What Adam Afriyie’s first major interview really meant

Adam Afriyie: Going somewhere? Photo: Roo Reynolds (Flickr)

There’s no doubting the appeal of Adam Afriyie; with a rags to riches personal story he represents the epitome of what the Conservative Party should stand for. But his answers, during his first major interview with Andrew Neil on Sunday, were sketchy, overtly astute, and his political message – essentially business, business, business – somewhat lacking.

By saying very little, he ended up giving away rather a lot. Not only did Afriyie make mention of the ‘efforts of’ a ‘team’ around him, he also categorically refused to support David Cameron’s leadership. Surely even the most rebellious of MPs would have given the PM their backing, at least for now? It’s difficult to say what exactly Afriyie is planning, but here’s my take on what his interview really meant;

Andrew Neil: You’ve already written that you are ‘prepared to be disappointed’ (with George Osborne’s budget)?

Adam Afriyie: Well budget’s are always disappointing, and there’s a lot of hope for different groups within society and I think sometimes not all those hopes can be met. The key thing for this budget in my view is that we must have business friendly measures, and I think it’s really important that any government both likes business but also is business-like in its approach.

Translation: Budgets are usually disappointing, and this one will probably be no exception. We need more tax cuts for businesses, and of course we need to move on from the ‘omnishambles’ delivery of last year’s Budget.

AN: Liam Fox has called for a public spending freeze for the next five years to fund tax cuts, is he right?

AA: A lot of people will be calling for a lot of different things. My focus is on those things, sometimes they’re boring measures, measures which aren’t headline grabbing, sometimes they aren’t politically attractive. The key thing is that we are business-like about this and introduce measures that genuinely boost growth.

Translation: Sounds good to me.

AN: Is it time to means test universal benefits like the free TV licence and the winter fuel allowance?

AA: These are ideas that need to be considered for sure. But I think, overall my view is that we need to simplify for tax system. I think people are uncomfortable that multimillionaires are receiving benefits from the state, that’s something that needs to be look at in the long term. But if we simplify the tax system then some of these problems disappear over time.

Translation: I don’t want to answer that, so I’ll talk about tax instead. But yes, millionaires shouldn’t receive benefits.

AN: Do you think Cameron and Osborne spend enough time listening to what ordinary members think?

AA: I think they’re listening very carefully. There will always be frustration if the economy isn’t doing well and the answers for getting a thriving Britain aren’t forthcoming. I’m hopeful that this budget will have those measures where people begin to feel more confident. The future for the country lies with a wholly Conservative government that has enterprise and economic growth at the heart of everything it does.

Translation: They might be listening, but not enough. The economy is a mess, and the government does not have enough of a focus on creating a thriving economy. Of course, not much helped by having to work with Liberal Democrats.

AN: Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr Cameron will lead the Tories into the 2015 general election?

AA: I don’t want to get into gossip politics. We have a very good chance of winning the 2015 election if we can demonstrate some economic growth before 2015. Government needs to learn to like business.

AN: You don’t answer me. There is some doubt in your mind? Is there or isn’t there?

AA: I’m not prepared to speculate. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top.

AN: There have been many reports that you have leadership ambitions, do you?

AA: I’m ambitious for the country. I chose to come into politics from a business background, and I’m happy to serve the country in any way I see fit. I’m not ambitious for any position in the party or the government.

AN: Let’s put this to bed, do you want to lead your party?

AA: I have no ambition to lead my party. I’m ambitious to get Britain back on top. The effort’s of my team around me are focused on trying to deliver those policies for a better future.

AN: So you wouldn’t rule out being leader?

AA: You’re asking the question in different ways. You’ve had an answer.

Translation: I don’t much rate Cameron personally, so I’m not prepared to back him. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top; Cameron is failing in both regards. At the same time his position is still fairly safe so I’m not going to call for his head either. I’m ambitious, but I’m not about to mount a leadership challenge. In the future though, I’m happy to serve the country in anyway I see fit. Which might mean leader of the party.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Party political cocktails: The ingredients to 2015 success

Which will you be ordering in 2015?

It is not unknown that the result of the hard fought Eastleigh by-election, with a voter turnout-out of 53%, was a shock to the polls, prospective candidates, leading parties and the country as a whole. Following the Chris Huhne scandal it would not have been unfair to predict a change from the usual Liberal Democrat control to what looked to be a Conservative gain and ultimately another feather in Cameron’s cap.

With a 32% share of the vote for the LibDems and a mere 25% for the Tories, UKIP emerged from being the ‘non-contender’ to the election vanquisher with a surprising 29% share, subsequently reducing the Tory vote and allowing for a LibDem triumph.

Looking ahead to the 2015 General Election, here I look at the essential ingredients needed for each of the three major parties to create a recipe for their own electoral success.

‘Cosmopolitan-Cameron’

With Cameron on the defensive following the catastrophic election results of the Eastleigh by-election last week, a picture of his political advisors and spin-doctors frantically clambering for a solution comes to mind as they desperately attempt to cling on to a second consecutive term in Government. Perhaps the following ingredients for the party’s next manifesto would serve as a thirst quenching relief.

| Europe |

The Prime Minister’s long awaited speech on the UK’s membership to the European Union (EU) left the country questioning the sincerity behind Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in the next Parliament. This was clearly a tactic in procuring the hearts, and more importantly the votes, of the right wing members of his party – those whose loyalty has recently remained uncertain.

However, the Prime Minister would have undoubtedly been better off had he promised the referendum in 2014, a short time before the 2015 election. If the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Prime Minister would have time to decide on his course of action or carefully scripted his U-turn ready for the next Parliament – a far greater incentive for the electorate to re-elect his party into Government than the cold promise he has made.

| Economy |

Despite the UK loosing its triple ‘A’ status, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, exclaimed that he ‘will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter.’ Unfortunately though, while the deficit decreases, the debt sores and the Government’s current plan will unequivocally be challenged by the electorate who have seen little sign of recovery in the years that the Conservatives would have been in power come 2015. Whether you believe the Chancellor’s strategy is working or not, it certainly won’t win votes should it be repeated in the party’s next manifesto.

| A Liberal Perspective |

Although coming under fire for his proposals and consequent reforms to equal marriage, which has unmistakably won the support of youthful generations, Cameron and his party must provide young and first-time voters an additional incentive to side with the Conservatives. Having taken a tough knock over university tuition fees the Liberal Democrats have freed up votes that the Prime Minister must now make a grab for.

‘Mojito-Miliband’

Ed Miliband’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions could be mistaken as a repeat played on a weekly loop – one of the clearest indicators that Miliband and his party have very little direction with regards to policy, if any. However, with a manifesto flourishing of sound policies and a strong sense of ideology, the Labour party might be in with a fighting chance of snatching election victory, if they acquired such a document.

| New Leader |

Firstly then, the key ingredient to this recipe’s success is a complete new appearance. Its presentation is lacking, and that must fundamentally change.

It’s safe to say that while Miliband is at the helm, the ship will be sailing against the wind, making very little progress. Unfortunately, the public realises that Miliband lacks the competencies of leadership, whilst his party refuses to acknowledge it for the sake of appearing as a united front. If his brother, David Miliband, had won the leadership contest however, then the situation would have been completely different.

Until the party boosts in the confidence required to overhaul their leader, it will not accomplish a taste of power for some time. Perhaps, with some polishing, the rising Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Chuka Umunna, would be a strong contender?

| The Fighting Ground |

As briefly mentioned, the body of votes for the Liberal Democrats that lead to their success in the 2010 election are ‘up-for-grabs’ following the disastrous decisions that they’ve taken during their time in office – namely the rise in university tuition fees – therefore isolating their large voter base, many of which were students. The release of this portion of voters could bestow election supremacy for the party that successfully appeals to their interests.

Whilst the Labour leader enjoys the support of trade unions, of which appointed him into his position, he must begin to appeal to the more liberal of voters. An easier achievement than for Cameron. A policy on child adoption for same-sex couples would be an interesting example.

| International Intervention |

Similar to the legacy of economic recession that has loomed over the Labour party, military intervention in the Middle East branded New Labour distinctly interventionist. A drastic foreign policy that sides with limitations on foreign intervention is likely to bode well with those who have military connections and the public more generally. A policy that promises no UK military intervention in a foreign nation unless the Government secures a UN Resolution to legitimise its actions as just, exemplifies the style of foreign policy needed.

‘Caruso-Clegg’

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats, and for Nick Clegg moreover, the 2015 General Election is going to taste bitter. To conjure up a recipe of sweet success for this party is more likely to produce a sour poison. The declining reputation that the party are affording themselves from abandoning their promises continues to speedily disintegrate their voter base.

| New Leader |

Unlike the Labour party, a change of leader would be ineffective. Nonetheless, it would signal an end to an era that the LibDems would very much wish to forget and would allow for minor progress towards repairing its broken image.

| Housing & National Affairs |

Property construction and social benefits to first-time buyers would be a safe bet. Once again appealing to younger voters is a realistic and reliable option. Policies on the economy or foreign affairs would convey the party as unrealistic and incapable of governing. Therefore, it is essential that the Liberals first heal the wounds of domestic politics. Core domestic policies, such as housing, can allow the party to gain a foothold on the ladders of trust and influence once more. From there, the party can regroup, reorganise and rearrange themselves in preparation for an opportunity for leadership to arise once again.

The 2015 General Election will unquestionably be messy following a long period of uncertainty. Will a leading party emerge as the forerunner in the remaining years? It’s doubtful. Instead, we can expect to see a scramble for every available vote no matter what its position on the party continuum. We can also be sure to witness a head-to-head collision between the Tories and Labour party, with no indication of the LibDems as a sincere competitor in the race to power.

But, what looks increasingly likely is another hung-parliament. We already thought the political and economic situation was dreadful – it’s likely to get a lot worse.

Conservative Cocktail

Ingredients:
(12.5ml) Grenadine
(12.5ml) Chambord Black Raspberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Strawberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Cherry Sourz

Directions:
In shaker, mix together and strain into cocktail glass.

Labour Cocktail

Ingredients:
(25ml) Southern Comfort Lime Liqueur
(25ml) Smirnoff Vodka
(25ml) Archers Peach Schnapps
(A Dash) Blue Curacao

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and add a generous helping of fresh lemon juice.

Liberal Cocktail:

Ingredients:
(25ml) Ameretto
(25ml) Banana Liqueur
(25ml) Fresh Orange Juice
(30ml) A ‘Liberal’ helping of Brandy

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and top with lemonade

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

Eastleigh, the late surge of UKIP and Cameron’s balancing act

Nigel Farage and Diane James will be smiling for some time to come. Photo: Jennifer Jane Mills (Flickr)

By-elections often follow a familiar script: a date is announced, we are told how significant the outcome will be on the ‘political landscape’, a leading candidate emerges before then it becomes a tight race where the outcome will be ‘difficult to predict’ as pollsters unconfidently bemoan the ‘margin of error’. Ultimately, the result comes through which is similar to the one initially expected and it has little effect in a wider political context.

All of that might have been the case in Eastleigh had it not been for one factor: the late surge of UKIP. For much of the campaign, the outcome was considered to be a two-horse-race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The battle was portrayed as the two Coalition partners going ‘head-to-head’.

Ultimately, however, rather than the Conservatives, it was UKIP who narrowly missed out on taking the seat away from Nick Clegg’s party. Nigel Farage was right to say it was the Conservatives who had split the UKIP vote rather than the other way round. Today there might be a few right-leaning voters in Eastleigh cursing the fact they thought the Tories offered the best prospect of defeating the Liberal Democrats. For a party currently wielding the loudspeaker of protest in British politics, the late surge of UKIP was a surprisingly quiet one. Only until the last remaining days of the campaign did the chance of a victory even come into the picture; a Tory campaign leaflet, designed in the colours of purple and gold, proves how worried of UKIP the Conservatives had become.

So why, at the expense of the Tories, did UKIP perform so well? One thing is clear; voters vote for the eurosceptic party for a number of reasons, eurosceptism often less prominent than you’d expect; as an anti-establishment protest? In support of a more right-wing message? Or simply in support of a straight-talking, common-sense message? Perhaps the strength of the candidate locally swayed the voters? Indeed, the impressive candidate Diane James puts paid to the idea that UKIP are a group of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. The words of David Cameron himself, if anything last night’s result might encourage the Prime Minister to take more seriously what is becoming his party’s most significant threat.

But does that mean tacking back to a core right-wing message to win over lost supporters? Or does it mean continuing with a centre-ground ideology to win over an increasingly liberal society? Ultimately, Cameron will have to do both. Despite Labour’s embarrassingly poor performance in Eastleigh, Ed Miliband will stroll into Number 10 by default if the Tories continue to loose support from both the left of the party and the right.

Eastleigh is a major setback, but David Cameron’s conference speech of last year suggests he understands the task in hand. Yesterday Daniel Boomsma argued that the party could learn from perhaps it’s greatest forefather, Edmund Burke. Embracing liberal laissez-faire economics at the same time as developing a moral critique of pure capitalism ‘may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image’. Today, Tim Montgomerie once again calls for a ‘full spectrum, big orchestral, across-the-stage Conservatism’. To pin the party down on the liberal left or the conservative right would be the incorrect response; but the message must be clearer, more optimistic, and reflective of a ‘common ground’ rather than ‘centre ground’. Finding the right balance will be no easy task. But then why should it be; power, after all, is at stake.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Book review: The Conservatives: A History by Robin Harris

”At first sight it does not seem difficult to be a Conservative”, the essayist and journalist Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) once wrote. And indeed he was right. But it will occur to those who study conservatism thoroughly that it is only ”at first sight” that conservatism seems a simple way of thinking. Being a conservative is not an easy business. It asks for a different view on politics, one that is not less complex than a liberal or socialist outlook. And above all, it requires a thorough understanding of one’s own history.

In his The Conservatives: A History Robin Harris shows what it means to be a conservative. At the same time his book is an elaborate history of the Conservative Party, though Harris is not particularly interested in organisational matters. Conservatives with a small c, as Harris defines them (though he finds Michael Oakeshott’s definition ”the single best”), are in favour of keeping the country recognizable in its identity and secure in its future, an echo it seems of Edmund Burke who had ”a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve.”

Starting with the Tory beginnings in the eighteenth-century, with the eloquent and ‘philosophical’ Burke – a politician is a philosopher in action, Burke stated – the practical William Pitt the younger, Robert Peel and the consistent Derby, Harris accurately illustrates the rise of the oldest and most successful political party in, arguably, Europe.

The success of the Conservative Party was not self-evident however. By the mid/end of the nineteenth-century, Harris points out, a majority of political commentators were convinced of the fact that the liberals and later the socialists or Labour movement would ultimately be victorious, simply because they ”understood their time better”. The liberals had their democracy, and the socialists a growing working class.

But commentators proved to be wrong. Harris shows that it was because of their great leaders that the Conservative party survived. Indeed, their personalities are the key to understanding the Conservative party, a party that is essentially an elective dictatorship. Control lies fully with the leader. Consultation is really a Labour thing.

Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Baldwin, Thatcher; they all had an appetite to lead and, indeed, lead well. Disraeli set the party on a new path with his one nation politics, the ”fastidious aristocrat” Lord Salisbury achieved real dominance by staying in office for fourteen years, Baldwin, who had ”a kind of magic in his day”, made it the ”natural party of government”, and Thatcher ”rescued and strengthened” the party, re-established the country’s reputation and crushed the unions after a period of stagnation.

So what about David Cameron, one is inclined to ask? Harris ends his book with a chapter on the current prime minister and he is not particularly positive. First of all, Cameron, Harris says, ”owes his leadership of the part to Michael Howard’s patronage, David Davis’s errors and his own talents, in roughly that order. In short: he’s had a lot of luck. Cameron is not like Thatcher or Disraeli; he is too polished and too little a thinker or a strategist. Secondly, Harris thinks Cameron has failed concerning his big idea, the Big Society. It’s ”yet another ‘Third Way’ strategy – in this case, a third way between the Scylla of Thatcherite individualism and the Charybdis of Big Government socialism.”

The Conservatives: A History is well written, elucidating and especially a must read (with John Ramsden’s An appetite for power. A history of the Conservative Party since 1830), for Conservatives (with a capital C that is) who want to understand their party and their politics.

The Conservatives. A History
Bantam Press, 640pp, £30.00
Published December 2011, London

Daniel Boomsma is an Associate Editor of Politiker

Equal Marriage and the Conservatives: The Price of Victory?

Photo: Kurtis Garbutt (Flickr)

A week of trials and tribulation for the Conservatives has meant that the divisions in the party are becoming ever clearer; a divided Cabinet on the issue of gay marriage, reports of an estimated one-hundred-and-twenty Conservative MP’s rebelling in today’s vote, and more than twenty Conservative Chairmen, past and present, having handed a letter of opposition on Sunday to Number 10.

After less than a fortnight since David Cameron offered out his hand to his core supporters in the form of a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the walkout of many of his activists over gay marriage does not bode well for success at the 2015 General Election and for the future of the party.

But does equality prevail over electoral victory? Not for some.

The Surrey Heath Conservative Constituency Association Chairman, Geoffrey Vero, had recently summarised the view for many of the core Conservative supporters that remain unwavering on their views on gay marriage when he said, “It is my judgement that in order to get elected, certainly at General Elections, you need to get your vote out. And that is the risk that I think David Cameron is taking on this issue.” He had previously explained that many party activists have declined the opportunity to support the party at the next General Election – this being the key concern for Mr Vero. Can the loss of the Tory core cost them the 2015 election? After all, what is a party without man-power? But surely the price of equality, fairness and justice is one that must be paid over party politics and election victories?

Whilst the concern for many Conservatives with similar views to Mr Vero is a significant one, perhaps the loss of such would not be missed from the party? The debate on gay marriage appears to be ‘clearing out’ the Tories that remain impartial to change, paving the way for a more open-minded generation that can now appreciate the party, not on its past, but on its future as a leading proposer of greater equality and fairness. The party of the moral high-ground will no-doubt be its paramount characteristic in the near future, rather than that of an archaic, soul-less community of anti-progressive minds. The loss of the traditional core and the replacement of enthusiastic youthful activists will re-install life into the dying limbs of the party that are the branches of those willing to walk-out and leave all that they’ve worked so hard for in the past.

It is this movement of immeasurable respect for the Conservative party from young and first-time voters after the outcome of today’s vote, which is sure to pass in The House of Commons, that is most likely to secure victory in 2015. After all, the young vote that the Liberal Democrats had benefited from in the 2010 General Election is ‘up for grabs’.

This could be the momentous occasion when Cameron disentangles the chains that have loomed over his party for decades and brings about further equality in the face of outdated beliefs and at the same time achieving party victory in 2015 by revitalising the Tories with young ‘blue blood’.

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

The end of brand Cameron?

Photo: University Hospitals Birmingham (Flickr)

The once infallible Cameron brand is now in trouble, writes Lizzie Hepworth.

In 2005, the Tories broke with their past when they elected a leader who was, for the first time since Major, actually electable as a Prime Minister. The speech he gave to Conference, just before being elected leader, wasn’t necessarily in tune with a lot of the Party members, but whilst they may not have agreed with what he was saying, they recognised that many members of the public would.

After pinching the top spot from under the nose of David Davis, who was the favourite before Cameron delivered his note-free speech, Cameron started his marathon to Election Day. His rebrand in the early days of his leadership involved changing the Party logo to an oak tree – traditional yet environmentally friendly; a new colour scheme – still blue but going green; and a trip to visit huskies – a more compassionate Conservative genuinely concerned with the environment and dedicated to combating global warming.

All these image changes gave Cameron a big lead over Blair, increasingly unpopular after Iraq, and helped extend his honeymoon as Tory leader. The public were, to a degree, eager to get rid of Blair; his own members were pleased to be back in contention for government, whether they liked Cameron or not; and Cameron gave very little away in terms policy, allowing him to criticise Blair, but avoid difficult questions over his own policies. But these were simpler times.

Blair’s departure, the economic situation and the end of his honeymoon all coincided, and resulted in a slump in the polls. Cameron’s few policies now seemed irrelevant and out of touch with what was going on in the world. The Big Society appeared to be at odds with the cuts the Tories were proposing, and with Brown enjoying his honeymoon, Cameron began to struggle to maintain his own Party’s support. If he lost his grip on public support, his Party would follow suit, and he would revert to being the leader of a dysfunctional and divided Conservative Party. As Iain Duncan-Smith would have been able to tell him, that would have sealed his fate.

Cameron managed to maintain his position, and his new image as a compassionate Conservative was resurrected to its former glory when he entered the Coalition with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. This has perhaps given Cameron the best opportunity he could have asked for in terms of helping him to maintain a socially liberal agenda. But it hasn’t been smooth sailing.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have provided Cameron with an excuse for pursuing his liberal ideas, such as supporting gay marriage, his time as leader of the Coalition Government has not been great in terms of his brand. The Big Society has had numerous re-launches whilst Cameron has been in government; however it now appears to have been abandoned after all seemingly failed. Cameron was forced, perhaps by his own Party members, to exercise the veto in Europe, which has heralded as the end of cuddly Cameron, and a glimpse of “bulldog” Cameron, but appeared popular with the public. But probably the biggest threats to brand Cameron have been the fiasco over the NHS Bill, the “pasty tax” and the accusations of cash for access to Cameron.

The NHS had been the bedrock of Cameron’s brand, allowing him to associate himself with the average person, and their concerns over health care. However the delays over legislation and the forced U-turn threatened to damage Cameron’s credibility and entire brand. Whilst Cameron (and Andrew Lansley) were still licking their wounds, along came the “pasty tax” which saw the Conservative Party desperately struggling to remember when they last went to Greggs, ate a pasty and lived like the normal Briton.

Cameron himself failed to convince, as in an out of character PR failure, he recalled the last time he ate a pasty was at Cornwall Pasty Company in Leeds Railway station – a branch that closed down almost five years ago (although the travesty was more that he chose Cornwall Pasty Co over Greggs – more of a religion than a pie shop in the North). Whilst these two incidents almost certainly planted the seed of doubt in Cameron’s affinity with the average voter, they were somewhat over exaggerated by the media in terms of importance, with some terming the incident “Pastygate” which is hopefully not a serious comparison of a tax on baked goods with Watergate…but then this is the British media.

But it is the Cruddas scandal which threatens to reinforce the idea that the Tories are the same old rich gentleman’s club and a party of the rich. Whilst some believe that this scandal only reinforces what they already assumed Cameron and all politicians did, it does not help Cameron’s claim that he has reinvented the Tory Party, and certainly does not help him to connect with the voters he lost through spending cuts and unpopular policies.

Brand Cameron has broken the curse of the Tory leader in so far as Cameron is the PM. But will it last? Steve Hilton has left Number 10, but is this because he no longer believes in the Big Society, because it’s failed, because he’s been pushed or for his own reasons, and will be back before the next election? Whichever one it is, it appears the Big Society is well and truly on a backburner, and Cameron is now more concerned with being the PM, holding the Coalition together and maintaining loyalty within his Party than he is with trying to constantly maintain his new brand.

As recent opinion polls have put Ed Miliband ahead of Cameron is terms of leadership qualities (they’re all viewed as scoring minus points in terms of being a good leader, so it’s which one is the least worst than which is the best…) and the local election results, Cameron needs to maintain a degree of his new, rebranded and detoxified Conservative Party, especially if he plans to lead them into the 2015 General Election.

Lizzie Hepworth

Boris: The True Tory Poster Boy

Photo: Mark Auer (Flickr)

Whatever reasons may be used to explain the London Mayoral election result it’s hard to deny it was a remarkable victory for Boris Johnson. Labour may not have fielded the ideal candidate, but it would be presumptive to suggest that ‘anyone but Ken’ would have simply strolled into City Hall. Livingstone might have been a tired choice, but he was a true London heavyweight with much appeal to traditional Labour voters; particularly those who have abandoned the party since the New Labour direction imposed by Tony Blair. As a result, Ken’s polling was barely a percentage point behind that of the Labour Assembly vote.

It’s not hard to put the finger on what really won Boris the keys back to City Hall for another four years. In the main, it was Boris himself. So what is so attractive about Boris and what did his campaign have that others didn’t? Some of his supporters and commentators have been quick to highlight the role played by proficient Australian campaign director Lynton Crosby, even recommending he be parachuted into Number 10 to try and replicate his success achieved with Boris Johnson at the General Election in 2015.

Without doubt, the BackBoris campaign was well-run, intense on the ground and the use of technologies like the tele-town hall telephone canvassing system which reached around 50,000 voters in an hour was innovative. But it doesn’t account for Boris’ wider appeal. Indeed, Boris’ election strategy, based mainly on his 9-point plan, was sensible, but not entirely inspiring. Arguably, Ken’s Fare Deal, regardless of its questionable budgetary foundations, was more successful at connecting with the voters. Furthermore, despite recent calls from Tory MPs that Boris’ more traditional conservative policies show Cameron the way to win votes, I doubt that Boris’ position on issues such as Europe, and even lower taxes, won him the election. Some of the MPs making noise on this issue may have exaggerated Boris’ traditional conservative leanings; conveniently forgetting his commitment to green politics and his liberal social attitudes.

It’s not the most satisfying conclusion for politics, but it would be naive to suggest that anything other than Boris’ personality brought him across the line. This was a Boris, rather than a Conservative, victory. A number of factors contribute to his appeal. He’s perceived in the eyes of the public as being willing to speak his mind. By showing a sense of vulnerability, lacking the slick quality seemingly demanded of the modern day politician, he seems more genuine. And despite his Eton and Oxford educated ‘posh boy’ background, identical to that of David Cameron, he’s far more ready to embrace it and use it to his advantage.

The likability of Boris’ personality is well documented, but it would be unwise to ignore his political message, even it does follow less of the small ‘c’ conservative line that some have tried to claim, and even if it wasn’t the be all and end all of his success. Indeed, there are lessons for Cameron to learn from Boris, who struck the right chord by emphasising core issues during his campaign such as the council tax freeze, getting more police out on the beat and upgrading crucial infrastructure.

Let’s not forget that the Prime Minister does have to deal with maintaining a Coalition by keeping his Liberal Democrat partners content. It certainly does make it harder for him to communicate a traditional conservative message, and in light of the electoral drubbing suffered by Clegg’s party recently, the Liberal Democrats are only going to become more resistant. But the party leadership do need to try and connect with what matters to the likes of voters in Harlow, symbolic of ‘Blair country’, who last night switched to Labour after placing their faith in Cameron in 2010.

The London Mayoral contest was by no means a referendum on what the Daily Mail have dubbed ‘wind turbine conservatism’, but it’s true, voters care little for issues such as House of Lords reform, elected mayors, and even gay marriage. Additionally, Boris’ may have succeeded with a sustainability message under the mask of projects such as the ‘Boris Bikes’, but the majority are unlikely to react fondly to environmental policies which lower living standards in such tough economic times. George Osborne’s interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday morning, in which he said he would “focus 100% on the economy” and not get “distracted” by other issues, suggests the local election results have encouraged the government to sit up and concentrate on the issues which matter – don’t expect to hear much of the ‘Big Society’ for a while – but whether this shift of focus results in a significant policy departure remains to be seen.

Just as important that the government are seen to be focussing on the issues that matter, is the issue that they are seen as competent. As Chuka Umuna rightly points out, Tories are seen by some as heartless, unfair and out-of touch, but voters have been willing to accept this in return for efficiency, professionalism and results. The party therefore has a real problem when it’s seen as incompetent. Negative headlines on pasties and grannies might be reduced to communication errors, but the panic caused at the petrol pumps by Francis Maude, and by allowing a reduction in the top rate of tax to overshadow a significant increase of the personal allowance indicates a simple lack of Number 10 to think things through.

Ironically, despite Boris’ much talked about disheveled character, he has struck a remarkably competent figure as Mayor of London. As I say, one of the appeals of his campaign was its responsible and conscientious tone; unwilling to offer an unrealistic promises to attract votes. Critics, Ken Livingstone for one, have argued that Boris has become a ‘do nothing mayor’, but his performance in City Hall has greatly improved his chances of ever making it to the job which he’d really like, that of leader of his party. If the past years teach us anything, it’s that he can no longer simply be dismissed as a harmless joker shouting from the edges.

If Cameron doesn’t turn around the ship rather soon – a ship whose fortunes lie in the hands of a struggling economy – a possible election defeat in 2015 looks ever more likely. Ed Miliband may just become Prime Minister by default. In which case, the Conservatives might be in the position of looking for a new leader. With George Osborne lacking the common touch and Jeremy Hunt’s reputation forever tarnished in light of the ongoing Murdoch scandal, is there really a candidate waiting in the wings with more appeal than Boris? Some commentators, much like Boris must do himself at the moment, may laugh off the suggestion that he might one day become Prime Minister, but it is now distinctly plausible. Of course the fact that Boris’ term at City Hall finishes a year after the next General Election is awkward timing. But where there’s a will, there’s a way, and one thing is for certain: with Boris Johnson, beneath the playful persona, there’s plenty of will.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

I Bid a Sad Farewell to Roger Helmer

Robert Smith explains why he is sorry to see Roger Helmer MEP leave the Conservative Party.

Amidst a modest meeting of young conservatives in a sparsely populated lecture theatre I ask a simple question to Roger Helmer, the controversial Conservative MEP for the East Midlands; ‘Have you ever considered joining UKIP?’. In response Roger expectedly bemoaned the escalating ideological gap between the Conservative leadership and its membership, and stated that on many issues, if not most, he was increasingly more aligned to those of the party led by Nigel Farage. Despite this, Helmer appeared as though he was content with remaining in a party where if he did not see eye-to-eye with its leadership, at least he did with a significant proportion of its members. His key argument being that ‘If all the conservatives left to join UKIP, where would that leave the Conservative Party?’

Fast forward twenty-four hours and the news comes through that Roger had done just that; left the Conservative Party and defected to UKIP. In this case though, it appears that he felt obliged to leave the party due to an internal tension with the leadership over his successor more so than with regards to policy. Last year, Helmer had revealed his plans to retire, only to then withdraw them at a later date. He had wanted his friend and fellow Eurosceptic Rupert Matthews to follow in his footsteps, yet on finding that this conflicted with the wishes of the Party Co-Chairman Baroness Warsi, Helmer withdrew his resignation stating that he was ‘not prepared to stand aside for some A-List Cameron protege from St. Johns Wood’.

The whole situation presents a common relationship whereby the tight-knit party leadership stand further and further at odds with the wider party. Roger clearly sees his politics as a purer form of conservatism. Admittedly, this does injustice to the views of the wider party, as you could most certainly argue that the Cameroon’s of the party are conservatives too, albeit of a different kind. However, Helmer’s defection to UKIP gives the impression that there is becoming an increasingly narrow definition of what it means to be a Conservative; something which does nothing to favour the party. The historical success of the Conservative Party owes much to the fact that it has traditionally acted as a big tent; absorbing opinion from the inside left and the inside right, and dismissing a narrowly formed vision of what it stands for.

Roger Helmer might not be the most diplomatic kind of politician. Many might deplore his views. Indeed, he stands further to the right than I would say the majority of the Conservative Party membership do. Be that as it may, anyone listening to him speak to the group of students on Thursday evening would agree that it is foolish to disregard the value which his input can have. Democracies and political parties alike work best not when a confined range of opinion is accepted as gospel, but when a sphere of views are presented and the populous decide on which they most agree with. Many Tories view the offloading of Helmer, often seen as a loose cannon, as a blessing, but because of the reasons stated above, it’s hard for me to see it as anything other than a loss.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

* This article was first published at the now defunct Dale & Co.

No Big Society without a strong government

When using ‘Big Society’ rhetoric, David Cameron must realise that it’s a government’s job to prepare society for more responsibility, writes Daniel Boomsma.

“It is a guiding philosophy, a society where the leading force for progress is social responsibility, not state control”. This is the very essence of the idea of the Big Society. Empowering communities should lead to a society where people can run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects. But since Prime Minister David Cameron launched his ‘Big Idea’ in July 2010, it has been subject of debate. Those who oppose the Prime Minister’s plans often state that it’s just a cover for substantial cuts in public services.

The most fundamental critique however, should be based on a long term vision of Britain’s future: mending a broken society. In order to do so, the Tories must realise that the Big Society is not the ‘mending-tool’, it’s the other way around: it’s a government’s job to prepare society for more responsibility. This approach would increase the chances of success of a project that more people than just the Tories are willing to endorse.

Britain has a tradition when it comes to radical thinking on state and society. In an elaborate essay, The Economist analysed this ”outsized role promoting radical thought” by falling back on the 19th century philosophy of John Stuart Mill and other New Liberals (also known as social liberalism). The night-watchman state was a generally accepted concept in Britain until the 19th century’s ‘wave’ of (philosophical) modernisation and reform. Mill and others couldn’t accept the fact that, with ”liberty flourishing”, still many people lived in poverty and misery. It was this thought that lead to the idea of aiming at an active state instead of a night-watchman state. This would eventually lead to compulsory education, laws on labour and other social legislation and an increase of tax-funded public services.

Anti-state sentiments – The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek (who, on his turn, influenced great economic theorists such as Milton Friedman and John Hicks) of course as one of the most famous libertarian works – rose again after the destruction of the Second World war, though classical liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer already rejected the 19th century ideas on reform and modernisation in his book The Man versus the State, written in 1884. These sentiments are still very much alive today.

The developments I mentioned above resulted in what we call the idea of the post-bureaucratic state, originally formulated by former Labour leader, and pragmatist, Tony Blair. It’s testimony to this way of thinking that the state itself is bureaucratic by definition. Therefore state services should be outsourced to third parties (in the private sector). You can also, in a way, call this a characterisation of Thatcherism.

So when we look at Britain’s history, the idea of a big society isn’t really new and it’s certainly not an original ‘Tory conception’.

It is relatively new however in the sense that it calls on localism rather than the same old right-wing creed of ‘more market less state’. That’s why most political parties do not necessarily reject the idea of a Big Society. In fact, they are even willing to endorse it.

Blue Labour for example is a movement within the Labour party that endorses the idea. Rethinking the creation of the welfare state in 1945 is Blue Labour’s central theme; It’s not just about redistributing the wealth but also about giving power back to local communities. ‘Intellectual godfather’ of this response to the Big Society, Lord Maurice Glasman, made some strikingly true comments on the post war welfare state: “1945 was a wonderful achievement of solidarity. But the sting in the tail of 1945 was that it broke all the mutual solidarity – the ways we took care of each other – and handed them over to the state.” It’s this historical perspective that makes the Big Society interesting and worth the effort for more people than just Conservatives or hardcore rightists.

However, you have to meet some very important criteria if you want the Big Society to work. Local communities can do a lot by themselves, I’m absolutely sure about that. But in order to enable communities, and society as a whole, to ‘regain ground’ you need resources and the helping hand of a government. Reshaping the order of communities as we know it isn’t just a matter of pulling out some stops.

In order to create a real ‘post-welfare state’ Britain – the idea of a big society obviously aims at reinforcing communities but will certainly influence Britain’s society as a whole, causing a policy that’s no longer focused on the state/market dichotomy – Cameron has to do something quite contradictory to conservative
policy: start at the left and slowly move to the centre. A so called top-down traditional leftish strategy.

Mending a broken society by cutting away vital elements of the state isn’t going to work. The New Economic Foundation (NEF) correctly pointed out that “if the state is pruned [too] drastically…the effect will be a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one”. That’s why Cameron should start working the other way around. He said it himself: “We should not be naive enough to think that simply if government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more. The truth is [that] we need a government that helps to build a big society.”

Daniel Boomsma

The Chancellor’s chance

George Osborne has a PR problem. This became clear to me after he fell victim to the crude wit of David Mitchell and Robert Webb in the most recent series of Peep Show. Yet the Chancellor – an as yet reclusive, but influential, member of this frantic Coalition government – is more than the service-slashing stereotype that he plays in the mainstream of opinion. Eager to please an electorate who are naturally turned off by the Coalition’s cuts narrative, the Chancellor used this week’s Budget to create a vision for Britain beyond the fiscal consolidation, and in doing so will seek bolster his own leadership ambitions.

In many ways a Cameron clone, Osborne is a natural sidekick to his Prime Ministerial colleague. Privately and Oxbridge educated, he is a creature of Westminster, never having left politics since joining as a Conservative researcher in 1994. Unlike the previous occupants of Number 10 & 11, the pair are allies, sharing metropolitan and socially liberal instincts (Osborne managed Cameron’s successful 2005 leadership campaign). Along with Michael Gove and Oliver Letwin, Osborne belongs to the very inner circle of Tory ideologues and policy chiefs. His meteoric rise – at 39, he is among the youngest members of the government – owes as much to the Prime Minister’s patronage as to his own sharp intellect. However Osborne brings something distinct to the Conservative Party – a pragmatic Euroscepticism, an ideological bent and a taste for confrontation that may serve him well in the future.

This was a budget with 2015 firmly in mind. Thanks to the Lib Dems’ acute unpopularity, this is virtually guaranteed to be a five year parliament. At this early stage therefore, it is more important for Osborne to be respected than to be loved. Being seen to make ‘tough’ spending cuts whilst keeping the middle class on board with token gestures on fuel duty and marriage allowances will help in the long run. Fundamentally, the plan rests on eliminating the budget deficit and restoring growth in the economy so the government is able to offer something positive to a weary electorate in four years time.

Osborne’s credibility as a politician therefore is inescapably wedded to the success, or failure, of the deficit reduction plan. If the gamble doesn’t pay off, then its game-over for George, never mind the Coalition. Given the need for a private sector recovery, initiatives in this budget such as apprenticeships and enterprise zones will help, a bit, but as a plan for growth it seems fairly low-key, to put it mildly.

In the emergency budget last June, Osborne was bold in setting out a plan that will restructure the British State. But he has yet to explain in radical terms what a Britain without Leviathan – the overbearing central government which lends its name to Hobbes’ classic text – can look like, and how it would work. To fulfil his own ambitions, as well as those of his Party, this has to be explained. David Lloyd-George, arguably the greatest Chancellor of the 20th century, used his rhetorical genius at the dispatch box to create the early welfare state – in the ‘People’s’ Budget of 1909. Osborne can do the same, but the failure to explain and encourage that flip-side of the small-State – namely the ‘Big Society’ and the enterprise economy – threatens to make the government’s potential radical programme a mere footnote in history.

It is inconceivable that, sooner or later, he will not seek the leadership. Three of the past six Prime Ministers have come directly from the Treasury. Understandably, when the top job in British politics is only next door, it is difficult to resist. However Osborne is perceived as dangerously out of touch with the public. His management of the 2010 Tory election campaign is widely held by his senior government colleagues to have been a flop. Some now hold him in contempt, particularly those who due to the hung parliament had to sacrifice their Cabinet seat to make way for Lib Dems. The Deripaska scandal, in which he was accused of soliciting a donation from a dodgy Russian oligarch, also undermined his credibility in the eyes of his colleagues.

Fortunately his youth gives him plenty of time to win the public over and establish or inherit a power base with the Conservative Party. He will face more charismatic and less controversial rivals – see Jeremy Hunt at Culture for example – but he remains a favourite. Ultimately his fortune depends on the success of the Coalition, so don’t expect any Brown-esque wrangling. He has to demonstrate that the cuts are necessary, and that his economic policy is working. But more importantly he should articulate a vision of post-cuts Britain. If Chancellor Osborne can accomplish this, the move next door will become a matter of when rather than if.

Tom Beardsworth