage. We must
regain our ambition for delivering competition, improved customer service and
innovation across our economy. These are the values that guided our policies around
privatisation – we can do the same for consumers by reviving our belief that they are
the true arbiters of markets. We have always believed that capitalism is there to serve
consumers and is at its best when driven by informed, powerful consumers, who
demand market innovation and greater efficiency. What is good for consumers and
competition is ultimately good for the best businesses and delivers sustainable growth.
Bad markets disguise, mislead or control consumer choice. Over the past
ten years government policy has been captured by the supply side of markets –
we now need to reboot our commitment to consumers. We need a fundamental
redesign of markets, regulators and government departments to put the real
market makers – the consumers – at the heart of our economy.
A 21st century set of consumer policies would re-engineer our current
consumer policies from being solely those of a ‘victim needing protection’ and
include consumer empowerment and self determination. These polices must
explicitly include our recognition that consumers deserve fair markets, real
competition and truthful, transparent and comprehensible information. We must
value the consumer’s independence from the supply chain as this makes them the
only ‘dispassionate’ player in a dynamic market.
Although Whitehall and legislators often focus on the supply chain, the
demand chain offers us a new set of priorities in framing markets – it is not for
us to determine the nature of markets, but it is for the consumer to have all the
information – easily available, in clear language with comparable units of value.
51
It is only once they have this information that consumers truly have the ability to
influence the market.
Horsemeat, dodgy promotions, Equitable Life, doorstep selling, PPI – the news
is full of rip-offs, lies and deceit at the heart of our market economy. Worryingly
the consumer rip off is being conflated by some with the free market – linking
these travesties, and even criminality, with the principle of deregulated markets
and privatisation.
Due to sharp practices, consumers are sometimes being asked to absorb
inflation with no knowledge that the real value or unit price has increased. It
must never be acceptable to ‘disguise’ a price rise or a value reduction by
packaging, ingredient shifts or promotions that do not deliver better price per unit.
Consumers need clear information that reduces the asymmetry of information
between the producer and the consumer and delivers real purchasing power.
Of all the practices being used to rip off consumers, shrinking the size of
products has become a particular favourite of favourite of food companies. This
sees product packaging and presentation remaining the same, but the ‘consumerable
content’ shrinking. This is happening across a wide range of products – but, of
course, with no banner saying ‘30% LESS’. Consumers do not, and should not have
to, remember content weights and measures for their favourite products in order to
try and establish whether its content has been reduced.
The ‘promotion’ is also keenly pursued by companies to excite and incentivise
customers, but again, is this becoming a mechanism to disguise price rises and
hide product changes? With sometimes 60% of products in supermarkets on
promotion one needs to question if the promotional price is the real price and
that the ‘normal’ price is inflated. One supermarket has been accused of raising
and lowering prices on products so that no one knows what the promotional
price is. Others have had their ‘value’ promise investigated by the Advertising
Standards Authority.
In order to combat market asymmetry and to reinstate the consumer to their
rightful place at the heart of markets, I am proposing that the Conservative Party
adopts the following policies:
Establishment of a Minister of State for Consumers: The Minister responsible
for the consumer needs to have a government-wide role. By being based in the
52 Conservatism for the consumer | Laura Sandys MP
Cabinet Office this Minister would be able to migrate across all government
departments to seek out market failure.
Strengthen the Competition and Market Authority’s Consumer Remit: We need to
review the CMA’s consumer remit and assess whether its scope and powers could
be further enhanced to ensure greater transparency and symmetry between the
consumer and the supply chain.
Reform of Consumer Governance: While each regulator has consumer
representatives on their board, market design is often focused around the supply
dynamic. We need to review regulator’s remits to strengthen the consumer voice not
just in terms of redress but in terms of consumer activism and efficiency. Consumer
research needs to be ongoing to assess behaviour and level of engagement with the
markets. Consumer activism within markets needs to be guiding the regulators
decision-making and be part of their reporting requirements.
Simplify product information for the Consumer: Simplifying terms and
conditions, complaints/redress should be a central theme for Government.
Conservatives regularly discuss simplifying regulations for businesses, but are
rarely heard advocating the same for consumers. ‘Simple’ product design should
be implemented, rather than expecting consumers to do mental contortions in
order to understand a product group or business sector. We also need to do
more to take the friction out of switching in difficult markets – be that energy or
banking.
Greater standardisation of consumer metrics and comprehensible labelling: Weights
and measures/pricing units/quality units need to be reviewed to ensure consistency in
both unit and information delivered. Data must be comprehensible, clear, comparable
and contestable. Meaningful units must be introduced – e.g.: What is a kWh? What
does it mean and what does it deliver? Labelling is still not understandable by
consumers and needs to be designed around real consumer values.
Presumption of Truth: Consumers should be able to rely on a presumption of truth
from companies with increased penalties to companies who either distort the truth
53
or whose information is intentionally misleading. The role of trading standards
should be enhanced and corporate deceit should attract greater penalties.
Corporate ‘Village Green Stocks’: Redress needs to become much simpler and
public, with compulsory reporting of consumer breaches prominently displayed
on regulators websites, and part of the annual reporting from departments on
any regulated sectors. Hidden costs, unexpected changes, shocks and surprises for
consumers must be borne down on.
As a party, Conservatives need to re-engineer how they look at markets and
ensure that the push and pull of the consumer can be felt throughout the supply
chain, not just when they become victims of a supply led system. Consumer
interests and activism need to be promoted through all departments and the
supply chain design needs to be replaced by strong demand side policies.
Politically there is also a vacuum. No party has embraced the philosophy of
delivering true markets through serving the consumer. There is no party that is
more appropriate to take up the consumer’s mantle than the Conservative Party.
We truly believe in markets, but most importantly we believe that the consumer
has the ability to make, shape or break a product.
Consumers as market makers and market shapers must be the most important
element of a vibrant, healthy and innovative market. It is now our role to remind
the market that the consumer must be king.
LAURA SANDYS is Member of Parliament for South Thanet and is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Greg Barker MP at the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
54
CONSERVATISM FOR THE LOW PAID
MATTHEW HANCOCK MP
Wrongly, tackling low pay hasn’t always been seen as a Conservative priority in
the past. That must change. There is a huge job to do to ensure growth in the
economy benefits everyone in our society.
Unfortunately, the last Labour Government provided us with pretty sound
empirical proof that growth doesn’t necessarily reach the pay packet. In the
so-called boom years between 2003 and 2008 GDP grew by 11% while median
earnings remained flat.
The subsequent crash taught us an important lesson: you create sustainable
growth by strengthening pay for low and middle income earners, not the other way
round. Rapid GDP growth at a time of stagnant earnings is positively dangerous,
because the whole edifice relies on borrowing to make up the shortfall in demand.
If anything should happen to cut off the supply of credit – like a banking crash
for example – then the economy is in serious trouble.
So low pay matters to the centre-right. Not only is the economic case
overwhelming but the moral case too. As unabashed supporters of the free market
we have a special responsibility to ensure that capitalism works for everyone. We
are the party of aspiration, and the low paid shift-worker who works overtime
and saves hard wants the best for his family no less than his boss, or his boss’s
boss.
Under Labour, the answer to low pay was welfarism in the form of tax credits.
This only entrenched the problem of an economy that was too on dependent on
debt, since higher welfare spending was financed by growing the deficit. It also
damaged incentives, not only the incentives of employees but also of employers.
After all, if wages are subsidised by the state why bother investing in the skills
and capital needed to raise productivity? The left’s approach has been tested to
55
destruction, now we on the centre-right must make the case that Conservative
policies are best placed to deliver for the low paid.
In areas where it directly controls pay this Government has protected the
low paid as much as possible. Those earning under £21,000 are exempt from
the public sector pay freeze, and our reforms to public sector pensions were
designed to be progressive, with the best paid taking the biggest hit. Outside the
employment directly controlled by the state there are three more levers of policy
which government can use to influence earnings: the minimum wage, tax, and
productivity.
The most explicit rule governing low pay is the national minimum wage.
Some on the right maintain that the minimum wage harms our economy by
undermining competitiveness, but again this has things back to front. Of course
we need to make Britain more competitive, but the reason we’re competing in the
first place is so people can be better paid. Competition is a means of achieving
greater freedom and opportunity, it is not an end in itself.
The standard economic argument against the minimum wage is that it prices
people out of the labour market. Given that the minimum wage is one of the most
intensively studied topics in the whole of economics, you would expect opponents
of the policy to be able to prove this fairly conclusively. There are now so many
papers on the minimum wage that economists have started to publish studies of
studies. But what the empirical literature actually shows is that the minimum
wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low wage
workers. This is partly because increased pay raises the efficiency of the workforce
– employers have a greater incentive to get more out of their staff – and partly
because profits rather than jobs tend to absorb the impact on the wage bill.
So Conservatives should stop worrying and learn to love the minimum wage.
A stronger minimum wage is a powerful incentive, particularly when it comes to
welfare reform. The bigger the pay rise you get when you come off benefits and
into work, the more likely you are to get off benefits. A strong minimum wage
creates the right incentives by helping make work pay. So we need to strengthen
the minimum wage, as we did recently when we raised the apprentice minimum
wage above the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission.
On its own, however, the minimum wage is not enough. We also have to look at
the tax system, because post-tax pay is what really matters. Again, Conservatives
56 Conservatism for the low paid | Matthew Hancock MP
in government have a powerful story to tell. Raising the tax threshold from £6,475
to £10,000 has cut by three quarters the income tax paid by someone working
35 hours a week on the current minimum wage. This amounts to a rise in take-
home pay of £700, or three weeks wages, with almost three million of the lowest
earners taken out of paying income tax altogether. Left-wing economists argue
that tax credits are a cheaper, more targeted way of achieving the same result, but
again this ignores the crucial question of incentives. By increasing the marginal
withdrawal rate, tax credits damage work incentives, whereas by lowering the
marginal rate of tax for the low paid, higher tax thresholds improve them.
The centre-right are best placed to deliver on post-tax pay because sustainable
tax cuts can only be paid for by reductions in public spending, and a party without
credibility on controlling spending has no credibility on cutting taxes.
Tax and the minimum wage are essential elements in the plan to tackle low
pay over the short term, but over the long term the only way to secure better pay
is to become more productive. To be clear, this does not mean working longer
hours, any more than being more competitive equates to paying people less. More
time at work means less time in the garden, less time with the family. I want to see
the kind of productivity gains which make us more free, not less. The key thing is
to increase output per hour, not output per worker.
In part, improving productivity is about maintaining a highly flexible jobs
market, with efficient job matching, low barriers to job creation, and a diverse
range of working patterns available to people. Flexibility in the non-wage part
of the labour market helps support the low paid by ensuring that businesses can
respond to shocks without cutting wages.
More importantly, we need to help businesses increase the value of whatever
it is they are selling, so that higher wage bills are more than offset by extra money
in the till. I’m prepared to spend more at my favourite coffee shop because on
top their basic training, the staff there really know how to make a good coffee.
In other words, they are highly skilled. Specialised expertise raises the status of
the profession, creating a better motivated workforce, and a more confident and
effective sales team. Because his or her services are worth more to the business, a
trained barista may well be able to command higher wages.
Our own history provides good evidence that higher wages can actually result
in greater competitiveness. In the late eighteenth century British workers’ wages
57
were among the highest in the world, thanks to the success of our global trading
empire. The relatively high cost of labour was what led British entrepreneurs
to invest in labour-saving devices like the spinning jenny in textiles, allowing
workers to produce much more for much less than our competitors. As a result,
Britain was the first country in the world to industrialise.
Today, investment in human capital is just as important as investment
in physical capital. The iPhone costs Apple around $180 to manufacture and
assemble, it’s able to retail for three times that because millions of people are
prepared to pay top dollar for the design. In a world where value is added on
the drawing board rather than the production line, education and skills matter
more than ever before. Strengthening the skills system must be at the heart of our
strategy to drive up pay.
We’ve made a good start. Under this Government more than a million new
Apprenticeships have begun. The money spent on Apprenticeships pays for itself
twenty times over with the direct benefit to a Higher Apprentice estimated at
£150,000 over the course of their lifetime. And because we listen to employers
rather than assume that Whitehall knows best, we’re making the system more
rigorous and responsive to the needs of business. It’s consistently shown that
English and maths are the building blocks of the skills system, so reforming
schools to ensure that everyone gets a decent education is vital too. Again, the
centre-right is best placed to deliver on reform because we’re prepared to take on
the vested interests who oppose it.
The essence of Conservatism is helping the individual to help themselves.
In the twenty-first century there can be no better application of that principle
than supporting the low paid by cutting taxes, backing the minimum wage and
improving skills. It’s critical for the freedom and prosperity of the whole nation
that we succeed.
MATTHEW HANCOCK is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills and Member of Parliament for West Suffolk
58
CONSERVATISM FOR SOCIAL MOBILITY
DAMIEN HINDS MP
Opportunity for allRight up there with family, enterprise and nation, Conservatives are the party of
opportunity. We believe it is self-evident that everyone should have the chance
to fulfil their potential. We also know that, in a competitive world, individual
opportunity is a must for our collective prosperity; studies show that reaching
international benchmarks for social mobility could eventually be worth 4% on
GDP.50 The ‘global race’ that David Cameron spoke of at the 2012 Conservative
conference is the context of all policy, and class or occupational immobility
impedes a country’s ability to compete.
That is where we are. Our children’s prospects are significantly more
predictable from their parents’ social class than in most competitor nations.
Today’s forty somethings have been less socially mobile than those born a decade
earlier. The gap between the privately educated elite and the rest yawns pretty
much as wide as ever. Famously, private schools educate 7% of people, but 70%
of High Court judges.
The underlying causes are manifold. A 2012 all-party parliamentary group
report, Seven Key Truths about Social Mobility,51 illustrated the range of ‘swing
factors’ throughout the life cycle. Parenting, teacher quality, out of school
opportunities, careers advice, and the development of ‘character’ and personal
resilience all play a part.
The Coalition has a strong record here, especially through Michael Gove’s
education reforms. Perhaps most important in this sphere is the pupil premium,
which starts to rebalance the odds for the disadvantaged. Less well known
50 BCG / Sutton Trust51 http://www.appg-socialmobility.org/
59
but equally important is the £125m investment in an Education Endowment
Foundation to stimulate innovation and help scale-up projects proven to help
break the link between poorer backgrounds and poorer educational outcomes.
Other key initiatives include the extension of childcare entitlement among
disadvantaged families, increases in the number of health visitors, reform of both
academic and vocational qualifications, raising the school/college leaving age, and
the massive growth in apprenticeships.
But given the scale of the challenge there is a long way to go. Whilst there is
a wide range of public policy issues involved three good places to start are home
life, school, and the ‘x-factor’.
It starts at homeThe point of greatest leverage for someone’s chances in life is what happens at the
very start. Recent academic studies52 have questioned some of the more dramatic
findings on how ‘rich thick kids’ quickly overtake their brighter but poorer peers.
But the underlying point stands: from even a very early age big differences in
development are discernible between children from different socioeconomic
backgrounds – and this gap persists. Inherited ability cannot explain the extent
of the gap, and clearly what happens in those first few months and years makes
a big difference.
Books at home, reading aloud, regular bed times, a good diet, ‘tough love’ –
these are all things that improve development and are also, for whatever reason,
on average correlated with parental income.53 Already by the age of five there
is said to be a 19 month gap in vocabulary between children from the highest
income and lowest income homes.54
Policy responses thus far have centred on childcare and nursery education,
through Sure Start and the 15 hours entitlement extended to disadvantaged two
year olds. This can clearly make a difference, but there is a limit to which you can
or would want to bring more and more children, earlier and earlier, into a state
childcare setting. In any case most of a baby and toddler’s time is spent at home and
much of what makes the biggest difference can generally only be done by Mum.
52 See Jerrim and Vignoles’s 2011 Instituite of Education paper http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1101.pdf53 See Goodman & Gregg, cited in An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK, National Equality Panel,
2010 54 Waldfogel & Washbrook, Research Findings for the Sutton Trust / Carnegie Foundation Social Mobility
Summit, May 2012
60 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP
At the most acute end of scale, the government is rightly promoting proven early
intervention programmes like the Family Nurse Partnership, and getting agencies
to work together in the Troubled Families initiative. Innovative approaches like
the Parent Infant Project (PIP-UK), championed by Andrea Leadsom MP, are
gaining traction. The effective financial returns of these programmes are generally
attractive, since the downside costs of inaction (more children in care, more social
problems, eventually more criminal justice cases) are so great.
The next challenge is broader and harder: supporting parenting through
a much wider part of the population. This can be uncomfortable territory for
Conservatives as no one wants to be nannying, telling other parents how to bring
up their children. There is also not the option of spending large amounts of money.
But we do need to find creative ways to ensure there is support available when
needed with early attachment, and to improve the home learning environment.
One interesting idea, put forward by the think tank CentreForum, is to adopt
a version of the ‘five-a-day’ awareness campaign for parenting (read a story; turn
off the TV and talk to baby; etc.).55 Popular media have a role to play, and perhaps
social media do, too. But the human approach is irreplaceable – which is why
finding new reasons for mums and dads to want to come to Children’s Centres
is so crucial. And alongside increasing numbers of health visitors, we also need a
review of how best they can support.
SchoolIt is not that parents’ social class dictates their children’s social class. Rather, parents’
social class has a massive effect on their children’s educational attainment and it is
that which predicts their eventual place in society. The link is an indirect one, and it
can be broken through what is achieved at school and if/where you go to university.
That last bit is really important. Going to university levels the playing field –
with your peers at the same tier of university. It is noteworthy that while there has
been a significant increase in Higher Education participation among disadvantaged
young people, this has been concentrated on ‘recruiting’ (as opposed to ‘selecting’)
universities, while the rate at which those young people get into the top third of
universities has remained broadly flat since the mid 1990s.56
55 Centre Forum, Parenting Matters, http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/parenting-matters.pdf56 See Figure 34 in http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economics-and-statistics/docs/s/11-1007-supporting-
analysis-for-higher-education-white-paper
61
The university admissions gap isn’t only or even mainly about the difference
between private and state schools – but that distinction is perhaps the starkest
and certainly one of the easiest to measure. It seems wrong that 21% of offers
at Russell group universities are made to pupils from schools who account for
only 7% of the total school population.57 But the analysis of what may be awry
changes when you know that those same schools account for 13% of those even
studying A Levels, 19% of those passing three (at C or above) and fully 32% of
those with three A grades.58
The obvious point is that attainment in state schools needs to be improved.
This is not just about raw numbers of exams at Grade C or above, but about
stretching pupils at all ability levels, and improving subject choices – in high
quality vocational qualifications and the sorts of core academic (as it happens,
traditional) subjects that the best universities favour. Michael Gove’s record on all
this could hardly be faulted and stands in contrast to the ‘good average’ approach
taken by the last government. Sir Michael Wilshaw is quite right that ‘satisfactory’
is not, in fact, very satisfactory.
Social mobility challenges are rarely simple. Different approaches are generally
needed on different parts of the scale: to tackle the most entrenched disadvantage;
to nurture outstanding talent at the top end; and to ensure we fully stimulate
and stretch those most likely to be forgotten in the debate – the 60% or 70% in
between.
Tackling disadvantage
Durham University have produced a comprehensive analysis of which techniques
and programmes work not only overall, but specifically also help narrow the gap
for the disadvantaged.59 It turns out that some cherished initiatives – especially
reducing class sizes and appointing more classroom assistants – are not only
expensive but relatively ineffective too. Some of the things said to be most effective,
and cost effective, have names – ‘Meta-cognition and self-regulation strategies’,
‘Peer-assisted learning’ – that may not immediately endear them. But we need
to keep an open mind and ensure evidence-based programmes are pursued (and
constantly challenged).
57 Hansard 23 Mar 2012 : Column 890W 58 Hansard 23 Feb 2012 : Column 955W59 http://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/
62 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP
There is a particular challenge with children in care. State boarding schools
could perhaps play a bigger role and could be supported or run on shared sites
by strong Academies.
Stretching the brightest
The grammar school debate is not about to go away. But if you probe deeper,
when people talk about wanting a grammar school often it turns out that they
are less bothered about academic selection than about a school on a human scale,
where teachers wear suits but not ID badges, and the children wear ties and stand
up when an adult enters the room. Gove’s reforms can deliver the quality and
diversity in the education system that people want.
But if we are serious about nurturing outstanding talent, really equalising
the odds with the independent sector, we have to think radically. There is no
appetite in the country for a wholesale return to academic selection at 11, for
good reasons, but why not have at least one unashamedly academically elite state
school in each county or major conurbation?
The Sutton Trust point out that before the abolition of the direct grant scheme
in 1976, 70% of leading private day schools in England were principally state
funded. The Trust is now floating a modernised version, places allocated on a
‘needs-blind’ basis, with fee subsidies up to 100% according to parental income.
The overall cost per place to the state need be no more than at a maintained
comprehensive.
Everybody else
Wherever on the ability scale you are, and whatever type of school, one factor
dominates all others, and that is the quality of the person standing at the front
of class.
The Government have done very well with Teach First expansion and raising
the bar for entry – and thus the status of the profession. But it is difficult for you,
or indeed anyone else, to know if you’ll make a good teacher until you’ve actually
tried it. There should be more taster session opportunities and auditioning of
would-be teachers. Once in, performance related pay is long overdue; and more
attention needs to be given to managing those unsuited to the profession out and
into an alternative career.
63
The ‘x’ factorWhatever GCSEs you got you are more likely to get on in life if you believe you
can, if you have the drive to keep on doing what it takes, and the fortitude to
bounce back when things inevitably go wrong. Many believe that these attributes
– let’s call them character and resilience – over-index among the alumni of top
schools (whether state or private).
There is another set of skills, too, that help you succeed regardless of your
academic record. These skills, ranging from teamwork to self-presentation to
customer empathy, are termed ‘non-cognitive skills’ in contrast to the ‘cognitive
skills’ typically tested for at the school – but at least as vital in the workplace.
Though impossible to quantify, the two sets of skills or attributes – character/
resilience and non-cognitive skills – play a vital role in progress through life with
the potential to mitigate or trump any deficit in paper qualifications. They must
therefore be a key focus for public policy on social mobility.
Many Conservatives will, like me, be sceptical that you can ‘teach’ teamwork,
leadership, self-belief or the work ethic. Actually, there are ways in which
curriculum and subject content design can contribute. But a hard-nosed appraisal
is required, lest we encourage less-rigorous subjects, on account of their supposed
‘soft skills’ element. But there is another, broader way that the education system
can develop these traits: through the discipline of stretching courses with terminal
exams that require persistence in study, and some of which you may well fail.
More broadly, we need to think about how these less tangible characteristics
develop, and why they appear to do so in different ways in different places and for
different people. From a social mobility perspective we could say, crudely, that the
challenge is how to replicate ‘public school confidence’ at scale in the state sector.
Whenever you ask an educationalist the reasons that private schools outperform
state schools, the two responses you invariable get are: money (and therefore
facilities and small classes) and intake selection. Clearly both of these are massive
factors. But perhaps their enormity blinds us to everything else. We should look also
at the role of team games, class rankings, self-study, subject mix, the house system
and learning beyond the curriculum. It is notable that many (though certainly not
all) top-performing state schools mimic some or all of these features.
It’s also about what happens after the school bell rings. Intuitively, we know
that organisations like the Scouts and Cadets do a great deal to develop character.
64 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP
On extra-curricular activities, often the gap between richer areas and poorer
ones is less about availability than participation rates, so throwing more money
at it isn’t necessarily the answer. We need to learn from the programmes and
organisations that do manage to get and keep people signed up.
Along with character comes attitude and aspiration, and this is where the
government’s wider agenda comes in. If you live in a home where no adult has
ever gone out to work, in an estate where no one goes to university, attend a
school where no one is pushed to As and A*s, it is hardly surprising if your own
horizons get limited. For social mobility, welfare reform and school reform go
hand in hand.
Social mobility – opportunity for all – is at the heart of Conservatism. The
Coalition government has been bold. The next, majority Conservative, government
can be bolder still. It is crucial for social justice and imperative for our national
competitiveness and prosperity.
DAMIEN HINDS is the Member of Parliament for East Hampshire
65
CONSERVATISM FOR EVERY PART OF THE COUNTRY
66
WINNING IN THE NORTH
GUY OPPERMAN MP
I have spent a large part of the last twelve months analysing, writing and
discussing the Conservative Party’s ‘Northern problem’. My conclusion may be
somewhat surprising: I don’t think we actually have a Northern problem.
What my party does have is a problem speaking to certain key parts of
the North. For the last 20 years we haven’t been able to get a single Tory elected
in Newcastle. It’s not just Newcastle: in four of our greatest cities, Manchester,
Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, out of the 348 Councillors they elect, not one
is a Conservative. I wanted to know why. I wanted to work out what was going
wrong.
My journey started on the 1 August 2012, when I set off from Sheffield to
walk 270 miles to Scotland, broadly sticking to the route of the Pennine Way, but
stopping off in the many towns, cities and villages which make up ‘the North’. I
dusted down my walking boots, and started one of the most interesting and
enlightening 22 days of my short political career. Why? I wanted to find out
for myself why our party, the true ‘One Nation’ party, had stopped connecting
with large sections of the Northern counties. I spent a lot of time talking to
people, quizzing them and listening to how they perceived us. I did fourteen
events along the way, including a Q and A session at the Comrades Club in
Haltwhistle, and an event with a Labour MP in Sheffield. I talked to the good
people of Halifax, Skipton and Bradford, and was in Keighley last summer when
the English Defence League came mob handed into town trying to cause trouble
with the Kashmiri community.
What I found was fascinating: in many of the towns and all across the industrial
manufacturing heartland of Yorkshire we are doing surprisingly well. Where we
had a strong base of activists and Councillors, and a hardworking MP – like
67
Kris Hopkins in Keighley, or Jason McCartney in Colne Valley – our message
about reforming welfare, helping working families and clearing up Labour’s mess
was penetrating. Spending time in Sheffield, Bradford and Newcastle made me
question why areas with so much in common, could diverge so much politically.
Bradford once had Eric Pickles as leader of the Council, and shortly before he
became MP for neighbouring Keighley in 2010, Kris Hopkins MP was the leader
of the Bradford Council.
When I started out on my walk, in Northumberland, the most Northern
County in England, we had 17 Conservative County Councillors. Fast forward
9 months, and after this May 2013’s tough set of local elections, we actually
increased our number of seats in Northumberland to 21. In my constituency of
Hexham the 2013 County Council Elections saw our vote share up from 50%
to 55%. In seats like Hexham West, which we hadn’t held for the last decade, we
managed to turn a 14% Lib Dem majority into a 19% Conservative one. Better
still, in the urban South East of the County, we were able to win Cramlington
West – an offshoot of North Newcastle, which Labour has held for almost 100
years. This was the only Conservative gain from Labour in the whole Country.
UKIP failed to register at all, gaining less than 10% across my own constituency.
I also spent time in April 2013 helping to run our party’s by-election in
South Shields, after David Miliband abandoned the seat for the bright lights of
New York. It is true that South Shields was probably never going to elect a Tory
MP. However, what was interesting was the lack of enthusiasm for Labour. In
a constituency where voting Labour is often seen as a matter of tribal loyalty,
rather than one of political choice, Labour hit just 50.4% of the vote. This at a
time when we are 3 years into the Coalition Government, in the worst recession in
living memory. Labour quite strangely are in decline in places like South Shields;
their vote has been falling, slowly but consistently, by 21% since 1997. Labour
may be far from dead and buried in the North East, but the patient is sicker than
for a long time.
There may be many reasons for that, but one has shone through on the
doorstep. Time and time again, as I have wandered the streets canvassing in
the North East these last 12 months, I have found a strange, almost surreal,
lack of support for a Prime Minister Miliband. Yes, people are unhappy at a
Coalition Government that has to reduce public spending, and annoyed when we
68 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP
muck things up. Yet they know that on the key issue – of who is best to keep the
country from rack and ruin – very few have any faith in the two Eds. Miliband has
failed to build confidence in its ability to handle the economy. Labour score
good headlines every now and again, and woo individual groups by opposing
every government cut since Beveridge was a boy, but Miliband does not possess
a winning economic message, particularly as his positions on opposing the
benefits and immigration caps are vote losers here in the North.
However, this article isn’t just about winning the 2015 election. It’s about
winning in the North of England. The breakthrough will not be sudden. Political
turnarounds take years to achieve. It took the Labour Party 18 years in opposition
before it learnt how to win again. Our journey to win again in those urban areas
of the North will take time. It is a journey where, in many places, we have a very
low base. We need to pick local candidates on a long term basis and then support
them. Without such candidates and councillors as the local Conservative leaders
we will struggle.
In order to reach out to the inner cities and suburbs which dominate the urban
North we need a renewed focus, a manifesto for cities, which makes a grand
bargain with the urban North. We need a message to sell. That work, reconnecting
our party with huge swathes of disenchanted voters in the urban North, is the
big prize.
We also need to look beyond 2015. To do something political parties and
politicians very rarely do: we need to take a long term view and ask how voters
will see our party 2 or 3 General Elections down the line. For my part, as London
and the South East becomes ever more powerful in terms of revenue and tax
generation, I believe that addressing this economic imbalance is the most pressing
problem facing this country today. I do not propose we can do it by 2015, but
it can be done. Labour tried and failed to find the answer by throwing good
public money after bad, with little thought and poor planning.
If we are to convince people that we are the party for everyone we need to
transform our positions, not just on the issues that matter to voters today, but on
the issues that will matter tomorrow too. I want the Conservatives to empower
the urban North to bring about the social and civic renewal northern people are
crying out for. To do that I have been working on some ideas which I think make
up a narrative for our message to cities.
69
One of these key changes would be local lending by a revolution in bank
lending away from City based London banks to regional local banking and
expanded credit unions. How our banks work as we emerge from these tough
times will dominate the future of this country, and our Northern economy for the
next decade and much longer. I believe we need to learn from the Germans. In
Germany, 70% of bank lending is by community local banks. Here over 80% of
our UK lending is by the big 6 London banks, which are all London based, profit
driven and totally removed from our local community.
The German local banks are embedded in the community, run locally, only
lend to that community, and then return some of their profits to that community.
We could have the Bank of Newcastle, Hexham or South Shields, whose sole aim
was to lend to local SME’s and start ups, empower the local mortgage market,
and revitalise their local economies. Such banks would be run by local people,
motivated by their pride in their community, and not some fat cat in London.
Similarly, we have begun to free up credit unions so that they can do so much
more and expand upon their base as a trusted local provider.
This June I hosted the first ever regional banking conference, in Gateshead,
specifically designed to explain to locals how they can set up a local regional
bank. All the key players were there and within a year I fully expect to see local
banks beginning to take shape up and down the country – but crucially starting
in the North East.
If the Conservative party embraces the concept of local banking, and tears down
the monopoly of the big City banks, we will send a signal to the North that we get
‘it’. We will have revolutionised a demonised system with one in favour of the regions,
in favour of small businesses, which can help deliver prosperity for the urban North.
This goes to my desire for a real sense of belief in the power of local people to
turn a community around. I have written previously for the High Pay Centre about
the importance of companies having Corporate Social Responsibility at the heart
of their ethos, and the need for firms to have fair executive pay, and make a real
contribution to their community. This dovetails well with the massive increase in
manufacturing and apprenticeships that should slowly see a return to traditional
businesses to the North. In my area alone, apprenticeships have doubled. I have
played my small part by being the first MP to hire, train, and then give a job to a
local Prudhoe school leaver, called Jade.
70 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP
I have 2 companies that each employs 500 people in my local community.
Both are foreign owned but locally respected as community based employers. It
is only when these local firms accept that they are part of a wider community,
rather than allow a simply focus on their accountant’s financial projections, does
that local community thrive with the local business.
The Conservative party is well recognised as the party of business. Only when
these businesses are connected positively to their local communities will people
give the Conservative Party a political dividend. We must make capitalism work
for northern urban communities.
This then feeds into local pride, and an acceptance that every person can
influence their surrounding town: in my own constituency we are developing a
project called ‘In Hexham for Hexham’, whereby every shop, from the independent
trader to the omnipresent Tesco, takes an individual and collective responsibility for
civic pride; we are urging people to buy local, and take pride in their community.
It has become increasingly clear that central and local can help restore urban
spaces and towns. If we take the risks to empower the North, to give those
communities a sense of control, more responsibilities over local spending and
more freedom, then in the long term we will be given the nod by those Northern
voters who right now aren’t sure we are for them.
There are, however, much bigger economic challenges for the North we must
face as well. I helped work on the Adonis review for the North East Local Enterprise
Partnership. I can do no more than say the Conservatives Party would do well
to embrace many of its ideas as a blueprint for a transformation of our regional
economy: we need to focus on our local innovation opportunities and allow thriving
sectors to see the North East as the place to do business. This involves support for
local students leaving our universities so that they stay in the North East and set
their businesses up here. To do that we need a ‘Silicon Tyne’ approach focusing on
hubs and enterprise zones based around engineering, offshore renewable, and our
excellent manufacturing base. The North East is the only area of the country with a
positive balance of payments and yet everyone acknowledges that there is so much
more we could do. The potential is unquestioned.
We are also not selling the great ideas we have brought in: to far too little
fanfare the Conservatives have already made historic progress in the devolving of
economic power to our great Northern cities.
71
Cities Minister Greg Clarke has already ushered in City Deals for places like
Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle.
These deals will have transformative effects on the urban north. Newcastle’s
City Deal alone will bring 13,000 jobs, up to 15,000 homes on brownfield sites,
reduced congestion on the A1 and 500 new apprenticeships in next three years.
But don’t listen to me. This is what Labour Leader of Newcastle City Council,
Coun Nick Forbes, said of the deal:
This announcement is magnificent news for Newcastle and the wider
region. We take very seriously our responsibilities for creating the right
climate for jobs, and are delighted in this vote of confidence. Our top
priority has always been to make Newcastle a working city – and the
creation of up to 13,000 jobs will go a long way to achieving that.
These jobs will improve the lives of thousands of families and give
many young people the chance to start their careers.60
It should worry my party deeply that few know it is the hard work of
Conservative ministers which inspired those words from one of the Government’s
normally harshest critics. Perhaps it is time the Conservatives spent a little less
time discussing our political and economic relationship with the EU, and more on
the relationship between London and the North.
I would urge us to go further, take risks and welcome the changes to skills
training and devolved powers put forward in the Heseltine review.
Policy however is only one half of the political equation. There is little point
in us having a raft of exciting policies if no one but ourselves knows about them.
That is why it is so crucial, so fundamental to our success in the North, that we
build a campaign infrastructure which can deliver a Conservative message.
Putting the plans in to practiceCertain places in the North have been able to show that we have the political
answers that resonate on the ground. The conclusions we can draw from my
own experiences in Northumberland, South Shields and my experiences walking
through the North last year, are the same.
60 http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/council-wins-major-jobs-boost-tyneside
72 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP
Firstly, ‘where we work we win’. I illustrate this with two examples from my
county of Northumberland: In Cramlington West a local leaflet was delivered
every 6 weeks, throughout the year, for 2 and a half years prior to the 2013 local
election. As a result the Conservatives went from fourth to first. This made it the
only Conservative gain from Labour across the Country.
In Hexham West we canvassed so hard over the 2 years before the local
election that we knew how over 75% of the electorate planned to vote by the
time we got to polling day. The results was turning a 14% Lib Dem majority into
a 19% Conservative one.
The voters will not come to us. We must go to them. We need to get out there
and sell our message, both local and national, to the electorate. In so many parts
of the North, and especially the urban North, as a party, we have simply stopped
doing that.
That is not to rest any blame on the hardworking activists who keep the
Conservative Party alive in the places we don’t have Councillors; it is instead an
ultimatum for the Conservative Party as a whole. If we want to win in Manchester,
in Newcastle, in Liverpool, in Sheffield we can – if we really want it.
If so, then we must organise in those communities. We must invest in our
candidates, with time, support, staff and yes, financial support. The answers
about our failure to win in parts of the North aren’t to be found in some academic
tome, or socio-demographic report, they are found in lack of communication
between our party and the electorate on the ground.
There are some, sadly some inside our party, as well as outside of it, who
will say it simply a matter of economics. Or to put it more succinctly: the posh
bits vote Tory and the rest don’t. Not only is that analysis lazy, it’s wrong too.
In my patch, we held the marginal council ward of Haltwhistle by a majority
of 7%; this is a town where the average house price is £120,714. In one of
Newcastle’s most exclusive suburbs, Gosforth, where the average house price is
more than £100,000 more than in Haltwhistle at some £235,128, we haven’t
had a Conservative Councillor elected since 1995. The good people of Gosforth
incidentally had a Conservative MP until 1987.
We only need look at our opponents to see organisation is key to electoral
success at all levels. At the May 2013 elections for the North Tyneside
Mayoralty the Conservatives elected Mayor of North Tyneside Linda Arkley lost
73
36% to 55% to her union backed Labour opponent. Linda was a good, local
candidate with a good record. However, Labour have become painfully strong in
this part of the North East where right up until 2010 we were seeing something
of a Conservative renaissance. In 2008 the Conservatives held 31 seats. Now
Labour have 42 Councillors and the Conservatives 12. Of course there is a
natural ebb and flow to local success based on national popularity. However, it
is worth noting that even in periods not noted for the national popularity of the
Conservative Party, such as in 2003, Linda won the elected mayoralty and we had
some 21 Conservative Councillors.
What changed in North Tyneside is the converse of what has happened to the
Conservatives in large parts of the urban North. Labour got organised. Worried
by a challenge at the 2010 General election in the Tynemouth constituency
Labour has roared back with a powerful, union backed, infrastructure. It hoovers
up postal votes, with a combination of mail shots, advertising, and canvassing:
these tools show that Labour is trying to secure its local position. Those are
effective tools alien to much of our own activity in the areas where we are failing
to win.
There is no silver bullet in politics. The lessons from the Conservatives in
places like Northumberland, or the other areas where we have built up our success,
or indeed from our opponents, are clear. Only where we have good candidates,
armed with a strong local message, and a well developed local infrastructure
behind them can we hope to break through across the North. It will take time,
effort and money. Central government can then back up these candidates with
some of the local conservative policies that our candidates can then champion. It
is a good recipe for a revival and I am confident we can turn it around
In the next two years we can win the General Election. However, it may take
a lot longer to win back the North. But if we have a long term plan, it is a job
that can be done.
Firstly, the party must decide if it really wants to.
GUY OPPERMAN is the Member of Parliament for Hexham
74
THE NORTH IN RETROSPECTIVE
LORD BATES
Bill Shankly, the legendary manager of Liverpool Football Club and occasional
philosopher, took over a Liverpool team languishing at the bottom of the Second
Division in 1959. Asked what his approach to the task was going to be, he
answered ‘Do the right things for long enough and you will get the right results.’
Within six years he had taken them to two First Division Championships and the
FA Cup and laid the foundations of a footballing dynasty that would dominate
the English game for the next twenty years.
What has this got to do with political strategy? Everything.
I have been involved in politics in the North of England for much of the past
thirty years. Occasionally I will be asked my opinion as to what more the Party
should be doing in the regions of the North to gain electoral success. Normally
what people are searching for is a quick fix rather than lasting change. A celebrity
candidate, focus groups, a leader donning a cloth cap and awkwardly sipping a
pint of bitter, or a dozen glossy leaflets over a six week campaign are all meant to
counter years of political struggle.
In responding, I am often reminded of Shankly’s wisdom about doing the
right things for long enough getting the right results, and I point to the record of
Margaret Thatcher in the North. In political folklore the argument was made that
we lost ground in the North under Margaret Thatcher. Not so. We won 63 seats
in 1979 (an increase on 1974); increased this again to 69 seats in 1983, before it
fell back under her third General Election in 1987 to 64.
It was only in 1992 that we started significantly losing ground, winning only
53 seats in 1992 before the rout of 1997, when we went down to 17 seats. The
reason for the rout was that the Conservative Party had never been loved in the
North but it had been respected as economically competent. It was the competence
75
bubble which burst so spectacularly on Black Wednesday in September 1992 and
it took almost twenty years for it to come back. We made no advance in the North
in 2001, remaining at 17 seats. In 2005 there was a slight increase to 19 seats and
the major breakthrough came under David Cameron in 2010 when we won 42
seats. The point being that political performance in the North of England is not a
cultural issue but a competence issue.
In other words, during a time of unprecedented socio-economic change
impacting most sharply on the traditional nationalised heavy industries of the
North of England, the North continued to vote Conservative. Why? Because I
believe that people saw that we were doing the right things: the nationalised
industries were massively uncompetitive and the trade unions way too powerful.
Social mobility had slumped as grammar schools had been closed and modern
liberal teaching methods and ‘Loony Left’ councils had trashed the education
system. Entrepreneurship and wealth creation had been taxed to death so there
were few new jobs. There was immense fear of the Cold War becoming a nuclear
Armageddon. Social order was declining through weakening the powers of the
police and the courts and strengthening the rights of criminals.
Labour could not tackle these problems because it had created the system and
now depended upon its patronage for survival. People looked to the Conservatives
for change and we delivered. Machiavelli reminded us that in politics one doesn’t
need to be liked, but one must be respected. The people of the North, as in the
country as a whole, respected Margaret Thatcher as a leader who was doing
the right thing: returning the control of the unions to their members; creating
Enterprise Zones where new businesses could flourish uninhibited by local
authorities; encouraging wealth creators rather than punishing them through the
tax system; privatising the nationalised industries; becoming globally competitive
and sharing the profits with a massively increased pool of shareholders; creating
City Technology Colleges as independent beacons of educational excellence in
inner city areas; giving long-standing council tenants the right to buy their homes
and get a foot on the property ladder; giving powers and resources to the police
and the criminal justice system to tackle offending behaviour; working with
NATO to present a strong and credible nuclear deterrent to Soviet aggression. In
return for doing the right thing, the people repaid her by giving her and our Party
the right results.
76 The North in retrospective | Lord Bates
Roll the clock forward to circa 2010, and more importantly 2015, and I
believe that we are witnessing similar forces at play which may impact upon
voting behaviour. Once again we see a period of Labour government characterised
by a failure to face up to the tough choices leading to a breakdown in the socio-
economic order. They see a massively inflated public sector and a withering
private sector saddled with rising taxes and bureaucracy and increasingly unable
to support it. They see an economy weighted far too much in favour of services
and imports than manufacturing and exports. They see an economy losing its
competitive edge in the global market. There was a welfare-state spiralling out
of control. They see precarious national finances threatening the services they
need, the infrastructure investment they need, and the assets which they have
worked hard to accumulate for their families and retirement. They see a culture
of mediocrity in education still pervading far too many of our inner cities. They
see the local planning system as a barrier to job creation rather than a catalyst for
it. They see staying at home rewarded and going out to work punished through
the tax and benefits system.
Once again Labour could not tackle these problems because it had created
the system and now depended upon its patronage for survival. Once again they
turned to the Conservatives to sort out the mess even though they knew that the
North of England had a higher reliance on the public sector and dependence on
benefits that other regions. The pain would be greater in the short term but the
gain would be stronger in the long term.
The first ‘right thing’ which David Cameron did was to be prepared to work
with political opponents in the national interest, which was the need for a five
year period of political stability through which the acute wounds of the economy
could begin to heal. Ring-fencing NHS spending. Protecting low paid public
sector workers from a pay freeze. Halting the gravy train of Quangos and public
spending. Leading by example with pay cuts for ministers and a freeze on salaries
for politicians. Raising the tax threshold, taking over 531,000 people from the
North of England out of tax altogether. Putting in place welfare reforms which
will mean that you will always be better off if you go out to work. Freeing up
schools and introducing rigor into the examination system and excellence into
the curriculum, and not being deflected by socio-economic excuses for poor
school performance – in Barnsley 20% of children attend a good or outstanding
77
school where as in Wigan it is 95%. Introducing the Regional Growth Fund
whose investments to date (Round 3) will have created or safeguarded 195,000
jobs. Increasing the number of apprenticeships in the North by over 80% from
103,320 (2009/10) to 183,840 (2011/12). Significant infrastructure investments
have been made in rail – £560 million (The Northern Hub around Manchester);
upgrading the A1 – £378 million (North Yorkshire and Tyneside) and £580
million to upgrade the Tyne & Wear Metro. Exports from the North East are at
record levels. We are now witnessing record levels of business start-ups, and the
private sector is creating jobs at almost twice the rate at which the public sector
is losing them. As a result total employment is higher in each of the three regions
of the North in 2012 than it was in the same period (August-October) in 2010.
This is not to say that there are not other factors at play in the electoral
fortunes of the Conservative Party in the North of England.
Over the past twenty years, as the party has struggled to regain ground in the
North, it is true to say that the Liberal Democrats have built an effective political
base in parts of the North, especially in local government. In 1979 the Liberal
Democrats won only 2 seats in the North of England; in 2010 they won 11. In
part their success is attributed to being hitherto the ‘None of the above’ choice on
the ballot paper, but it is also because in many of the areas where Conservatives
lost ground they simply outworked us in terms of year-round campaigning.
At this point we also need to draw a clear distinction between Conservative
Party performance in the North of England and that across the border in
Scotland. In 1979, the Conservatives in Scotland won 22 parliamentary seats at
Westminster, in 1997 they went down to zero, but in 2010 they only won a single
seat. In the North of England in 1979 the Conservatives in the North of England
won 63 parliamentary seats, in 1997 they went down to 17, but in 2010 they
bounced back to win 42.
In areas where we continued to have highly effective Conservative political
campaign forces in places like North Tyneside, Leeds, Bradford, Trafford and
Sunderland, for example, we continued to buck the national trend. The Crewe
and Nantwich by election, which was a safe Labour seat, was an example of what
happens when the Conservative electoral machine is in full campaign mode: the
Conservatives achieved a 17.8% swing against Labour, and Edward Timpson held
the seat for the Conservatives with an 11.8% majority in 2010. The point is that
78 The North in retrospective | Lord Bates
it is not sufficient to do the right things in policy terms: we must do the rights
things in communicating our message on the ground as well. This brings me to
my final point – Don’t be shy:
There is a popular phrase in the North East which states, ‘Shy bairns get nowt.’
For many years the Conservative Party had a nervous tremor when it talked
about the North. It didn’t know quite how to react in a way which didn’t sound
shrill or patronising. This was a Labour heartland and there was a temptation
for Conservative Party leaders to be wary about venturing into ‘Labour territory.’
Soon after becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 2006, David Cameron
and then-Party Chairman Francis Maude launched an audacious strategy to target
advising the Party in the North – ‘Campaign North’ – and engaged William Hague
to lead the charge. The impact was instantaneous on Party morale. The strategy
consisted of four main strands:
Resources: Every penny raised from donors and members in the North of
England would be spent on campaigning in the North of England. This funded
the establishment of three new state of the art regional campaign centres in
Manchester, Bradford and Newcastle, a doubling of campaign staff and the
recruitment of regional press officers.
Campaigning Esprit de Corps: A new Northern Board of the Conservative Party
was established, bringing together MPs, MEPs, councillors, volunteers, candidates,
Conservative Future and business representatives which was brilliantly chaired by
William Hague and which transformed the collective campaigning culture and
self-belief of the Party faithful in the North.
Candidates: It had long been recognised that the North had too often been seen
as a training ground for parliamentary candidates from outside the region to ‘cut
their teeth’. The response was to establish Northern Selection Boards which would
identify and assess candidates who lived and worked in the areas which they
sought to represent at Westminster and therefore could campaign all year round.
This work would often take the shape of social action for the local community
rather than traditional party-political campaigning.
79
Connect: Opinion polls would often reveal that the views of the voters in the
North of England were not hostile to the Conservative Party, they just never saw
Conservatives. The response to this was to assign Shadow City Ministers: for
example Alan Duncan (Tyneside); Sayeeda Warsi (Sheffield); and Chris Grayling
(Liverpool) who would visit their areas often to meet with community leaders
and the media. Moreover, David Cameron would make more of his major policy
announcements outside of London in places like Birmingham, Manchester and
Leeds. The regional media appreciated these efforts and would often give the
announcements a fair hearing.
It is perhaps in the last area where the greatest work needs to be done in
advance of the 2015 election. It is all well and good doing the right thing and
making the change but if we leave the platform to our political opponents to
communicate what we have done, don’t be surprised if we don’t quite get the
credit we deserve. The public sector unions don’t just campaign for and fund the
Labour Party in the North of England; in most places they are the Labour Party
in the North of England. Let us not be too shy in claiming the credit for the tough
choices we have taken or reminding people of the dangers of handing the keys of
their economy back to the guys who ran it into the ditch. We have an incredibly
able cohort of forty two MPs in the North--twenty-three more than in 2010--
who can and must lead the charge, but they need backing encouragement and
resources from the leadership of the party.
The message is simple—do the right things in increasing measure, don’t be
shy in telling people what you have done or why and the Conservative Party will
never ‘Walk alone’ in the North of England.
LORD BATES of Langbaurgh was Member of Parliament for Langbaurgh between 1992 and 1997, serving as Paymaster General.
80
WINNING IN THE MIDLANDS
RACHEL MACLEAN
It was a great day for me when I was selected to represent Birmingham Northfield.
Because I feel that there is no battle more worth fighting than that of winning
a seat here. And I’m grateful that David Skelton has given me the opportunity
to contribute to this project and set out both why Birmingham Northfield is so
important, and what we need to do as a party to win in Birmingham Northfield.
Every constituency is different, but I believe there are common themes that will
chime with other Midlands and Northern seats.
Birmingham Northfield is a predominantly white working class area, on the
south-western edge of our city and quite different from some of the inner city
Birmingham constituencies with significant ethnic populations. It’s been Labour
held since 1992 by Richard Burden, and it’s been identified as one of the 40 target
seats to win, currently the only one in Birmingham.
Our challenge is enormous – but not impossible. Across Birmingham, where
I’ve grown up and lived all my life, associations have dwindled. With only a few
satellites in Sutton Coldfield and Meriden – who are busy fighting their own battles
– we are surrounded on all sides in the Birmingham city seats by a sea of red.
Our best hope in 2010, Edgbaston, was narrowly lost. We have little money and
few members, and nowhere to put Merlin. But what we do have here is a core of
experienced and committed local councillors and activists, quietly getting on with
the job and winning local elections in areas that look nothing like the leafy suburbs
of Edgbaston or supposedly naturally deep blue Solihull. We stand a good chance
of winning some council seats in 2014, building a platform for victory in 2015.
And from our daily contact with Northfield voters, it’s clear that the path to
victory here in 2015 must come from uniting Britain’s politics. To understand
the particular context of this in Birmingham, let’s briefly revisit the period when
81
Conservatism flourished in Birmingham, personified in Joseph Chamberlain.
Because our message to today’s voters in Birmingham is deeply rooted in the civic
and Conservative traditions of this city that Birmingham is so rightly proud of.
Chamberlain started out a Liberal and his mission was to give the working
classes a stake and a voice in how their city was run. In words that have a striking
resonance for the audience of today, he once proclaimed, ‘I am prouder of having
been engaged with you in warring against ignorance and disease and crime in
Birmingham than if I had… instigated the invasion of Afghanistan’
David Willetts, another Birmingham boy, in his excellent pamphlet
‘Conservatives in Birmingham’ sums it up thus:
It was Birmingham and the Chamberlain tradition which was to
be the crucial driver of Conservative social reform right through the
twentieth century. Chamberlain discovered that ‘in social questions the
Conservatives have always been more progressive than the Liberals’. But
the Chamberlains were always uncomfortable at just being described as
Conservatives – they were Unionists. And Union came to mean both the
Union of the United Kingdom and the union across the social classes61
Today, uniting Britain’s politics is still our challenge as Conservatives. We
must unite our political values and mission with the concerns and aspirations of
working class voters in the cities of the Midlands and the North.
The world is changing, and the pace of change will only increase. The only
question in politics worth answering is how we tackle the impact of the very real
and painful readjustment to change, and what we have to offer to those people
who see the fruits of change going elsewhere.
Working class people in Northfield rightly fear the future for themselves and
their families. If instead of calling them working class, we call them the ‘want-to-
haves’, it can help us frame the global change being played out here in a tangible
way in the conflict between the ‘haves’ and the ‘want-to-haves’.
From the perspective of many the marginal and marginalized constituencies
across Britain, national politics of all sides is viewed as being aligned with the
‘haves;’ strongly representing the established and entrenched interests.
61 David Willetts, Conservatism in Birmingham, p18
82 Winning in the Midlands | Rachel Maclean
Northfield is an extreme case of the marginalized and forgotten heartland.
• De-industrialisation hit Northfield hard. In the late sixties, the Austin (British
Leyland) motor works at Longbridge employed 250,000 people. Now, the
regeneration scheme has created perhaps 6,000 jobs – an impressive figure but
in no way a replacement to what has been lost.
• We have lost the pathways to quality jobs through training and apprenticeships
that blue-collar workers in Northfield relied on. We are left with a one-size fits
all low performing education system unsuited to the needs of the economy of
the future. Birmingham in particular has some of the poorest schools in the
country.
• The tower blocks of Birmingham are a blight. Young people are growing up
in the city unable to afford the sort of housing they grew up in. Thatcher
gave people a stake in their communities with the right to buy, creating a
property owning democracy and a generation of loyal Conservative voters
in Birmingham. Let’s enfranchise city dwellers again in the same way with a
massive program of affordable house building.
Across Britain, people vote for hope and change, and in Northfield they voted
for Thatcher to free them from the tyranny of union power, and the grip of the
consensus of decline. Then they voted for Blair to give them a stronger safety net
once globalisation began to take its toll. It is time for the Conservative party to
bring a new message of hope to Northfield. In some cases, the state safety net
has become a trap, ameliorating the impact of change and global forces, but not
helping families to build a better future.
People in Northfield want fairness: a new definition of fairness. Where
everyone gets a fair go to improve themselves, with the state offering a helping
hand when they need it. This will give them the confidence to take opportunities
and invest and work for the future. They want to see the great escalators of
self-improvement and social mobility; education, low cost quality housing and a
vocational pathway to good jobs.
The Conservatives need to be seen to declare war on incumbent vested
interests and privilege to be credible in Northfield. Its unfortunate that the
political discourse is often dominated by the tenacious battles with which the
83
‘already haves’ battle to protect their narrow interests. This needs to be met head
on with a mission for the greater good of Britain. That battle begins in Northfield,
but includes the party, Parliament, and the state itself.
And it is this battle that chimes with my own values. I became a Conservative
and decided to stand for election because when I look around me in Birmingham
I know well how lucky I am to be born who and where I was. But it is not the
politics of equality and socialism from the left that are the answer to the questions
posed by the accident of an individual’s birth. It’s only by giving people the tools
to help themselves that we liberate our citizens in Birmingham Northfield to live
out their potential. This is as true now as it was in Chamberlain’s time.
These challenges are for our party policy makers to consider. And when they
do, I have one request – think about how our manifesto would look to voters in
Birmingham Northfield. And then consider how we communicate that message.
For here we have an electorate so totally fed up with politics, and politicians, that
almost half of them in this constituency never vote.
The challenge is huge, but the will is there! We are starting to see traction on
some of the difficult decisions we’ve taken in Government. The welfare reforms
are manifestly overdue and are loudly applauded by our working constituents
on lower incomes than their benefit-receiving neighbours. Our approach to
immigration is exactly what they want to see. But they’re still worried about their
future, about their children, about paying the bills and keeping their jobs.
We can win here in 2015, and in other constituencies like it if we have the
courage to steadfastly pursue the radical reforms we began in 2010. Voters like
what we are doing. We must not weaken or give up.
We must embody the message of hope. Labour want to put a sticking plaster
over the pain of change, and their entire message is negative. They want our
country to lose so they can win. Conservative policies will give our people the
tools to tackle the future with optimism, confident in the knowledge that they are
equipped to win in the global race. Only we can give people the courage to change
for the future – and the future of Northfield, our city and the country depends
on us to win here.
RACHEL MACLEAN is the Conservative candidate for Birmingham Northfield
84
WINNING IN WALES
STEPHEN CRABB MP
When Gordon Brown and the current Welsh Labour leader, Carwyn Jones, urged
voters in Wales to ‘come home to Labour’ they were unthinkingly recycling the
Labour Party’s article of faith: that it is the natural party of Wales and only
Labour embodies the intrinsic values of Welsh people. I will set out in this essay
why it is the Conservatives, rather than Labour, who share Welsh values and the
Party should continue to emphasise this as they challenge Labour in Wales.
Wales under Labour• The truth is that Labour Government, both UK wide and in Wales, has been
particularly bad for Welsh public services and the Welsh economy: Between 1999
and 2010 Labour ran both the UK and Welsh government and this period coincided
with deterioration in Wales’ economic performance relative to the rest of the UK and
worsening outcomes in key devolved public services like the NHS and education.
• GDP per capita over the decade from 2001, fell from 77% of the UK average
to 74%. GDP per hour level of productivity fell from 91% of the UK average
in 2000 to 84% of the UK average by 2009.62
• In addition, Wales’ Gross Value Added per head in 2011, as a percentage of
the UK average, was a lowly 75.2% compared to 102.3% in England, 98.6%
in Scotland and 79.2% in Northern Ireland.63
• In a Centre for Public Policy for Regions report from 2011, it was claimed that
Wales’ economy has fared the worst of UK nations in a decade of devolution.
• Evidence of relative decline in education and skills has led many in the business
community to question how the economic gap can be closed. In the latest PISA
62 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2011/04/13/wales-economy-has-fared-worst-of-uk-nations-in-decade-of-devolution-91466-28509628/
63 ONS, 12 December 2012
85
results, Wales has fallen further behind the rest of the UK in reading, maths
and science. Since the 2006 results, Welsh teenagers have ranked alongside
the Czech Republic for reading and Estonia and Latvia outperformed Wales
in mathematics.
• The most recent report by Estyn, the Welsh schools inspection body, claimed
that nearly one third of schools in Wales are not of a good enough standard
and 40% of Welsh children entering secondary school had a reading age
below their chronological age.64
• Perhaps the biggest policy area devolved to Welsh Government, the NHS
in Wales, has seen a similarly disappointing performance over recent years.
Increased waiting times, staffing shortages, an ambulance service that
consistently misses response time targets, local services cut and in six years
a tripling of complaints to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales.65 In
contrast to the protection of NHS budgets in England and Scotland, Welsh
Labour is cutting almost half a billion pounds from its NHS budget.
• So far, Welsh ministers have been getting away with it. That the public outcry
over the Welsh Government’s deep cut in the health budget has not been
stronger is remarkable. That is because currently Welsh Government enjoys
the benefits of having a large measure of responsibility over most public
services in Wales but accountability for policy outcomes is weak.
• With Wales being the only part of the UK where Labour is still in power, the
Labour leadership is keen to talk up the record of Welsh Government as they
approach the 2015 general election. Ed Balls has claimed that ‘the UK can
learn from what Carwyn Jones is doing in Wales’. If Miliband and Balls wish
to present Wales as an incubator for the kind of policies that a UK Labour
government would pursue in future , then Welsh Conservatives will gladly
accept the invitation to make Labour’s record in Wales a key battle-ground.
Welsh LabourThe dead hand of Welsh labour remains in evidence today. Within weeks of his
appointment as the Shadow Welsh Secretary, Owen Smith MP was adopting all of
the old Labour language and assumptions about Wales, claiming that Labour is the
64 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12266117 65 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21416621
86 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP
‘true party of Wales’.66 At its heart is a sense of entitlement and absence of humility,
characteristic of old-style machine politics, which takes Welsh voters for granted.
While their leaders try to expropriate the language of One Nation politics,
it is still Welsh Labour’s ambition, above all else, to make Wales a one-party
nation. Since 1945 Labour has won more than half of all Welsh parliamentary
constituencies at each general election and has, on several occasions, swept up
more than 80% of the seats. It has been in government continuously in Cardiff
since the creation of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999.
Labour’s position is buttressed by the economic structure of Wales, with its
high levels of state spending, greater proportion of public sector workers, and
still relatively greater prevalence of heavy industry. Around 35% of the Welsh
workforce is a member of a trade union compared to under a quarter in England.
Wales has the highest density of trade union membership of any of the UK’s
regions and devolved areas. Most people know all this, and as a result find it
surprising that so many that Welsh people can, and do, vote Conservative. This
should not be the case.
In the last decade the Welsh Conservatives have bounced back strongly from
the disastrous 1997 campaign when its representation was wiped out. In 2009
Welsh Conservatives topped the European elections in Wales, beating Labour
into second place – the first time since 1918 that Labour failed to come first in a
Wales-wide election. In 2010 Welsh Conservatives increased their parliamentary
representation from three to eight seats, and in 2011 became the second largest
party in the Welsh Assembly.
Conservatives and Working Welsh values It is a point often exaggerated, but nevertheless true, that the Welsh national
experience has given its people a different outlook and set of values. But it is not
the case that these values are essentially social democratic and that they translate
into a preference for state intervention, higher taxes and public spending.
Welsh values can be described as: communitarian, less individualistic, borne
out of strong family and community bonds and a deep sense of history and
place. Wales also enjoys a high stock of social capital with relatively high rates
66 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2012/09/25/owen-smith-welsh-labour-is-the-true-party-of-wales-91466-31899089/
87
of volunteering and community participation, with one estimate suggesting that
Wales has the highest level of participation in engineering in Europe.67
This is fertile ground for a Conservative Party which emphasises the social
market, as opposed to socialism; localism and community solutions instead of
centralised diktat; and values the dynamism of the voluntary sector rather than
sees it as a poor second-best to state action. Far from being intrinsically hostile,
the distinctive values of Wales actually underpin much of modern Conservatism
and are, in turn, celebrated by it.
If communitarian does not equal socialist, neither does patriotism equal
nationalism; and this is another area where Welsh distinctiveness needs to be
properly understood if the Party is to continue its growth. The starting point for
Welsh Conservatism is a recognition of the central – and growing – importance
of Welsh identity in our politics and, with that, the role of the Welsh language.
The Welsh Conservative Party has increased its representation at every tier
of elected politics over the last decade because it has understood that Wales is
different; because it has been comfortable putting Welsh identity at the heart of
its message; and, most of all, because the Party owns a set of policies that speaks
directly to the values and aspirations of families in Wales, both in rural and urban
communities, among the low paid, those running micro and small businesses, and
the self-employed – among whom the Party has gained most ground in Wales.
Patriotism is not separatist nationalismAlthough nationalism, in the sense of separatism, is a minority interest in Wales albeit
with powerful friends in media and academic circles, Welsh patriotism runs very
high indeed. A recent UK opinion poll found that the Welsh were the most likely to
say they took pride in their flag (86%), ahead of people from Scotland (84%) and
the English (61%).68 Nine out of ten Welsh people also say they take pride in their
national sporting teams – a far higher figure than in Scotland (65%) or England
(68%). With this patriotism comes also a tolerance. In the same poll 81% said it was
not important for a person to be white to be Welsh, compared to 74% in England.
But patriotism is not to be confused with nationalism and it would be a
mistake for the Welsh Conservative Party to mimic Plaid Cymru, with a sort of
67 http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/news-views/news/doc/wales-has-highest-level.html68 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-
English.html
88 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP
‘Plaid-lite’ strategy of arguing for ever looser union with England and the wider
UK. Despite the advent of devolution providing a boost for Plaid Cymru’s vote
at the start of the 2000’s, there has been a steady fall in their support. 2011 saw
their lowest share of the vote in any devolved election so far, enabling the Welsh
Conservatives to become the official opposition in the Assembly.
At the beginning of 2012 an ITV Wales/YouGov poll showed that only 10%
of Welsh voters were in favour of independence. The poll also showed that, even
if Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom, only a third of Plaid Cymru voters
would want an independent Wales. The very purpose of Plaid Cymru’s existence, to
secure independence for Wales, is an objective not shared by the majority of Welsh
voters.69
Nevertheless, the people of Wales want, more than ever before, to elect people
who share their patriotism, who will fight for Wales, and who communicate a
sense of belief in the Welsh nation. This extends to support for the Welsh language
which has become a touchstone issue.
Although a decreasing minority of Welsh people speak it fluently, there is an
enormous underlying bank of good will for the language which goes beyond native
speakers. Welsh Conservatives have made much of the running in the Assembly in
terms of arguing for stronger protections for the language. The Party that acted as
midwife at the birth of S4C, the Welsh language TV channel, in the 1980s must
always keep working to renew its reputation as a defender of the language.
The Party now campaigns confidently as a distinctively Welsh Conservative
Party and, more than ever before, selects Welsh activists as its candidates. For the
first time there is now a Welsh-speaking Conservative Secretary of State for Wales
at Gwydyr House; a half of all Welsh Conservative MPs have served previously
in the Welsh Assembly; and all eight MPs represent constituencies in which they
have long-standing and deep family ties.
More devolutionThere must be no reversal in this trend. In an age of localism, when voters demand
authenticity and accessibility on the part of their representatives, the Party must in
future always rely on Welsh party members and supporters for the bulk of its candidates.
69 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/02/02/scottish-independence-would-add-to-calls-for-more-devolution-to-wales-91466-30254322/
89
Welsh Labour delight in publicising ‘made in Wales’ policies but the buck never
stops in Cardiff. All debate is overlaid with claims that Wales is underfunded, and every
problem is pushed back to Westminster with a plea for more public spending. The
First Minister himself has now become a convert to the mythology of underfunding,
and has started to argue that Wales must get an extra £350 million a year granted
from London to end structural unfairness in the public funding allocation.
It was telling that Welsh Ministers were among the very few across Europe
to publically criticise the first ever real-terms cut in European spending agreed at
European Council in February 2013, cementing the view among many that they
exist in an alternative fiscal reality. So one of the keys to further progress for the
Welsh Conservative Party must be to challenge and change the entire template in
which Welsh politics is conducted.
To this end, there is a growing appetite among Welsh Conservatives to see a more
balanced devolution settlement where legislative devolution is accompanied by fiscal
devolution. Rather than simply spending a block grant voted by Parliament each year,
Welsh Government would be responsible for raising a share of their spending. As
well as providing new financial levers to supplement Welsh policy options, it would
enhance the accountability of Welsh Government by creating for the first time a direct
link between Welsh taxpayers and elected politicians in Cardiff.
Importantly, fiscal devolution may provide the oxygen for new centre-right
ideas to flourish in Wales. Welsh Conservatism should begin to set out how fiscal
devolution can create opportunities for helping to rebalance the economy in
Wales, stimulate entrepreneurship and foster growth in a financially responsible
way. Welsh Labour shows little appetite for seeing a visible tax like Income Tax
devolved, with some regarding it as ‘a trap’,70 because they know it would force
them away from the sweet spot they currently occupy where every Welsh problem
can be dressed up as one of underfunding and the blame shifted to London.
CoalitionTen years ago former Conservative Assembly Leader Nick Bourne was far-sighted
in spotting the opportunity to craft a ‘Rainbow Coalition’ alternative to Welsh
Labour. Some Party activists reacted with horror, but the experience of working
70 Geraint Davies MP, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/wgrand/130123/am/130123s01.htm
90 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP
with Liberal Democrats in London has demonstrated that while coalition may
not be perfect, it can be a whole lot better than allowing Labour to stay in office.
Having now governed in coalition at a UK level, the Party can work with even
greater confidence and understanding towards being part of a potential coalition
to remove Labour control over Welsh Government in future.
Only the Welsh Conservative Party has the reach throughout Wales to
challenge this because for Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats
are irritants. But the Conservative Party is the only party which competes
directly with Labour in all regions of Wales. Seven out of the eight current Welsh
Conservative seats were direct gains from Labour.]
Optimism and ambition for the futureThe Conservative resurgence in Wales demonstrates that the Party has a genuine
UK-wide offer. As the United Kingdom has changed, socially and constitutionally, so
the Conservative Party in Wales has changed making it more relevant political force.
Welsh Conservatives have good reason to be optimistic and ambitious for
the future. Wales will always represent one of the more challenging areas of the
United Kingdom in which to campaign and win, but by adapting to the new
realities of devolution and national self-consciousness the Party has shown that it
can once again be the principal alternative to Labour in all parts of Wales.
STEPHEN CRABB is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Wales Office, a Government Whip and Member of Parliament for Pembrokeshire
91
REFORMING THE PARTY
92
TRANSFORMING THE CONSERVATIVE
PARTY’S ORGANISATION
GAVIN BARWELL MP
Most of the debate about what the Conservative Party needs to do to win overall
majorities at future General Elections focuses on policy and message – and rightly
so: even without an organisation on the ground, parties with an attractive message
can achieve success (Labour won seats in its 1997 landslide that it wasn’t even
targeting and hence saw very little Labour ground campaign).
But organisation does matter. In marginal seats, it can make the difference
between victory and defeat. And our organisation – in common with those of the
other main political parties – is not what it used to be.
The basic problem is that fewer people are inclined to join political parties.
There are a number of explanations for this. First, politics is held in lower esteem
than it used to be. Second, fewer people feel aligned to the two main parties – the
proportion of the electorate that votes either Conservative or Labour has been in
decline for some time. Third, people are working longer hours than they used to
so they have less spare time. And fourth, there’s so much more than they can do
with the spare time they do have.
But the way in which we have historically organised ourselves has compounded
that basic problem in two ways.
First, because we still generally organise on a constituency-by-constituency
basis (with each constituency having its own Conservative Association which,
unless something goes wrong, is largely left to get on with things) rather than
pooling resources across a wider area, the general decline in membership
has been felt most in safe Labour seats and Conservative/Labour marginals,
particularly those in parts of the country that are more difficult territory for us
93
(much of Scotland and Wales and the industrial cities of the Midlands and the
North). In some safe Labour seats, we have simply ceased to exist. And in many
Conservative/Labour marginals, our membership is so small that it is impossible
to employ an agent and difficult to raise funds for campaigning or find enough
people to deliver our literature. What strength we have left tends to be in safe
Conservative seats and it is very difficult to motivate activists in these areas to
go and campaign elsewhere where their efforts might have some impact on the
number of Conservative MPs elected to Parliament.
Second, because the central organisation of the Party is under the control
of the Leader of the Party (the Hague reforms set up a Board of the Party with
significant representation from the voluntary party, but this Board is chaired
by the Chairman of the Party who is appointed by the Leader so in practice
the leadership still has control), our organisational focus is always on the next
General Election to the exclusion of all else. When I worked at Central Office (or
Conservative Campaign Headquarters as it is now known), we would agree after
each General Election defeat that we needed to rebuild a Conservative presence
in places like Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. We would start to
invest a bit of resource in this work but as soon as a General Election approached
everything would be focused on winning that Election.
Now you may ask whether it really matters that we have no presence in
these areas. I would argue that it does for two reasons. First, there is an issue of
principle: I believe that at our best we are a ‘One Nation’ party. That’s an over-
used term – Ed Miliband is ludicrously trying to portray himself as a One Nation
politician at the moment – so I should explain what I mean. At our best, we do
not seek to pit one section of society against another as Labour does, but to unite
people of all backgrounds from all parts of the country who share a set of values.
We can’t do that if we don’t aspire to represent all parts of the country. But there’s
also a practical reason why our lack of organisation in our major cities matters:
it affects our prospects of winning suburban marginals. The media tends to be
based in cities. If they don’t see Conservative activity in their area, it affects their
coverage – which is read, watched and listened to by many people in suburbs as
well as in the cities themselves.
Of course the Leader of the Party needs to have the power to determine
the Party’s policies and message and its strategy for winning the next General
94 Transforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation | Gavin Barwell MP
Election, but there should be someone whose job is to focus on the long-term
strength of our organisation across the country.
So we face three problems: the decline in the number of people willing to join
a political party, the particular impact this has had in safe Labour seats and some
marginals because we organise on a constituency-by-constituency basis and the
way in which our organisation focuses on the next Election to the exclusion of all
else. What should we do about these problems?
Getting more people involved in the PartySpreading good practice – getting members to pay by Direct Debit, writing to
Conservative pledges inviting them to join the Party and then following up these
letters on the doorstep – would help. If every ward had the same proportion of its
Conservative voters as members as the best-performing wards in the country, we
would have many more members!
But we have to accept that the days when over a million people were prepared
to join the Party have gone for good, so we need to find other ways of engaging
people with the Party, whether that’s by registering as a ‘friend’ online, supporting
a particular campaign, getting involved in a social action project or attending a
public meeting organised by their local MP or councillor. By way of example, in
Croydon I’ve started advertising the Conservative Policy Forum meetings that I
speak at to all the electors for whom I have an email address and as a result we’ve
increased attendance at these meetings five-fold. The lesson is clear: there are far
more people who will attend a public meeting, help out clearing up the local park,
support a campaign to save the local library from closure or even help to deliver
our literature than are willing to pay a membership subscription. And once we
have begun to build relationships with such people, we may over time be able to
get them involved in other ways.
One big opportunity to engage more people in what the Party is doing is
when we select candidates, whether for local council elections or for Parliament
– and doing so is likely to boost the electoral prospects of those candidates too.
Take the selection process in Totnes in south Devon in the run-up to the last
General Election. The local Association sent all 69,000 electors a postal ballot
paper. 16,639 people returned their ballot paper, 20 or 30 times as many as would
have taken party in a traditional process. They chose Dr Sarah Wollaston, who
95
was duly elected Member of Parliament for Totnes with 3,000 more votes than
her predecessor.
It would be impractical to hold a postal ballot of all electors for every
selection, but we certainly could – and should – involve more than just our
members. Members should do the initial sift as now to ensure that they are happy
to campaign for whoever is selected, but why not allow anyone who registers
an interest to be involved in the final decision? It gives the candidates selected
more legitimacy, it engages people with the Party and it is likely to lead to better
candidates being selected (better in several senses – more representative of the
communities we aspire to serve, a better reflection of what the wider electorate
are looking for in an MP and hence better able to get elected).
If we are selecting a candidate, holding a discussion meeting or running a
campaign then, our aim should be to get the maximum number of people involved
regardless of whether or not they have paid a membership subscription.
Some people argue that this will make matters worse: if there aren’t significant
benefits to being a member even fewer people will join, they say. I think this is
mistaken on several levels. First, some things will be still reserved to members
(when it comes to selecting candidates for example, members should still control
the initial sift, otherwise there is a danger of our opponents controlling the
process and selecting someone unsuitable). Second, most people don’t join the
Party because of the benefits attached to being a member but to make a financial
contribution to the Conservative cause. But third and most importantly, people
are more likely to join a vibrant organisation.
Organising on a wider-than-constituency basisWhen deciding what our organisational structure should be in a particular part of
the country, we should be guided by three principles. First, identity: Associations
should cover areas that people identify with (one of the problems with organising
on a constituency basis is that whilst some constituencies like the Isle of
Wight reflect community boundaries, others like Brigg & Goole cross them).
Second, scale: Associations should cover a large enough area to sustain a viable
organisation with a headquarters and some professional support (some people
question the need for professional support because their previous experience
has been a negative one, but anyone who has ever worked with a competent
96 Transforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation | Gavin Barwell MP
professional agent or organiser will attest to how much easier they make the
role of volunteers). Third, permanence: if possible we want to avoid having to
re-organise ourselves every time constituency boundaries change.
In Croydon, we’ve merged the three Associations within the borough to
form the Croydon Conservative Federation. This passes the identity test: no-one
(apart from long-standing members of the Party!) identifies with the constituency
boundaries; they identify with the borough and the particular communities
within it – Addiscombe, New Addington, Shirley etc. It passes the scale test: we
have an office and can afford to employ several staff (if we organised as three
constituencies, the safe seat of Croydon South would have an office and an agent
but marginal Croydon Central would have neither). And it passes the permanence
test – the borough of Croydon isn’t going anywhere anytime soon (or at least I
hope it’s not!)
And strange though it may sound, this organisational shift has changed the
culture of our organisation. We think of ourselves as Croydon Conservatives.
When there are Council elections, we go and work in the marginal wards, whether
they are in ‘our’ constituency or another part of the borough. When there’s a
General Election, everyone works in Croydon Central. People attend branch
fundraising events right across the borough, not just those in ‘their’ constituency.
There are other solutions short of federation. In Gloucestershire, the six
Associations have kept their independence but come together to fund a state-of-
the-art county campaign centre. In other parts of the country, Associations have
kept their own offices but share an agent who works between these offices or
a safe Conservative-held seat pays for professional cover in a nearby marginal.
What matters is not the detailed structure but the principle that we concentrate
the resources – both financial and human – that we have in the seats that will
determine whether or not we win elections.
Having a long-term strategyFinally, we need to think about how the central organisation of the Party is
structured and who it reports to so that there is someone whose job it is to think
long-term. There used to be separate teams at Conservative Central Office, one
focused on elections, the other focused on organisation. We may not want to
return to that structure, but we do need to ensure that the Leader of our Party has
97
complete control of policy, message and election strategy, that winning the next
Election gets the lion’s share of resources, but that some priority is still given to
the long-term health of our organisation.
Organisational strength matters. We can’t afford to ignore the decline in our
organisation any longer. Alongside the strategy Lynton Crosby is developing
to win the next Election, we need to think about a long-term plan to rebuild
our Party.
GAVIN BARWELL is Member of Parliament for Croydon Central
98
WATERING THE DESERT – A FORTY
FOR THE NORTH
PAUL MAYNARD MP
The first poem I ever studied at A-Level was ‘Here’ by Philip Larkin, a powerful
evocation of the landscape and local geography of the Humber estuary. It
describes a notional train journey to Hull and beyond to the tip of the Holderness
Peninsula, and sweeps majestically across our northern landscape: ‘Swerving east,
from rich industrial shadows, and traffic all night north ... The piled gold clouds,
the shining gull-marked mud, gathers to the surprise of a large town’. That town
was Hull – a good example of a town in the north where our political potential
is not being met, and where we might not even be aware there even is potential,
perhaps. Larkin was cruel about the people of Hull, calling them a ‘cut-price
crowd, urban yet simple’. Such patronising views, thankfully, are not the views of
the Parliamentary Party.
Rather as with Larkin’s rail journey, many fellow MPs have been on journeys
round the North of late, travelling up hill and down dale in search of some
hidden magic golden lever that we need only pull for the ‘northern electorate’
[insert preferred description here] to have the scales fall from their eyes and see
us revealed in our fullest majesty, suddenly electable again. Of course, no such
lever exists. It isn’t about our accent, our look, our educational background,
our wealth, or any other single identifying feature. It is about ensuring that we
appear authentic, part of our local community rather than emissaries from Planet
Westminster bearing strange language.
As much as I admire the work of think tanks like the IPPR, and devotee that I
am of transport devolution to encourage regional development, even I realise the
difference between good policy and good politics. Standing on a damp doorstep
99
explaining the intricacies of regional transport funding priority mechanisms will
not work miracles. The end result – a better regional transport infrastructure
which enhances economic growth through enhanced connectivity certainly will.
But focusing on policy tools alone rather than addressing the ‘image’ problem we
all like to think we have won’t provide the answer.
After endless seminars and pamphlets and hand-wringing, we are left with
an unhealthy obsession with what I call the 3Ms – millionaires, Maggie and the
miners. We accuse ourselves of favouring millionaires, with having an unhealthy
obsession with Margaret Thatcher, and with having been damned for ever by a
strike that took place when I was nine years old. All of these deliberately miss the
point, if only because they try to relocate blame away from ourselves, it seems.
There’s no requirement to do anything if the past is to blame, other than wring
those hands that bit more.
We have all gone questing for the answer to a self-diagnosed Northern
Problem, and we have returned from the forage defining ourselves by what we
should not be, rather than what we need to become. And I don’t mean whippets,
flat caps and any other northern stereotype either.
If we are saddled by a perception, which we feed, that we under-perform in
the north, the only genuine solution is to confront this head on and deal with it.
Conservatives in areas such as Salford and Wallasey in the North West, North
Tyneside in the North East, and towns like Keighley in Yorkshire have shown how
success in areas perhaps considered unlikely is not unachievable. But the challenge
is to universalise these bright spots. The lack of councillors in major cities such as
Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle is a millstone round our necks if only because
it is a convenient shorthand for the media to describe our ‘northern problem’.
We know what the ‘perfect’ campaign should look like. It isn’t actually
complex. Three or four newsletters a year from local campaigners, the building
up of a pledge base, an effective canvassing effort year-round, a solid GOTV
operation, and then the purchasing of the marked registers to calculate the ‘yield’.
It’s the ‘yield’ we often miss – how many of our pledges actually voted. It is also a
good way to assess the accuracy of a pledge base. Imagine a pledge base of 2000
of whom half are marked as having voted. That should indicate we take 1000
votes in that ward. If we only get 250, we know our pledge base isn’t accurate.
So ‘yield’ matters.
100 Watering the desert – a forty for the North | Paul Maynard MP
Every ward starts to matter more too if we are to enter a world of more
frequent boundary changes. Consider the lessons of Bolton West, where a ward
was added from Wigan Council which had never been properly contested before.
It had potential, but it required a lot of extra input to get it ‘up to speed’. That we
lost by only 42 votes demonstrates that no stone should ever be left unturned. As
seats become potentially larger, and local government boundaries less sacrosanct
to the Electoral Commission, we can’t allow opportunities to be missed. Nor
can we risk a safe seat being presented with the unwelcome surprise of a slab of
previously untapped middle-class wards from the neighbouring safe Labour seat.
That doesn’t mean we will know all the answers when we look at any constituency.
I’m always very wary of parachuting into a constituency and telling them what they
are doing wrong. It may be, for all I know, that Atherton was the best organised
ward in Bolton West on the day. But I do know what the questions we should be
asking ourselves. I am still kicking myself for not throwing more of a tantrum that
we weren’t having a proper telling operation in one of my wards we narrowly lost
in 2011. It could have been the added element that got us across the finishing line.
There are no no-go areas for the Party. I wish I had a fiver for every time I
have heard that down the years. I know from my own time standing for local
government elections in the Labour fortress of Newham that much can be
built out of something with seemingly little promise. I stood in a by-election in
December with a 10% turnout (eat your heart out, PCC candidates) in Custom
House & Silvertown and ran a textbook campaign as best I could with limited
resources – lost by 578 to 329 to Labour, but my yield was 80%. I stood in
another by-election for the neighbouring ward a few months later, slightly less
promising territory, but still managed to ensure I got my voters out (admittedly
only 73 of them!). When boundary changes rearranged matters for 2002, we came
within 190 votes of taking a seat off Labour after two year’s hard campaigning. It
wasn’t perfect, and I learnt all the time what made a difference and what didn’t.
Up in Blackpool in the summer of 2008, circumstances conspired to give us
an opportunity to snatch away Labour’s strongest ward in my constituency. The
right candidate (the local postmaster), the right campaign (textbook, beginning
to end!) and the right timing (Labour’s assault on the 10p tax rate really hit many
of their key voters here) saw us gain the ward with 55% of the vote, up 28% on
a strong performance in 2007.
101
This gives me the confidence that even in the hardest places, we can make a
difference. But it needn’t be the hardest places that we focus on first.
We must start by understanding demographic change, and what demographics
are. As a party, I often hear us talk of areas moving away from us. We rarely hear
of areas moving towards us. But considering the demographics of the north, and
changing patterns of habitation, it is true. Anyone who drives the M62 from
Liverpool to Manchester won’t pass through a Conservative seat, yet it is the
ultimate commuter belt! Whether it is the income domain of DCLG’s Indices
of Multiple Deprivation from 2010, or Experian’s Mosaic data with which so
many of us are familiar, there is no lack of information allowing us to determine
where we could be doing better. The missing element in all of the appraisals of
our electoral performances is whether we are ‘under-‘ or ‘over-performing’ against
demographically similar areas. Mosaic is too often rejected on the basis that it
said that voter X was Mosaic category Y when she is a multi-millionaire. We
can all find an example of a nonsensical category if we look hard enough. Yet
Mosaic remains a powerful tool for analysing the totality of an electorate, and
understanding what Conservative areas could or should look like.
This is a crucial piece of the jigsaw, since it allows us to ask the right questions.
No longer can we determine target lists of wards merely by the number votes we
are behind, but we can identify wards where we ought to be doing better than we
are, and then, critically, look at what the reasons are for under-performance. And
that is where the novelty is here. I’m not just saying ‘Do as your Campaign Director
says or else’. Under-performance is a concept that I think we have fought shy of
for too long. It isn’t about castigating a particular branch or Association for not
winning a ward. It’s about the wider Party family asking itself the right questions,
identifying where value can be added to existing campaigns, or initiating where
there isn’t much to build on. We can know where we ought to be winning, and
we can try to do something about it.
There will be arguments against this. Some will say that it diverts effort and
attention away from key targets. This may be true, but I would argue having
a Councillor in Liverpool might transform that media market’s narrative, and
benefit us in Wirral South or Sefton Central.
Some will say it costs money. This is indubitably true – but if we are looking
at wards where little happens currently, then costs will be relatively low. I have
102 Watering the desert – a forty for the North | Paul Maynard MP
just done a postal survey of a marginal ward of 5,000 voters in my constituency.
Printing a nice double-sided glossy A4 survey, with window envelope and reply-
paid envelope cost us £300. This is calculated on the basis of a 2.5% response
rate where half put a stamp on (always put the prompt on, you’ll be amazed how
many will) and we pay 33p per reply. On top of that is the time I spend composing
overly-detailed replies – but its worth it, and it is how I build the delivery network.
So in front of me right now I have my ‘top secret’ Forty for the North. These
are affluent wards where we underperform – sometimes struggling to even get 5%
of the vote – and are all in constituencies we do not hold, and which have not yet
been announced for selection in the first batch. A few are in 2010 target seats,
but the bulk is actually in safe Labour seats. Fifteen are in the North West, fifteen
under the geographical misnomer that is ‘Yorkshire & Humber’ and a further
fifteen in the North East.
My challenge to the Party is to work with the local associations to ask the
right questions to understand what the political ‘aroma’ is in each ward. There
may be a good reason why we can’t get 5% of the vote in a ward which is
amongst the 10% most affluent in the country and the LibDems win with 80%
of the vote, still, despite their difficulties. But we won’t know that if we don’t ask
and seek to understand why.
We then need to invest a bit of time and effort in building up a pledge base in
each ward, ensuring that election campaigns are run professionally, that delivery
networks are built up using surveys and canvassing, and that GOTV on the day
maximises yield, and that we analyse yield afterwards. All pretty straightforward
stuff the Party has preached for years – yet it might be the first time ever in many
of these fifty wards, perhaps.
We can’t guarantee every year will be a bumper year, but we can do our
utmost to ensure that we maximise our return on seats given any level of national
support. We have to be authentic in our constituencies, not pretending to be
someone we’re not, rooted and embedded in our local communities rather than
merely appearing come election time like will o’the wisps.
I challenge every incumbent MP in the North, every Euro-candidate on the
list, every aspiring MP on the list to donate a Saturday afternoon to one of the
fifty. We all have a stake in changing the facts on the ground. This isn’t about ‘one
more heave’ to get us over a finishing line. It isn’t even about trying to win the
103
unwinnable. But it is about the ‘theory of marginal gains’ that brought British
cycling such triumphs, and which I think can make such a difference in our local
election performance. Starting from a premise that a seat is one we ought to be
able to win, even if we are 75% behind at the previous election, is a very different
attitude from only focusing on closely-fought wards. It’s about party building,
pure and simple, and reaching back into the areas we might never have realised
we retreated from.
If we spend too much time yearning for a nostalgic past, as Larkin’s own
poetry did, rather than engaging with the present, then the closing lines of Here
will describe us all too perfectly: ‘untalkative, out of reach’. That won’t solve the
Northern Dilemma any more than hunting the magic policy lever at the end of
the rainbow will.
PAUL MAYNARD is Member of Parliament for Blackpool North and Cleveleys
104
iDEMOCRACY AND THE NEW MODEL PARTY
DOUGLAS CARSWELL MP
The Conservative party is a bit like HMV, the bankrupt music business. For years,
just like HMV, we were market leaders. We won 44% of the vote in 1979, 42%
in 1983 and 44% again in 1987.
But like the old music retailer, we have been losing touch with our customer
base. HMV sold music the wrong way, via a costly chain of shop outlets. We, too,
have been retailing politics the wrong way.
We last won a Parliamentary majority over twenty years ago. When we gained
office after the 2010 election, we did so having got 36% of the vote. A pinnacle of
success? 36% would have once been regarded as a disastrous trough.
The stark truth we must confront is that the Tory party has wasted away
across many parts of the country. In much of Scotland, we are a remote memory.
In towns and cities across the north of England, there are not only no Tory
councillors, but there have not been any for over twenty years. Even more
alarming, perhaps, many constituency associations in southern England exist
more on paper than in practice.
A mass membership organisation, with over two million members a generation
ago, has become a shadow of its former self. As late as the 1990s, we still had over
400,000 members. We have lost half our members since 2005.
Some party strategists fear that we may never be able to win an outright
majority again. Will we, they muse privately, forever have to depend on a coalition
with the Liberal Democrats?
My fear is that without change, we might become a kind of English version
of Italy’s Northern League. A rump party confined to one region of the country,
neither able nor willing to try to galvanise the whole country.
For all the Cameroon talk of modernisation, when it comes to reforming the
105
party, we have had remarkably little of it. We continue to try to mobilise electoral
support by running what are, in effect, a series of dining clubs scattered across the
south east of England. No wonder we continue to fight the long retreat.
‘But’ you interrupt ‘it was all that Cameroon modernisation talk that was
the problem. If only the party leadership had not focused on wind turbines and
hugging hoodies, all would be well’.
Really? Party membership was in serious decline long before anyone started to
pepper the landscape with wind farms. Our share of the vote was in sharp decline
long before anyone tried to get down with the hoodies.
Modernisation has not been the problem. Our problem rather has been an
almost complete absence of serious effort to change the way that we run our party
and seek to mobilise mass support.
The digital revolutionWhat is a political party for? First and foremost, to aggregate votes and opinion.
In a democracy, where lots of people have a vote, parties ensure that voters
have some sense of what it is that they might be voting for. The existence of parties
allows they some idea of how different representatives might work together once
in office.
But along comes the internet, and suddenly it is possible to aggregate votes –
and ideas – without having an established political party.
We have seen this most dramatically with the emergence of the Five Star
Movement in Italy. It came from obscurity to win one in four votes in the recent
Italian elections. Of course, the Five Star Movement might not last more than a
few months. But the forces that allow votes to aggregate online the way the Five
Star has are now with us forever.
From book selling to music retail, every market that the internet touches it
changes. The barriers to entry come tumbling down. New niche competitors are
able to take on established players on equal terms. So, too, in politics.
The internet not only allows insurgent movements, like Five Star, to build a
brand at a national level. Here in Britain, we are starting to see insurgents building
successful local brands.
As George Galloway, victor of the Bradford West by-election, put it ‘our media
was social media ... Twitter, Facebook and YouTube ... at the touch of a button,
106 iDemocracy and the new model party | Douglas Carswell MP
I can speak to thousands of people ... Our election campaign was built entirely
outside the Westminster bubble’.71
The internet, in short, is made for political insurgency. So we need a new kind
of insurgent Conservatism.
Insurgent ConservatismThe Conservative party can either harness the new forces that the internet is
unleashing. Or be defeated by them. We can continue to sell ourselves politically
the way that HMV sold music. Or we can become the political equivalent
of spotify.
iMembership: In the age of the internet, it has never been easier to build mass
membership organisations. Yet Conservative party membership is falling. We are
doing something wrong.
Today, being a member of the Tory party to often means paying £25 for
the privilege of then being sent invitations to costly dinners. Not a great retail
proposition, is it?
So we need to change.
There are over a quarter of a million folk living in Britain who describe
themselves as conservative on Facebook and Twitter. Why don’t we adapt our
membership structure to get as many of them as possible to join?
Why not let anyone – literally anyone – have ‘supporter status’ provided they
register online giving us just their name, email and postcode. Why not let anyone
become an ‘iMember’ for £1 a year? If they are only joining online, why bill them
for the off line overheads?
Here is a really radical idea. Why not allow iMembers to vote to determine
aspects of party policy, or elect members of the Party Board?
Why not let iMembers and supporters vote online to select candidate
shortlists? Or to facilitate primary candidate selections?
Candidate selection: The Cameroon diagnosis was spot on. In far too many seats,
a diminished membership was selecting candidates that appealed to them – not
necessarily those best placed to win over swing voters.
71 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9216743/Is-politics-on-the-verge-of-a-breakdown.html
107
The trouble was with the remedy. Drawing up an A list of candidates did
not solve the problem. Party officials in London charged with drawing up the
A list might have ensured a broader range of candidates were selected in terms
of gender, background and heritage. It did little to ensure a broader range of
candidates in terms of outlook and attitude.
The Conservatives need to adopt proper open primary candidate selection.
In the two seats, Totnes and Gosport, where the Conservatives did hold proper
open primaries (as opposed to caucuses), they gained not only two remarkable
results on polling day, but two exceptional MPs, Sarah Wollaston and Caroline
Dinenage.
Costly to run as postal ballots, open primaries candidate selection could either
be ‘piggy backed’ on to pre-existing local elections, or alternatively run online.
Once voters are allowed to register as supporters online, large numbers of local
people could be invited to take part in online polls to pick candidates.
If you select candidates that are well rooted in their local communities, they
probably won’t then need to be prepped on how to reach out to the electorate.
A different style: A freshly adopted parliamentary candidate, I once received some
sage advice from my predecessor, Sir Julian Ridsdale. An Essex MP for 38 years,
he gave me his top tip: ‘Go to the places where the people gather.’ He might have
had in mind the morning markets or bring-and-buy sales. But ‘the places where
the people gather’ today are on Twitter and Facebook, too. Applying Sir Julian’s
advice in the age of the internet means parties and their candidates need to be
online. Not a ‘look-at-me’ boast site, but proper engagement.
But engaging online demands a very different style. Back in the days when a
candidate’s main opportunity to speak to the voters was via a TV studio, he or
she would stick to the carefully rehearsed ‘lines to take’, prepared by party HQ.
Try tweeting sound bites, and – unless you are being ironic – you soon look
ridiculous.
Social media create a ‘long tail’ in communication. Uniformity becomes
impossible as candidates have to create authentic responses to the niche audience
they are communicating with.
The generic party brand and message might be important, but not as important
as in the days when media was broadcast, not social. You will almost necessarily
108 iDemocracy and the new model party | Douglas Carswell MP
have to go beyond any generic messages if you want to have any kind of authentic
online interaction.
Insurgent policy: The internet is a collective endeavour, without any central
directing authority. If you are going to harness the internet to mobilise the
Conservative party, you need to appreciate that it will no longer be possible to
have a central directing authority control the party the way it has in the past.
With a broader, looser membership base, the party base will be less deferential.
With open primary selection, candidates will answer outward to their constituents,
not merely inward to the hierarchy and whips.
The party must become insurgent in not only style, but in outlook.
To a certain kind of Westminster grandee, that alone would put them off the
idea of change. But maybe that is the problem. Perhaps the Tory party has been
run for too long as though it belongs to a certain kind of grandee in SW1, the
property of those who are a little bit too comfortable with the way things are.
Contemporary Conservatism is too at ease with a failed elite in Whitehall; with
central bankers that ran the economy into the ground; with Europhile mandarins
keen to sign us up to more Brussels; with an inept, self-regarding administrative
class that thought it could control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but, it turns
out, could not even control our own borders.
Insurgent Conservatism means that we would become the party of change.
From Disraeli, to Thatcher and – yes, even to Cameron – the Tories have been at
their greatest not when they merely seek to conserve things, but when they look
to overturn the way things are.
DOUGLAS CARSWELL is Member of Parliament for Clacton. He is the author of ‘The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy’.
Renewal’s goal is to help the Conservative Party to broaden its appeal in order to win an overall majority and be able to govern alone for a sustained period of time.
In particular, we consider four overlapping challenges for the Conservative Party, aiming to set out how it can serve and appeal to:
• Working people.• People living outside of the traditional
Conservative heartlands.• Ethnic minority voters.• Voters living in cities, major urban centres and their suburbs.
We aim to develop practical solutions to these Conservative challenges, with a particular focus on:
• Building more housing.• Moving towards full employment.• Urban renewal and reviving less prosperous parts of the UK.• Helping the low paid.• Protecting consumers.• Creating a cohesive society.
This book of essays brings together MPs and other key figures from across the Conservative Party to consider how the Conservatives can achieve success at the next election and beyond, championing ordinary working people, reaching out to parts of the country where there is little Conservative presence and reforming the Party machine.
These essays are only the beginning of a campaign designed to generate ideas and provoke debate.
www.renewalgroup.org.uk