Reflections on the year

2015.

The year we walked with giants.

After polls predicted a close race and another five years of coalition (potentially with Miliband the SNP at the helm) we emerged victorious. We broke the rule that says a sitting Government cannot gain seats and delivered our first majority government in almost two decades. It was a moment of perfect joy when the results came rolling in showing the scale of Labour's woes and the shape of our victory.

That however is not the end of the story.

We've seen cracks in our party. Deep divisions have already begun over the EU, the proposed tax credits changes damaged our image as being the party of hard working people and despite having only a twelve seat majority we have adopted - to quote a good friend of mine - the typical Tory attitude of complacency which usually ends in chaos and defeat.

Even now we skirt by largely on the incompetence of the opposition, with the press being too distracted by them feasting on themselves to notice that we are not in a much better state.

But as was said to me yesterday, 2015 is merely the foundation for 2016. We have a real chance to change things. We have a real chance to become the single party of Government for an entire generation provided we take a step back and work together for the good of the nation - regardless of our own beliefs as to whether that good is served in or out of the EU or with George or Boris as our next leader.

We are the natural party of Government and let 2016 be the year the nation rediscovers that fact.

God Bless you all and Have a Happy New Year.

Welcome Back and a word in support of Lucy Allan.

Hi guys, welcome back to the Tory network. Sorry I went dark. Had business to deal with and couldn't find a guest blogger to take over in the mean time. We'll be coming back to you daily from now on. Thank you for your patience and kind emails.

Now.

In the media lately has been a bit of a fracas between Lucy Allan and some of her former staff. I've listened to the tape of Lucy Allan and as someone who has dealt with employees before in a management capacity I saw nothing wrong with her first few voice mails. The latter ones were, I admit, a problem. She clearly went too far and obviously she shouldn't have said some of the things she said. However having spent a month this year working in parliamentary offices I think I have a unique perspective when I say that it is a very intense working relationship between staffers and MPs. The demands on both are extreme and the emotions run hot.

It's not an excuse for Ms. Allan and I think she must understand that she did cross a line, but calling for her to resign is an inexcusable political move that I equally cannot tolerate. We all need to remember that Ms. Allan is first and foremost a human. Humans are not perfect and we all make mistakes. We all say things we don't mean, we are irritable and yes we are all - at times - capable of crossing the line.

To hold her to some higher moral stand point just because she is an MP is hypocrisy.

Now I don't know the staffers in question in Ms. Allan's case. I don't claim to know the validity of Ms. Allan's claims or the staffers' claims. All I know is that I have on occasion felt like lamping staff members and yes even supervisors that I've had the pleasure of working with so for me to say anything against Ms. Allan would be wrong and I think that in light of recent bullying allegations this dispute has been blown out of proportion.

Now is not the time for witch hunts - we have enough of them going on - it's a time to step back and assess the situation calmly. Like sane people do.

One Month Mini Blog

Hi. Today's mini-blog is going up automatically (normally I put them up myself so if this goes wrong I apologise for the blog being up late) but its really just a thank you. In the month since this blog has launched we've had in excess of 1,000 views, which I'm assured is a substantial number for a blog of this type. We'll be bringing you a lot of new content next week so be sure to check us out for the latest political opinion pieces and comments on the days events.

I KIP, U KIP, WE ALL KIP - a discussion on the limited appeal of the radical right

This week has seen a lot of attention on Marie Le Pen's Front National and how they were in line to win a number of the French regional elections and that right up until the last moment it appeared as though Le Pen herself would be running a French region before the final results pushed her party into third. The hype surrounding the rise of the Front National mirrors the hype seen in this years General Election where a predicted UKIP sweep (that would change the electoral map forever) failed to materialise with even Nigel Farage himself failing to get elected.

There have been a lot of discussions about tactical voting in both elections where parties that cannot win have been urging their supporters to back other candidates in order to lock the parties of the radical right out of power. People have suggested that this form of tactical voting is particularly prevelent in the UK but is more down to the voters themselves rather than any explicit direction from their party.

The failure of the radical right to achieve election though is, to me at least, based not on other parties but on the limited appeal of the radical right itself. We often hear politicians around the globe talking about building a broad coalition and in my understanding of politics this is essential to claiming victory because if your policies appeal to the plurality (if not majority)of voters you will come out ahead.

Have a look at this chart (taken from the electoral calculus site) which shows voter migrations during the 2015 General Election:

The first thing many of you will notice is that the Conservative bloc lost 4 'people' to UKIP. More important to note however is that the Conservative bloc gained 5 'people' from other sources. This is because during the election the Conservative party were seen as the most inclusive party. They had policies which were appealing to the sort of centrist moderate voter that win elections in the UK.

Now look at the chart again and see the UKIP voters. They took 7 'people' off other parties and yet failed to win anything more than a single seat in parliament despite coming second in an estimated 90 seats. This is a quirky oddity of the UK electoral system but not one which is inherently unfair, it simply means parties need to try and reach outside their traditional bases in contestable seats so that they can win. Again I turn to the good folks at electoral calculus who helpfully wrote a piece on UKIP and why they were only seat to win a large number of seats if they polled over 20% nationally at the elections citing a number of reasons such as a lack of well known strong candidates, a low base from which to build themselves and - the big one - tactical voting due to their parties limited appeal outside their core base.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Moderates win elections. It's why Ed Miliband tried to steal the One Nation Mantle and it's why David Cameron took it back after the election win. It has come to stand for the moderate policies which appeal to the kind of voters that delivered Blair a Labour landslide in 1997 yet deserted the party en-mass under Brown in 2010.

It is why suggestions that our Conservative party should move to the right always irk me because simply put it was the right that kept us out of power for 13 years...

EU Reform Mini-blog

In the news today is yet another story about the proposed EU reforms being negotiated prior to the IN/OUT referendum to be held before the end of 2017. As I said in a previous blog post I am in favour of remaining in the EU however on the issue of reform I must say I am rather disillusioned. In his letter to Donald Tusk the Prime Minister was less than ambitious on the things that he was looking to renegotiate. Leading MPs attacked the Government's position as weak and I myself have to question whether the Prime Minister was interested in returning power to the UK or simply appearing like he was being tough on Europe.

One notable asset that Mr. Cameron has gained lately is the support of Italy. This comes as bitter news however as the OUT campaign is polling ahead of the IN campaign and the conclusion that the proposed reforms will need treaty change according to MPs.

If Mr. Cameron has a rabbit in his hat now would be the time to pull it out...

Reader Response Wednesday

Since this Blog started I've recieved a lot questions from readers. I've been doing my best to answer them either on facebook, private message or email but I had a thought that maybe people might like to see some of these answers. So without further comment I present Reader Response Wednesday where I'll pick 2/3 of the best questions and give them some public answers!

If you would like to submit a question feel free to do so on facebook (as many of you already have) or on our letstalktory@gmail.com email address which has seen several dozen questions (a day) since I put it up on the site a few weeks ago.

Now that's all out of the way.

Our first question comes from Thomas. He is 15 and asks:

"What sort of experiences do you have in the party and do you have any advice for me if I want to get ahead?"

Well Thomas during this years General Election I served as a Campaign Manager for the Sunderland Central Campaign, I was also a Council Candidate myself for the Ryhope Ward in Sunderland and I've done several internships in Parliament with Conservative MPs. I do a lot of voluntary work for local associations and I attend events hosted by groups like CWF and the Conservative for Liberty.

The best advice I can give you in terms of getting ahead is just to get involved with everything and never be afraid to tell someone your ideas. It's why I was asked to be a Campaign Manager.

The next question comes from Stephen, he sent me the following email last night:

"Hi Harry. Really like the Blog. Have you done Political Compass? If so where do you come out?"

Why yes Stephen I have done political compass and I come out right in the liberatarian centre-right. I normally get values around about:

Economic Left/Right: 2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.2

(sorry I can't figure out how to grab the image)

Today's final question comes from James and is all about the guest blog by my friend John Hill. James sent me the following question:

"Hi there just read the article by Jonathan Hill. Was just wondering if he had any thoughts on how the EU could reform the Common Security Policy to make it more effective in the face of a crisis like Syria in the future?"

I've spoken to John and he kindly agreed to prepare an answer. So James, here it is:

"Thanks for your question. 

The current framework is simply to have a meeting of foreign ministers or heads of government through the European Council. Even so, FP meetings are chaired by the EU's high representative. Even so, the HR has a lot of input in meetings AND makes public statements that are personal and alleged European-positions.

Council meetings should be chaired by a rotating presidency, and the High Representative should be removed or reformed into the same manner of the UN Secretariat. The office of the High Representative should have merely a managerial role, and after the member states agree to any possible position, the member states themselves should direct the HR to take certain actions. 

Most of the time, they merely agree to common positions and then leave it at that. The HR should serve as the arm of the Council of Foreign Ministers, not as a separate office - again like the UN Secretariat. In theory, CFSP meetings are structured similarly to meetings of NATO's governing body, the NATO Council. In practice, it isn't. In practice, the NATO Council makes joint actual plans of defence and action, and then directs the Secretary General to take appropriate action, to conduct further studies, or to make statements on their behalf. If you look at the common or joint positions on Syria that arose from the EU, they are just theoretical and have no pratical impact. 

The CFSP should be a set body outside of the European Council similar to how TREVI meetings happened (although, today they should not be ad-hoc and should be perpetual). From there, the permanent representatives of each nation to the EU should partake in that body, or a Permanent Security Representative should be appointed from each party to the new body. Actual resolutions should be developed, not joint "positions". 

Resolutions, with action and direction and legal enforcability similar to UNSC resolutions would change the body from one where there is nothing concrete happening, which allows the European leaders (High Representative, President, etc.) to make their own positions clear, to one where the EU has a clear direction and the EU member states themselves direct the European machine in one way.  

Of course, this would likely require treaty/constitutional changes which would be largely rather difficult to achieve unless there is a strong willingness from the member states. This would mean that the HR and President of the Commission would need to anger not just Britain, but ALSO France and Germany. From there, such change could be pushed forward by British reformists."

Well this wraps up today's reader responses. I'll keep responding privately as well (and if you ever want your question to remain private just tell me). Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to write in so far and I hope to see more questions tonight when I check my inbox.

Oh Santa Tory!

Christmas comes but once a year so let us all be filled with cheer.

Today is the first of a few different blog posts on fun and cheery Christmas topics. I thought I'd kick off the festivities with a discussion about why Santa is a Tory and the things we should be proud of.

Now we will all have heard that we as Tory's want to make work pay. We want to reward people's good behaviour and ensure that those few who are abusing the system are punished. I might be wrong but that sounds awfully similar to our holly, jolly friend who punishes those who have been naughty and rewards those who have been nice (check your own status here).

Moreover Mr. Claus encourages good, kind charitable actions. This year we have seen huge landmark announcements which I think would see Mr. Claus surrender his red suit for a good tory blue. First we had the announcement of a national living wage which will provide help to thousands of low paid workers, we have seen the wonderful promise of a pound for pound doubling of charitable donations by the treasury this Christmas season and finally we've had the wonderful news that thanks to our sensible economic strategy we have brought umeployment down to it's lowest point since the crash of 2008 meaning more people have the security of a pay cheque and the benefits that working brings.

It isn't enough though that we have been kind in our own nation. Mr. Claus afterall encourages good will to all men. On this front too we have an excellent case for a Blue Santa. Britain is one of the largest contributors to the Syrian refugee camps. We have seen a promise from our government to take in thousands of refugees over the next five years with some of the most vulnerable to be taken before Christmas.

If these actions don't count as good will to all men I don't know does!

Finally this Christmas season has seen some wonderful news about global poverty which should leave us all in good cheer. For the first time in history extreme global poverty levels stand at less then 10%. Whilst there are still huge issues to overcome in the fight to eradicate extreme poverty the UK Government has put itself in good stead in helping to achieve this objective by meeting the 0.7% spending target on foreign aid. This is an achievement we share with just Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg and shows just the right sort of character that Mr. Claus is looking for in a political alignment.

So after weighing up the evidence I can see only one conclusion. Mr. Claus will be paying his membership fee any day now!

Slow and Steady Wins the Race - The Austerity Debate Mini-blog

As a child my mum read my brother and I the story of the tortoise and the hare. We all know the story, the fast hare was challenged to a race by the slow tortoise and yet despite the hares immense advantage his overconfidence is his downfall and he loses the race.

Everyone looks at Aesop's famous fable as allegory for working hard and not being too over confident - I look at it as the perfect way to explain why Austerity as a policy is working.

Austerity may not be the prettiest policy. Cutting spending rarely is. To quote Mrs T though pennies do not come from Heaven. When we spend more than we have they must come from somewhere here on Earth and it is both arrogant and overconfident to believe that we will always be able to afford to find them.

Moreover we have enjoyed a period of near constant growth since 2010. In fact the only dip we have seen coincided with a similar dip in the German economy (well known for it's fiscal prudence) and the rest of Europe and Central Asia. Since then we have since seen consistently higher growth then our European cousins. In fact we have seen almost double the annual GDP growth of the European Average. This is despite claims that the Government is cutting spending "too far and too fast"

At the same time the UK Government has been accused of being too slow at building the economy. People have complained that growth has been the slowest since records began. But this takes me straight back to Aesop's fable:

The European Court of Human Rights - Vital or Vicious?

As a Libertarian I am often asked where we draw the line between rights and responsibilities. How do we balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the many? This is a very difficult question because different rights require different limitations. Under the European Convention of Human Rights there are qualified rights and limited rights. Limited rights are things such as article 5 which states that even though you have a right to freedom, it can be taken away if you are found guilty of a criminal act or are detained for mental health grounds. Qualified rights such as article 11, the freedom of assembly, can be restricted for a variety of reasons such as national security and the prevention of crime - provided the state has legitimate aim for such restrictions and they are necessary in a democratic society.

The problems with this however is that the British state does seem to have a bit of a track record for getting it wrong. In fact the claim was made in 2012 that the UK lost 3 out of every 4 cases that were brought against it at the European Court of Human Rights. This has led to some people wanting to withdraw from the European Court System amidst claims that it is undermining our Parliamentary Sovereignty.

As someone who studied Law at University, with a special emphasis on Human Rights, I have to say that while I am not overly fond of the idea that a supranational court is overruling our elected Parliament I do understanding that there must be limits placed on our government for the good of our society. This was a principal accepted as early as 1215 AD with the signing of Magna Carta and this is the principal which developed our modern Parliamentary Democracy as a check on the power of the absolute monarchary. 

Our metaphorical cousins in the USA, when writing their constitution, decided to ensure that no branch of Government was above the others and that no overlap existed between them. This was to ensure that there was fairness in the law. That their Congress could not pass draconian measures without the Supreme Court or the President vetoing them. In our own system no such separation of powers exists. Parliament is supreme and whilst the courts can on occasion practice Judicial Oversight they cannot outright strike down laws, merely ask Parliament to reconsider them.

This is a huge gulf in terms of checking the power of the state as Parliament both decides the law and decides whether the law is valid.

This is where the European Court of Human Rights comes it. It does have the power to rule against the UK Government and under the Human Rights Act 1998 our Courts must take the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights into account as part of our domestic law as well as the rights provided by the European Convention themselves. This is a huge check on the power of the state - but not one which we control as part of our domestic law and there-in lies the problem because at times they have overreached themselves and the Home Secretary herself claimed they had 'moved the goalposts' and created unprecedented change outside the scope of the Convention Rights.

Michael Gove as Justice Secretary has been tasked with solving this problem for Britain. He will draw up a British Bill of Rights and he will blaze the path forward as to whether we remain part of the European Court of Human Rights at all. 

I sincerely hope Mr. Gove will pay attention to the need for us to have a check on Government power while drafting his proposals and I for one look forward to seeing them. 

As for the European Court... the independent recently ran a piece in which it claimed the occasional bad ruling from them was the price was pay for the rule of law. However to borrow from my personal legal hero Lord Denning I am concerned with Justice not the rule of law and to me there is no Justice to be found in a court which does not even feign to understand British Values.

Thursday Mini-blog - The Donald. Helping or Hurting?

No substantive blog post today, sorry but I was too busy to write one last night and I'm too busy today as well, but I do have a mini-blog about The Donald. The cause of conservatism around the world is growing. The elections in Venezuela has seen socalism defeated by a right-wing party and our own historic win in the General Election this year cannot be understated.

The Republicans in America however seem to be veering off course from this conservative revival. They have been doing very well recently but The Donald can hardly be called one of their success stories when he seems to have created a split in their own party so vast that there are threats of a splinter campaign if he should fail to be nominated.

This level of infighting is something I expect from Corbyn's Labour not a solid bastion of conservative values. Yes some people are saying The Donald is reaching out to disaffected voters once thought lost to mainstream politics. We in the UK however have seen the problems that such a huge gulf of opinion with-in a party can have - it shattered us in the 1997 General Election and it has taken us 18 years to regain a majority government.

To my view the Donald is hurting not helping the cause of Conservatism.

#youaintnomuslimbruv

#youaintnomuslimbruv has spread around the world. It is being called a symbol of defiance, a display of strength in the face of terrorism. More accurately though it is a reflection of what many people have been saying about Muslim's for a very long time now.

The Muslim faith is a peaceful faith. After the Paris Attacks the Muslim Council of Britain responded by saying the attacks were not Islamic, but evil actions. Some people however question this and are willing to believe some horrible things about the Islamic faith. This is shocking given that the christian faiths have some pretty horrible things in their own bible.

In an experiment people were given the Christian Bible decorated as a Quran. They read a few highlighted passages (mostly negative passages) and then talked with the researcher a little bit. He asked what the difference was between the Quran and the Bible and people said the Bible was more positive... This is when he revealed the deception to the shock of participants.

This goes to show that even our own so called peaceful faith has elements we wouldn't be happy with. There are sadly many misconceptions about The Muslim faith which have allowed hatred to foster and need to be disproved if we are to move forward and work together with our Muslim brothers to eradicate terrorism.

Donald Trump has earned my loathing with his insane suggestion that the west should bar Muslims from entering our countries. He is an embarrassment and I hope no one in the UK will follow in his bigoted foot steps. Some of my best friends are Muslim and I take personal offence when people suggest they aren't worthy to be in my country - because frankly they are some of the best men and women I've ever known.

Paul Ryan however has earned my respect with his responce to Mr. Trump and I genuinely don't understand why he isn't running for President. His summation on the issue is to me perfect. Mr. Trump's bigotry is not a trait of conservatives nor should it ever be.

We in the UK have always welcomed immigration and cultural diversity and I see no reason that should end and the Conservative party has always been a bastion of sensible immigration policies. Yes we can oppose open door immigration but to close the door on an entire group of people just because they happen to share a faith with a bunch of terrorists out in the desert is not something I could never be part of.

What is the One Nation?

I am a Modern One Nation Tory in the mould of David Cameron.

But what is the One Nation?

Well to quote Wikipedia, One Nation Conservatism was created by Benjamin Disraeli as as a means for the Conservative party to appeal to the working class. The modern concept however is radically different to the origins of the One Nation and the terms recent history is very interesting to say the least.

Ed Miliband's Labour Party tried to appropriate the mantle of the One Nation Party because to be a One Nationer is to believe in a nation not divided by class, race or religion but where all peoples work together for their own benefit and for the common good. It is a principle that all of us should be honoured to espouse and, to quote David Cameron, it is a mantle we should never have given up.

You'll notice though that I made a subtle distinction at the beginning of this piece. I am not a One Nation Conservative. I am a One Nation Tory.

This is different to a traditional One Nation Conservative alla Benjamin Disraeli or Ted Heath because a Modern One Nation Tory is both socially liberal and fiscally prudent. We believe in the Big Society and self-reliance but, as I pointed out yesterday, we also believe that some people do need our help and we must be willing to give it.

Older style One Nation Conservatives, or wets as Margaret Thatcher called them, were... not like that. They believed in a broad consensus of Keynesian economics and government intervention. They tried to be better socialists then the socialists because they believed that was what the Nation wanted - but when Ted Heath asked in 1974 Who Governs Britain? he received a reply of "Not You Mate." and it paved the way for the Wilson/Callaghan disaster of the 1970s that Britain could have done without.

It took Margaret Thatcher to break us out of our mould and set the party on the path to a new age which saw us governing for a period of 18 years. We learned the lesson then and the New One Nation Tories understand it all too well. We never want a repeat of 1997 where Labour took from us the mantle of being the caring party in touch with the people and consigned us to the electoral wilderness as a result but we also don't want a repeat of the 1970s where being too much like Labour cost us our chance to govern for the One Nation.

It is a very fine line to walk, we must be caring and compassionate but also radical and firmly grounded in economic competence. We can never support the sort of unreconstructed socialism being peddled by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour (as the One Nation Conservatives did in the past) lest we be tarred with the same brush that brought us down once before.

Above all else though we must remember that we are a broad tent party. We have lots of groups with different ideologies (Thatcherites, Libertarians, Neo-Conservatives etc) but unlike those on the opposition benches we will not allow our differences to destroy us but will use them to make us stronger.

To quote Mrs T:

The truth about tories and benefits

As a Conservative I'm often accused of being anti-benefits. This is one of the few things that really irks me about the public perception of the Conservative Party, because frankly it isn't that we're against benefits it's that we're against the abuse of benefits. Now a lot of this stems from the recent tax credits issues but it's important to remember a lot of Conservatives were against those changes too because we believe that people choosing to work should rightly be supported.

I'm also sure that none of us are opposed to disability benefits for those that need extra support. In fact I'm proud of the fact that Ian Duncan Smith introduced Personal Independence Payments because unlike Disabled Living Allowance which focused on the disability, PIP focuses on the impact that disability has on your life. Yes some people have lost out under this new scheme but to quote a good friend of mine Jeff Townsend, sometimes there are winners and sometimes there are losers. I wasn't able to receive help under the rules for DLA - my condition wasn't severe enough - but under PIP they took the impact of my condition into account so I get a little bit of help.

The same goes for unemployment benefits. IDS has launched a huge shakeup of the system, he plans to replace a multitude of current benefits with one single benefit called Universal Credit. This new system will be easier to administer and require much less paper work while ensuring people get the support they need after just a single application form as opposed to the multiple forms they need to fill out now. Again I see no reason why Conservatives are supposed to oppose having a system of unemployment benefits - after all everybody needs a little help sometimes - no, what we oppose is the situation where we have a generation of people who have never worked and view unemployment benefits as a life style or something to be proud of. ONS estimates on behalf of the organisation fullfact put the number of able people who have never worked at roughly 1,000,000 people. This is not acceptable and I genuinely don't understand why people believe it is.

Now some people might say that I sound like Norman Tebbit with his (in)famous get on your bike slogan. Frankly I don't see this as an insult though. I see it as a fundamentally true statement that if you can;t find work the odds are you simply aren't looking hard enough.

Over the course of the last 5 years 1,000 new jobs have been created everyday. In fact unemployment is now at a 7-year low of 5.4%. According to some sources this is as near to full employment as our country can be but I disagree. In 2014 the number of start-up companies in the UK smashed records and if we continue to see such wonderful projects as small business saturday, which is encouraging communities to support local businesses, and the government continues the new enterprise allowance scheme I believe we can start an entire generation of business owners rather than benefit claimants.

In shrot though no one really has an excuse for never having worked.

Again I can't stress enough that I am pro-benefits. Benefits were designed to reduce poverty and by large they do a good job of that. Yes, even Gordon Brown's Tax Credits system with it's confusing rules and huge potential for unintended misclaims is serving to help people who need help. That being said I as a Conservative will always fight for a better, fairer system that rewards work and does not tolerate a generation of layabouts that refuse to do anything. I myself have worked multiple jobs in the past to support my family and I would do it again in a heart beat if I needed the money.

Now we just need to instil those values (which were kindly passed to me by my parents) in everybody and perhaps we can all be better off as a result.

 

The New Politics

There is just one thing on this whole Earth on which I agree with Jeremy Corbyn.

One thing.

The behaviour of politicians needs to change.

One only needs glance at articles on google, or petitions given to parliament to see that the public would like to see behaviour in the House of Commons improve. It has been a mission of John Bercow to improve the quality of debate in the chamber during his time as speaker and reduce the... theatrics that we see on a day to day basis.

Jeremy Corbyn however may not be the best man to front this new style of politics when the very people who elected him are pretty horrible themselves. Whilst I do respect the public's right to be upset with their representatives decision I cannot condone coups and plots nor threats against staff or the representative themselves. It demeans free speech and as I've pointed out before, free speech matters.

MPs must be free to vote without fear of intimidation or reprisal. We will not change the attitude of politicians by threatening them. Nor is John Mcdonnell going to make friends with veiled threats at momentum meetings.

Changing politics for the better is a process which will take a lot of time. In 2009 David Cameron famously made certain promises about the behaviour of Conservative MPs, since then we've seen... lapses plenty of times.

Perhaps though the fault for this lies with the way we select candidates. In our party at least CCHQ has a large role to play in the process. They pre-screen candidates, they put them on a national list and they generally speaking help with campaigning.

I don't think that should be the case though. I think all associations should be free to put up their own candidates without involvement from central office at all (well... other than maybe a criminal records check) because that way we might start to see more candidates from diverse backgrounds lining our ranks in the Commons. I said as much to Lord Feldman during the review process and I eagerly look forward to the results of the review because I know that this was proposed by many party members.

Will that clean up politics though? well perhaps not. We have no idea whether those selected would be better behaved in the Commons debates or whether they will be more ethical in their approach to expenses etc but it's a good place to start tryiing to change things and you never know it might be the beginning of change for the better.

Sick

Unfortunately I'm not feeling very well today so I can;t chase up the person that was doing a guest blog for me. If I feel better I'll do a mini-blog later on three reasons to support a change in the voting system, but as it stands I feel like death so probably won't manage it.

I'll get a blog prepared for tomorrow and Sunday just incase this guest blog doesn't materialise so don't worry you'll still get your 6 this week.

The Value of Conservative Future

This post is going to be slightly different to my others because it is not the one I intended to post today, in fact until 11am today I hadn't even started writing it. This piece formulated in my mind when I read an excellent article by my friend Isaac Duffy in Conservative Home. Isaac argued that Conservative Future as an organisation was worthless and it should be scrapped. While the argument was excellent, as it always is from Isaac, I find myself wholly disagreeing with it - which as anyone who knows me will understand is slightly confusing since I myself have expressed great distaste for Conservative Future in the past.

My problem with Conservative Future has never been though that it was pointless. My objections to the organisation fall into two specific categories: first that it has no real place in side the party hierarchy and second that 16 - 30 is far too wide of an age range for it to properly represent it's membership. Additionally there have been... issues lately with Conservative Future that have also earned my displeasure and several tuts as I read ever more depressing stories about some of their activities.

This isn't to say though that Conservative Future is worthless or to quote Isaac's article is a home of Francis/Frank Urquhart/Underwood figures. It means the organisation needs to change and be empowered rather then ignored by party officials as it is now.

After all if you aren't valued it is easy to become the Machiavellian figures that Isaac described out of sheer boredom. I was lucky that my local association in Sunderland valued me so highly, making me a Council Candidate and asking me to manage a Parliamentary Campaign, because otherwise I too may have succumb to the temptation.

In terms of what Isaac mentioned about socialising, I can again understand his point, but as a man in my mid-twenties I have a slightly different perspective. It gets harder as you get older to find the time to socialise and make new friends. I recently met a 19 year old who had moved to London a year ago and still had not made friends with people his own age because he was busy working and most people in his profession are in their 30s. Being a part of the Conservatives has helped me to meet new people and going along to CF events has helped me make good friends around my own age, which isn't something I can always do through work or regular Conservative events which I often find are ill attended by younger members.

What we need is two separate Youth Movements. CF Students and CF Young Professionals. Both organisations should have a full seat on the party board for their chairmen so they can have a real say in the organisation of the party at large, both organisations should receive separate funding from the party proper so they can actually do things for their members without charging huge fees and both should be valued by party officials because of the energy, enthusiasm and skills in fields such as digital campaigning that they can bring to the table.

I do hope the Feldman review reflects the sort of change the organisation needs and I sincerely hope we do not see an end to the Conservative Youth Movement idea.

Galatians 3:28, The case for gay marriage.

Many people turn to the Bible when discussing gay marriage. They use quotes from the book of Leviticus to justify their position and yes the bible does contain a number of quotes which present a very anti-homosexual view. This however is not the only message contained in the Bible. Galatians 3 contains a direct message which contradicts the claim that man can lie with man at all because according to God we are all one in the eyes of Christ. To quote:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Bible also contains books which teach love and tolerance, such as Matthew 7:12 which teaches us Jesus' golden rule of doing onto others are we would have done to ourselves, John 13:34 in which a new commandment is given to us to love one another as Christ himself loved us, Luke 6:37 where those who would condemn another are said to be condemned themselves and even Leviticus 19:18 contains a message of love not hate:

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

So why then do people turn to the Bible to justify their distaste for Gay Marriage? It seems very counter intuitive to me to use religion here.  As I said I grew up in a Roman Catholic household. I was blessed with a mother, father and family that taught me the right way to look at religion - as a personal opinion which you should not try to put onto others.

My upbringing as a Roman Catholic though means I am more inclined to understanding the world in a Roman Catholic way. I look at marriage as being between a man and wife. I look at abortion as a denial of life - would I ever argue against these things though?

Never.

I would not let my own religious views cloud the judgement and reason given to me by God. 

There are very real reasons to have legal abortions and the history of UK abortion law is filled with reminders that it is to protect the health of women. Any sane and rational person should understand this. More over as a man I do not feel I have the right to dictate on this issue what a woman can and cannot do simply because my Roman Catholic morals disagree with her choice.

Gay Marriage may not seem quite as cut and dry but in reality it is. Civil Partnership was seen as a great and historic step forward when introduced by the Labour Party but in reality it often left couples feeling they were in a second class relationship. This may not have been a deliberate effect of the Blair Government's decision but regardless it is what a lot of people felt and the case against allowing gay marriages revolved around the definition of just a single word.

Marriage.

People rightly took the view that marriage, in a religious context, is between a man and a woman. I doubt anyone would say that we should force churches to change that definition. 

I would argue though that in the case of civil marriage in the eyes of the state there should be no interference. People should be free to decide for themselves what constitutes a marriage and the state should solemnise it. After all the state does not have moral duties. It is not a church nor an arbitrator of opinion. The state is there to provide services and protection in exchange for taxes. 

When I married my former partner I was having the marriage in the eyes of God at a Church, even still I paid a levy to the state. It is not referenced as being so but it is a marriage tax. As such the people of this country - all the people - should be free to pay to the state their marriage tax in exchange for the right to marry whomever they choose. As a libertarian I would even go so far as to say polygamous marriage should be allowed on those same grounds (provided all intended partners understand and agree).

Religiously I may disagree with it, but I don't think that matters because as I said before my religion does not define my politics and if the decision causes no physical harm to another person, then I see no reason to prevent people who love one another from sharing in that special bond of marriage.

 

The Humanitarian Argument for Intervention in Syria

Note from Harry - Today's blog post is written by my good friend Ben Knight. Ben is a young Conservative currently studying for his A-levels in Economics, History and English Literature, hoping to stand as a candidate for the party some day in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------

As a person of the ginger-haired variety and a young Conservative, I am not unused to finding myself in the minority. It was therefore no great surprise to me when, two years ago, I found little support in speaking in favour of British airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad. The received wisdom of the trundling pacifists and the flower power warriors prevailed: war is always wrong, bombs are always bad and there is always another way.

Those voices now are somewhat quieter, for the agenda has changed. Few people are impassioned by the thought of a bland, besuited dictator using chemical weapons and gas bombs against people thousands of miles away, about whom we know very little. The western world is far more readily summoned to the cusp of war by the thought of straggly-haired, bearded Jihadists roaming the streets of Paris, shooting people who look like us and upon whose roads we have ourselves driven.

My attitude has never been that British foreign policy should be motivated purely by self-interest, nor that self defence should be the compelling argument today in favour of intervening in Syria. Why, ISIL certainly poses a serious threat to our country - one that we cannot simply bow down to, and one which should absolutely be confronted. But it is not merely the colours of the Union Jack that draw me to the prospect of an armed intervention in the Levant region. Neither, despite what some on the left might prefer to claim, is it some Churchillian lust for war and conquest. No; I believe in war that is just. I believe in war against an enemy with whom no negotiation can be contemplated. I believe in war for the sake of the millions of people who find themselves under the steel fist of ISIL's savage ideology. People who cannot send their girls to school, who cannot pray except as they are told to, who cannot speak for fear of being heard and who cannot live without the looming shadow of torture or death. The eradication of ISIL by force is not an argument about whether British shores are left better or worse, and it is not an argument about whether we are right to take or responsible for taking action in this way. It is an argument simply about humanity, a question of whether we can bear to live in a world populated by terrorists and ideologues of the kind that ISIL represents.

For as Hitler did not propose or have the means to invade Britain in 1939, ISIL does not propose or have the means to subjugate our people in 2015. They do, however, as the Nazis did, propose to subjugate fellow human beings. They make speak a foreign language, eat foods we find peculiar and adopt customs which we might never comprehend - but they are people. Any person who makes himself a friend of liberty, who believes in democracy and in freedom of thought, religion, speech: any such person is a friend of me. Britain, a free and safe country, has a responsibility to assist others who do not possess such freedoms.

Our goal must be to eradicate the threat posed by ISIL and to secure the Iraq/Syria region. In the long term, though his contribution in pressing forwards with a new and democratic Syria may be necessary, Bashar al-Assad too must go. The Syrian people must be given a state which is democratic, secular and safe. That achievement will represent an enormous benefit to our fellow humankind, and indeed to ourselves. For our security depends increasingly upon the security of the globalised world. Will airstrikes achieve this aim? Realistically, not alone. The argument about boots on the ground is perhaps one for another day. But to suggest that the best thing is to do nothing? To believe that war is always wrong? To state that ISIL is not worth fighting? No, no, no. War that is just can be right. War that is necessary can be good. And as the air above our heads would today be bloated with the stench of Jewish corpses had Britain stood aside at the opening of the Second World War, I fear that the Middle East and the world may descend into a living hell if Britain stands aside today.