sorry for the missing posts

Sorry for a few missing posts but I've been feeling a little (read: a lot) under the weather. Should be back to normal by monday.

Let's Talk about Scotland

I am English. I was born in England. I have lived in England. I like English food and I enjoy the BBC on occasion. I am also British by virtue of having grown up in the United Kingdom and European by virtue of having grown up in Europe. This amalgamation of cultural identities is perhaps why I find it so hard to understand why Scottish people aren't particularly interested in being British but just love the idea of being European.

Now I should say that I am not in anyway opposed to Scotland having held an independence referendum.

I just don't understand why it was required.

Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for just over 300 years, and even before that it was the Scottish Monarchy of the Stuarts who inherited the English Throne. Scotland 'won' the royalty game and put their royals on our throne.

So why do they seem so intent on leaving the UK?

Well I'm no expert but for the SNP at least it seems to revolve around the idea that Westminster is draining the life out of Scotland. That the English 'take take take' all of their precious oil (which arguably belongs to the whole United Kingdom and just happens to be based off the coast of Scotland) and return to them nothing but empty promises. This isn't even a problem they attribute just to the Conservative party either. They have levied similar claims against Labour in the past.

But the flaw in this logic is very easy to see when you take Scotland out of the equation.

Let's say the oil was in Warrington, a sleepy town in the north where I happen to have been born. Warrington is part of England. The UK Government has funded the oil extraction for years and all of a sudden a new political movement sweeps the town claiming that Westminster is stealing Warringtonian's hard earned oil cash while passing laws that don't only benefit Warrington but do benefit Basingstoke. Therefore Warrington should become it's own country and avid paying all our oil money to Westminster so it can support Basingstoke. Westminster compromises by giving Warrington it's own parliament with sweeping powers to set the Warringtonian agenda. The Warrington First party comes into power and... decides to hold an independence referendum which they lose... and then keep talking about independence and how they're going to hold a second referendum and maybe a third or a fourth until they get the result they want.

... Now I don't know where Scotland's logic goes wrong (perhaps because of the historical connotations of them as a formerly independent nation) but the truth of the situation I describe is that if Warrington wanted to declare independence because it's citizen's perceived there was some unfairness with taxation from their town being used to help people in another town we would say the town was just being selfish.

Except that doesn't seem to apply to Scotland. Even though it does.

English students at Scottish Universities have to pay tuition fees. European and Scottish students don't. This in most places would be described as discrimination against English students and it is petulant and childish. Selfish even given that for years it has been the money of the United Kingdom helped to fund those Scottish Universities which English students are discriminated against by.

Scotland claims that it is their oil because it off their coast. When in fact it is off the coast of the United Kingdom and it isn't just Scottish people working on the oil rigs and it isn't just Scottish money buying the oil rigs... selfish.

Scotland's government say they dislike Nuclear weapons and want them out of Faslane... even though it is a major investment by the UK government into Scotland which provides thousands of jobs for Scottish people and millions of pounds worth of business for Scottish businesses... petulant. Selfish and ultimately self harming.

Do these examples sound fair considering that we in the United Kingdom are supposed to be working together for the benefit of everyone in the United Kingdom?

No it doesn't.

Sometimes government's need to help one area more than another. Sometimes government policies hit one harder than another. For Scotland though to demand special treatment and claim that their fruits are theirs and so are some of ours isn't just hypocritical it's childish and to do it against the backdrop of demanding more and more independence referendums is just the last straw.

Scotland needs to stop fighting the UK and embrace it because I think all of us are getting a bit tired of them twisting the knife in and I can say now, as with all petulant children, we will eventually run out of patience.

The UK University System and Funding - A Guest Article by Jordan Millward

Note from the editor

Good Afternoon everyone, today we have an article from Jordan Millward.

Jordan is a current student at Harper Adams University studying Animal Behaviour and Welfare. He previously studied Animal Management at Reaseheath College and went to High School at Saint Thomas Mores Catholic College in Stoke on Trent.

He got involved with Stoke on Trent’s conservative party through his work in the rural community through charity work where he acts as the health and safety advisor with personal liaison between the staff and management.

He joined the conservative party at the beginning of the year, as he felt they had the most sustainable arguments to concerns he has for the nation and have the vision to build a better Great Britain for all of its inhabitants sustainably.

The UK University System and Funding - By Jordan Millward

With the left wing of politics targeting an increase in the tuition fees as well as discouraging the student loan repayment freeze. Now whilst the repayment freeze may be seen as an unpopular decision. Students and the taxpayers have to be aware that the money loaned to them is an investment not a gift. The change in repayments does not put any particular individual at a disadvantage it simply makes it so that students earning less also contribute back not just those on a higher salary. We are in a phase of Education Inequality unfortunately as students from Wales and Scotland are given their education at a cheaper rate then English Students. Which someone could argue is unfair to English students who may go into the same line of work as their Scottish or Welsh equivalents. To make the repayments fairer and increase education equity the goal should be to streamline an education policy that does not discriminate against other students that the left overlook frequently. Whilst the Scottish deficit under the SNP enters a Fifteen Billion Pound whole where education will surely face cuts the Tory party is making difficult decisions to make education affordable for all

 

A policy change by the Tory has allowed the education short fall to return into the hands of the public budget continuing to reduce the deficit. Whilst Labours tactic to attract young student voters is the same as what the Liberal Democrats attempted in 2010. The continued borrowing and free education is unsustainable as it affects the public budget far to greatly and would be largely an unpopular move for the middle age and older citizens of the UK. 

 

It must be understood that there is flaws with the education system which need addressing and some moves in terms of policy may be unwise. The Nursing bursary is in highly important for nursing students to live off as student nurses are doing a job and the bursary should be seen in a similar way to how apprentices are paid. If the plan goes ahead with the bursary cut then to cover the recruitment shortfall that the NHS will have to make up may have to consider paying the students for their time. The student would need this wage as the hours they are forced to work make part time work impossible and careful planning and talks need to happen with all agencies involved. This is also to make sure that the nurses do not feel discrimated against for they do such as this student nurse said “To take away the bursary will not only deter students, it is one of the most insulting things I have seen this government do since they came to office.”

The Tory party needs to ensure it works with the students so that it does not allow left wing of politics to attract irritated voters who feel discriminated against who will undo all the hard work with empty promises. There are areas in the university system that need addressing as wealthier students on average earn more, this is largely due to the fact that wealthier students are able to gain access to more prestigious university and unoffical networks. Whilst this is advantageous it is not the be all and end all what is a significant diservice to students is the wealth of courses that universities sell to students with little or no employment opportunity. This should be the main focus of university marketing which needs regulating and the students need to be aware that some degrees will not all lead to top grossing graduate salaries but at the same time the experience and opportunity can be invaluable. With proper regulation of the degrees employments rates can go up significantly as they have steadily done under the conservative government. 

 

A Government which invests in its youngest minds to better society whilst giving back to the people that have given them the opportunity this is only possible under conservative leadership.

 

No Blog Today

No blog today, I'm off to Wembley for the Challenge Cup Final. Go Wolves!

Post-EU Referendum and lessons to be learned.

I'm not ashamed to admit I was a remain supporter. I stood there on the day of the referendum handing out leaflets for remain, I phone banked for remain and I encouraged m friends to vote remain. I believed then and I still believe now that Britain was better off in Europe.

That being said I knew remain had lost when I saw the Newcastle result at the very beginning of the night.

I sat through each and very result (getting slowly more drunk as each result rolled in) seeing the pattern continue that saw remain fall steadily more behind until mathematically there was no chance of victory even if 100% of the remaining votes were for remain.

It was, to me, a sad night but one which could have been avoided. In fact I can point to the very moment that Remain lost the EU referendum. It was the day that George Osborne stood up with Alister Darling and threatened the nation with a punishment budget if the public did not vote their way.

If there's one thing I know about the British public it's that they don't like being threatened.

Meanwhile the leave campaign were quietly plodding along with a campaign designed to be an ear-work "£350-million a day" sat in the backdrop of everybody's minds being repeated by the media, in pubs and in the work place. People who otherwise never thought about voting (let alone cared about the EU) were incensed by the pouring of money to the EU.

What made this line so effective and George Osborne's punishment budget so devastating?

To quote the old Clinton campaign adage: it's the economy stupid!

We've known for many years that electoral campaigns are won or lost on the economy. People will vote for anyone and everyone provided they believe that they will put more money in their pocket or their public services than the other team will.

To their lasting credit it was the leave campaign which painted a brighter economic picture... even if it was admitted to be false literally the day after the vote.  Whilst the remain campaign had painted a truly bleak financial image of a world in ruins if we failed to vote IN.

Now I was a Remainer, but I was no demagogue. I did the research and mathematics for myself and I knew that leaving the EU did carry risks, but ti also carried potential rewards and staying in the EU carried risks but had potential rewards as well. The only main differences I could see were short-term long-term differences with me believing that short-term EU membership MIGHT be better then voting to leave and long-term leaving MIGHT have brought benefits to our economy.

Key word there being might.

This was an unprecedented situation after all. No one had yet left the EU so we have no real idea what shape the article 50 deal will take or what long or short term impact it will have on our economy.

All I do know is that the lesson to be earned from the remain campaign is one that we Conservatives need to learn before the next General Election.

Our London Campaign this year was full of fear and not focused on the economic issues impacting everyday Londoners. Frankly it was sloppy and relied so much on Labour screwing up as opposed to us winning. We were moving from pillar to post to paint Sadiq Khan as a dangerous extremist and all the while he was walking around London winning the economic argument and ensuring that our campaign looked racist and angry by comparison.

I applaud the work all of our activists put into the campaign but the people at the top let us all down and should really think hard about how we intend to win in 2020, because right now I suspect they believe it will be an easy ride against Corbyn...

...I heard that about Sadiq Khan.

Olympic Success & the Problem of Claiming Credit

Last night I was on the tube home reading a copy of the Evening Standard. I saw articles about the Olympics and how it was absolutely great that the United Kingdom is because of the way that our athletes beat many other athletes around the world. Further, I saw articles trying to link Olympic Success to Brexit as if those two concepts were somehow related.

I also recall a BBC article with a blast from the past saying that maybe John Major deserves credit for our Olympic Success as he created the Lottery.

This morning I woke up to a facebook poll telling me that Sadiq Khan is claiming credit for the Night Tube, saying it was him and not Boris that delivered a 24-hour tube service for London. He argued that because he was Mayor when it happened it makes it his victory, where as other people have argued that Boris and his team put in the leg work therefore it belongs to them.

These are just two examples of politicians trying to claim credit and I tell you now this is one of the reasons that less than 35% of young people even bother voting.

When did politics become about claiming credit as opposed to helping people? when did it become about one upping the other side as opposed to presenting your policies and explaining why they are beneficial?

Some would say it was the Blair era. Or, more precisely, the Post-Truth era that he heralded where by repeating a lie often enough it essentially becomes the truth in the eyes of the public. By applying that politicians can take credit for anything provided the media is on their side. The problem is that as young people are becoming more skeptical of the 'main stream media' they are also becoming more and more disengaged with what politicians are actually doing and fighting over credit, or trying to take credit where none exists, or even trying to connect two unrelated events is not a helpful way to restore their confidence in politicians.

It has been more then 5 elections now since the Conservative party won among first time voters. If we continue with that trend then pretty soon our core vote is going to shrink rapidly as on one end we have less voters coming in while on the other - and I do hate being blunt here - the elderly voters who have swung us elections are dying off.

And why are these young people so reticent to come to us when we have put more money into their future than any other Government? why don't they trust us with their vote when we have reduced unemployment to it's lowest levels in decades? why despite more young people agreeing with our positions on welfare do they not feel they can give us their support?

Because they see us in the press claiming credit or using rhetoric rather than being straight with them.

All young people want is for politicians to actually speak to them, not about them. They want people who will represent them fairly. That can be Conservatives but the emphasis we have placed on Post-Truth politics won't work with them.

It's time we got back to being the honest party.

Truth be told:

The Olympic Success is wonderful, but nothing to do with Government really. Yes we helped fund them but it was the hard work of our athletes and their trainers that brought in the medals.

Brexit has nothing to do with the Olympics and pretending it does is both disingenuous and wrong.

Boris did start off the Night Tube Project, but if he had finished it before leaving office I would be able to get the night tube home on Saturday's. I can't. but in a few months I will be able to. Thanks to Sadiq Khan.

There.

Three easy truths that people can respect.

Let's start telling it more often and see how much more respect we receive from the public, and specifically young people, as a result.

Return of the Tory Network

Welcome back friends to the Tory Network.

It's been 8 months since we went dark and in that time we've had a very eventful political year.

We lost in London but won in Scotland.

We had the EU referendum, the single most important vote many people in this nation will ever have taken part in.

We said goodbye to the man who brought us back to power and hello to the UK's second female Prime Minister.

We saw the rise and fall and now rise again of Boris Johnson

And finally we are standing witness to the largest act of self immolation that any political party has ever undergone in the form of this year Labour Leadership elections.

Amidst this backdrop of politicking and intrigue I thought I would start the renewed Tory Network off with a very brief discussion on an easy topic, nothing morally ambiguous or contentious, so after some deliberation and thought I decided to tackle the most innocent issue of...

Assisted Suicide.

 Some of us may have seen that Lord Rix, a noted charity campaigner and activist, passed away recently. In his life Lord Rix had actually campaigned AGAINST assisted suicide but as his body failed him and the years took an ever heavier toll his opinion shifted to the point that in the House of Lord's he proclaimed:

"Only with a legal euthanasia Bill on the statute books will the many people who find themselves in the same situation as me be able to slip away peacefully in their sleep instead of dreading the night."

Now as many people will be aware I studied Law at University. This gives me a very predefined path when it comes to analysing an issue. In effect I start by looking for precedent but the simple truth is that in this particular case I don't feel looking for precedent is appropriate. Assisted suicide is what I believe is a single morality issue. An issue where the desires of the many should not in any way impact the law. That is to say it should entirely be an individuals decision as to when they die and it really shouldn't matter what other people have to say on the issue.

My thoughts here are not supported by law. Assisted suicide is a crime and the European Court of Human Rights has found that whilst we definitely have a right to life we have no corresponding right to die.

But we should and I believe Tories should support it.

As Tories our inclination should always be towards a state which does not limit the rights of the individual. We have a long and proud history of protecting the public and defending liberty, so I firmly believe that we should deliver a fair framework which achieves both aims.

After all, I don't think we should have Futurama style suicide booths, it should be a difficult decision to make if you choose to die. Supported by medical evidence and thoroughly check to ensure it your decision alone.

But it should be a decision available to us.

Reader Response Wednesday

We've had a number of great questions in since the last time we did one of these. Thanks to everyone who has sent one in, sorry I'm taking a few days to reply but things have been a bit busy lately. Keep on sending things in and I promise I'll get back to you ASAP.

Here are two of the best:

Our first question comes from Sue. She wanted to know my thoughts on who our next leader is going to be. Well I'm sorry to disappoint but I really don't know what to think. There are a lot of people I would like to see in the role of course, we do afterall have many capable MPs, and I have a lot of respect for many of the current cabinet. It's important to note though that when David Cameron became leader he wasn't a front runner and had only been an MP for a short while. We won't pick our leader based on entitlement, but on ability with the most capable candidate - whoever that might be! - being the one to get my vote.

Second we have David who wanted to know if my thoughts on the EU have changed lately, particularly after the report by MPs that the Prime Minister's proposals will need treaty change. In my opinion though that doesn't matter. I see the EU as the future for the UK. Yes it needs reform, yes it must better service our needs but in the long run we are better off in and my opinion on that won't  change simply because the task got harder.

The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors

In the Game of Thrones universe many people would claim the Starks of Winterfell are the 'good' guys. They act with honour and purpose so it's easy to see them in that light. Likewise those same people would say the Lannisters of Casterly Rock are the villains of the piece as they do things which are not always honourable or moral - politics is similar. We in the Tory party are branded as heartless villains because we pursue policies judged by our enemies to be harsh and without morality. It is important to remember though that while Tywin Lannister was harsh and Cersei a bit mad the Lannisters are not all that way. Tyrion the Imp may be a drunken whore monger but he is perhaps the only character in the series that puts the good of the nation and the people ahead of his own personal grudges and vendettas. Even Jamie Lannister in later seasons becomes a more likable figure after the revelation that he only earned his kingslayer name after the mad king had ordered him to burn the city of Kings Landing to the ground.

My point is that perception matters. We allow ourselves to be painted as heartless and to an extent we embrace that reputation despite the facts painting a rather different picture. After all under a Tory administration unemployment has plummeted to it's lowest levels in years, more young people than ever before are going to university and by the end of this parliament Britain will be living within her means - ensuring future generations will not be paying off debts accrued not by their fathers but their grandfathers and great grandfathers etc.

Yes we've made mistakes, tax credit reform being one of them, and we will probably make a few more before the job is done but we must never lose sight of the good we are doing nor should we ever accept the narrative that we are in some way less moral than our opponents. We must instead be confident that our actions are building a better future free from the tyranny of statism and socialism and that because of us Britain can stand tall again.

Campaigning Tips from a Campaign Manager.

As some of you may have heard I will be starting my new job on Monday as a Campaign Manager for the Conservative Party. With this in mind I thought it might be a good idea to talk briefly about best practice for campaign days in the run up to the elections in May. I don't think everyone needs to know these things (or even that they are particularly advanced techniques) but it's always helpful to have a run down on the basics:

1. Joined up Campaigning. Nothing irritates me more than seeing resources being wasted and by failing to connect campaign days with one another that is precisely what we do. Everything should connect. If you leaflet an area one week, you should canvass it the next. While you're out and about you should take photos and put them up on facebook and twitter so the public can see you engaging with them. Little things like this make a huge difference.

2. Good use of elected officials. MPs, Assembly Members and Councillors are some of the best resources we have for elections. They are well known and well liked with a support base of their own to draw upon. If they aren't actively involved in campaigning for candidates i'm sad to say we are missing a trick. Do your association's councillors put out regular ward newsletters where they can sneak in a picture of a candidate shaking their hand? do they engage with local clubs and organisations regularly and can they introduce you to the right people at them? heck are they regulars at their local pub and well liked by the other patrons? by showing their faces and being willing to show their support, our candidates gain powerful local advocates at zero cost and potentially get extra chances to interact with potential voters outside of the doorstep and telephone.

3. Speaking of the Phone... we all dread that call at 8pm in the evening. Something good is just coming on telly, we've got a nice cuppa in our hands and then RING RING RING RING. The person on the other end might be wonderful and they might have something to say that a voter wants to hear but at that time of the night they aren't listening anymore. Telecanvassing is a wonderful tool if used properly but try to avoid getting stuck into the many mistakes which can be made. Keep calling to pre 7:30pm and always try to leave the person you've spoken to feeling like their time was precious to you and you are grateful they gave you a few minutes of it (I know its hard but well worth it in the end).

4. Multi-purpose. It's a sad fact that in campaigning money talks, but what if you don't have much of it? well that means you need to get clever. If you are going to put out a A4 leaflet make it single sided with a poster on the back and a tag line saying 'if you believe in X please put our poster in your window' that way you get maximum value for your money. The same goes with calling cards. You've rocked up on a door and there's no answer? great leave a dual-purpose calling card which has some basic information on side and on the other you write a time and date for when you'll be back in the area and ask them to leave it in their window if they would like to talk to someone from the campaign. Simple and effective.

5. Social Media. I've already touched on this at the beginning but these days facebook and twitter are a must. They are not however the only forms of social media available to candidates nor are they the most effective. Youtube offers a wonderful opportunity for targeted video advertisement and in the same way that radio and television were once thought to be the best means of reaching the public (fireside chats etc) this new social media connects to growing demographics of the computer literate. This includes a growing proportion of the over 50s and, as you can imagine, almost all young people. There are plenty of avenues open if candidates and agents are willing to look, including blogs (which Guy Opperman MP is well known for using to convey his thoughts to the public)

And finally.

6. Have Fun. Campaigning is hard. It is a brutal slogging match between party machines all going after the same prizes. Most of our warriors are volunteers and we need to ensure that they are not only motivated in one session but are motivated to come back again and again. In the past I always tried to end campaign days in a pub or a coffee shop. Somewhere where we could sit and unwind, have a laugh and a joke (maybe some hot food) and enjoy the company of our fellow activists. This step matters and if you take nothing away from this list but this than you'll at least be doing ok.

New Years Day.

Well. I survived. The pain im feeling from everything I drank last night might take me later on but for now I'm still going. Today's post is not a very long one, nor a particularly detailed one. It's simply to say thank you in advance to all Tories who read this blog and come out campaigning to help us win this years elections in London, Wales, Scotland and councils across the UK. Every volunteer is an extra few dozen houses where we can spread our message of 'striving not skiving' and highlight our record as the party of fiscal responsibility.

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.