ACCESS ALL AREAS Building a majority

Edited by David Skelton 1

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 2 Foreword, Patrick McLoughlin MP 3

Broadening Conservative appeal Beyond the party of the rich, David Skelton 6 White van , MP 23 Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters, Nadhim Zahawi MP 29 Winning over ethnic minority voters, Paul Uppal MP 33 Winning in the cities, MP 38 Engaging with Ordinary Working People, Shaun Bailey 42

Conservatism for the people Conservatism for the consumer, Laura Sandys MP 50 Conservatism for the low paid, Matthew Hancock MP 54 Conservatism for social mobility, MP 58

Conservatism for every part of the country Winning in the North, Guy Opperman MP 66 The North in retrospective, Lord Bates 74 Winning in the Midlands, Rachel Maclean 80 Winning in Wales, MP 84

Reforming the party Transforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation, Gavin Barwell MP 92 Watering the desert – a forty for the North, Paul Maynard MP 98 iDemocracy and the new model party, Douglas Carswell MP 104 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Renewal would like to thank Colm Reilly, James Kanagasooriaam, Charlie Campbell, Michael Stott, Simon Cawte, Owen Ross, Maria Agnese Strizollo, Tim Chilvers, Shane Fitzgerald, Mary-Jay East, Peter Franklin, Luke Maynard, Matthew Harley, Victoria Cavolina, Aidan Corley, William Hensher, James Jeffreys, Mario Creatura and Ben Furnival for their assistance with the project. 3

FOREWORD

PATRICK McLOUGHLIN MP

There should be no such thing as a ‘traditional Conservative’ background. Our party should give no quarter to media stereotypes of leafy suburbs, gravel drives and the ‘Tory heartland’. Ours is a party for all parts of Britain and for all types of people, brought together not by background or wealth but by a shared understanding of the power of freedom, the potential of people and the great things that come from effort, enterprise and ambition. In short, ours is a party which helps people up not holds them down. I grew up in . My father was a miner and so was his father. I worked on a farm and in a coal mine and I joined the Conservative party because it represented me and stood for the things I believed in. What was true in the 1970s and 80s is true again today. As we prepare to win a majority in 2015 the fight has rarely mattered more. To win outright we must not only persuade people already drawn to our cause. We must win the active support of those who share our beliefs but until now have not been drawn to our party. People in cities and minority groups, away from the south-east of England. People who have been let down most of all by the bloated state and debts Labour left behind. So I welcome this new collection of essays and I welcome the campaign of which it is a part. By widening the Conservative cause we will win.

PATRICK MCLOUGHLIN is Secretary of State for Transport and is the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales

5

BROADENING CONSERVATIVE APPEAL 6

BEYOND THE PARTY OF THE RICH

DAVID SKELTON

The Conservative Party has a huge opportunity to become the party of choice for ordinary working people. As the Labour Party becomes ‘lattefied’ and ever more out of touch with its traditional, working class support base, the Conservatives can fill the gap to become the new ‘worker’s party’. For the first time in decades the votes of millions of traditionally Labour voters are up for grabs if the Conservatives are bold enough to take advantage. To make the most of this once in a generation opportunity to broaden their appeal, Conservative must continue to be bold and imaginative, but the electoral prizes for getting it right are glittering. The party also faces considerable, and overlapping, challenges that it must overcome if it is to benefit from the withering away of Labour’s support base. And these challenges are overlapping. The party is still seen by a majority of voters as being on the side of the rich, rather than ordinary people. A 2012 poll for showed that 64% of voters agreed with the statement that Conservatives look after the interests of the rich and powerful, not ordinary people.1 Polling by Lord Ashcroft reaffirms this impression, with only 24% of voters saying that Conservatives are “one the side of people like me” and only 17% saying that the Party “represents the whole country, not just some types of people.”2 This perception is a major contributory factor to the fact that the Conservatives haven’t won an election with an overall majority for 21 years and a stubbornly high 42% of voters say that they would never vote Tory.3 The Party continues to perform indifferently outside of its South Eastern heartland. In their heartland, the Conservatives hold nine out of ten seats. In the

1 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights 2 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, p19 3 YouGov poll for IPPR, cited in the Observer, 24 September 2011. 7

Midlands, they have about half, in the North about a third and in Scotland they hold only one seat. And the Conservatives struggle particularly in urban centres outside of their heartland. There are 124 urban seats in the North and Midlands and the Tories only hold 20 of them – that’s 16%. Many seats outside of the South East also have a higher than average proportion of public sector workers – a group of voters which are less likely to vote Conservative.4 And research for Renewal has shown that the majority of key battleground seats are constituencies with above average public sector employment.5 In many Northern cities, such as Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool, there’s not a single Tory Councillor and voting Conservative has become counter cultural– meaning that the Party is lacking an activist base in some of the most populated parts of the country. In Liverpool, which was once a bastion of working class Toryism, the Conservative candidate came a poor seventh in last year’s Mayoral election. Over the past few decades, Liberal Democrats have also replaced the Conservatives as the main opposition to Labour in several cities outside of the Tory heartland. This book includes contributions from Greg Clark, Guy Opperman, Lord Bates, Stephen Crabb, Paul Maynard and Shaun Bailey considering how the Conservatives can appeal to voters outside of their heartland. Conservatives also continue to struggle in attracting ethnic minority voters. As the chart below shows, only 16% of non-white voters backed the Tories at the last election, compared to 68% who backed the Labour Party. Polling conducted by YouGov for Renewal has also shown that only 6% of ethnic minority voters believe that the Conservatives are the party that is most in touch with ethnic minorities. Failure to win over non-white voters in 2010 may have cost the party a number of seats, such as Edgbaston and Westminster North, where there is a higher than average proportion of ethnic minority voters. As part of this book, Nadhim Zahawi and Paul Uppal put forward their proposals for reaching out to ethnic minority voters.

4 Research by Policy Exchange (Northern Lights, 2012) showed that households where both adults work in the public sector and 30% less likely to vote Conservative and households where one adult work in the public sector are 18% less likely to vote Conservative. 5 Research conducted by James Kanagasooriam for Renewal analysing the demographic make-up of parliamentary constituencies. We will be publishing more detailed research soon. 8 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton

Chart 1 – 2010 voting by ethnic group6

All ethnic White minorities Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Caribbean African

Labour 31 68 61 60 72 78 87

Conservative 37 16 24 13 18 9 6

Lib Dem 22 14 13 25 9 12 6

Other 11 2 2 3 1 2 1

All of these challenges are overlapping and none of them are new. If the Conservatives are to make the most of the opportunities that are rapidly emerging, they have to make a sustained effort to overcome these challenges. This book sets out how the Conservatives can widen their base and build a substantial new coalition of voters. It might not be easy reading for those Conservatives who think that ‘one more heave’ is all that is needed to turn round two decades of electoral underperformance. Nor will it please those who are content with re-running failed campaigns of the past in the facile hope that this will deliver different results.

Building on change The Conservatives have already changed under ’s leadership and his changes to the Party were enough to give the Party its biggest swing since 1931, but not quite enough to push it over the line towards winning an overall majority. Under Cameron’s leadership, the Party has adopted policies, such as the pupil premium, taking the poorest out of tax, a bank levy, increased capital gains tax, exempting low paid workers from the public sector pay freeze and gay marriage, which would have been unthinkable earlier. The changes that Cameron has already made to the party means that the Conservatives have a strong platform to build on as they seek to become the new workers’ party. Despite this welcome progress, the party still has to do more to show that it is in touch with ordinary voters and make inroads outside of its heartland. Above all, the Conservative Party needs to change to set out a clear message that it is not the ‘party of the rich’. To paraphrase Shelley, it needs to become the party of the many not the few.

6 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study, February 2012, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/ uploads/EMBESbriefingFINALx.pdf 9

This collection of essays examines how the Conservative Party can become a genuine mass party, with genuine mass appeal – described by Robert Halfon as ‘white van Conservatism’. They show how the party can start attracting those voters it has failed to reach for decades. We want to provoke debate about how the Party can broaden their appeal and not everybody writing for Renewal is going to agree about everything. Broadening appeal is about winning key marginal seats in 2015 (and we illustrate that these marginal seats have key characteristics, such as, in many cases, higher than average proportion of public sector workers), but it’s also about recovering second place in seats where they have become also-rans. By doing this, Conservatives can start to build a lasting foundation for the coming decades.

Further focus on the cost of living Since the crash in 2008, working families have suffered the biggest squeeze in living standards since the Great Depression. Pay has failed to keep up with considerable increases in the cost of fuel, energy, transport and housing. That’s why cost of living issues are the biggest day to day concern for most voters.7 Between 1999 and 2003, average wages, accounting for inflation, increased by 2% a year, from 2003 and 2008, they rose by 0.1% a year, and between 2008 and 2011, they fell by 1.9% a year. 8 2010 saw the largest fall in real household income for over thirty years.9 Real wages since 2008 have fallen by more than in any comparable period and real wages have taken the biggest fall outside of .10 All other issues become peripheral when people are worried about their jobs and how to make their pay packet last. The ‘cost of living’ has to continue to be at the centre of any attempt to widen the appeal of the Tory Party and ensure that ordinary voters feel that the Conservatives are on their side. The Government has already made considerable steps in the right direction and they should be commended for that. The focus on the cost of living should continue over the coming years. The freeze in fuel duty in the autumn statement and in the budget was absolutely the right thing to do, but, within the realms

7 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights 8 Resolution Foundation, cited in The Times by Gavin Kelly, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/ article3768335.ece 9 Guardian, 29 March 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/29/real-incomes-fall-30-years 10 IFS study, cited in , 13 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jun/12/workers- deepest-cuts-real-wages-ifs 10 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton

of affordability, it should be frozen and, if possible, cut for the lifetime of this parliament and beyond. The cost of fuel, like the cost of energy, is something that affects the poorest the most. And energy bills have been increasing at a staggering rate in recent years, with an increase of nearly 30% in three years.11 That’s well ahead of inflation, meaning that energy bills are taking up a larger and larger proportion of income. The price of household fuel increased by 110% in the 2000s, compared to only 11% in the previous decade.12 Conservatives need to make it clear that this type of increase is unacceptable – with corresponding policies that ensure that energy companies cannot abuse their oligopoly status. The Government could also scrap the wasteful EU Renewable Energy Directive, which would save bill payers hundreds of pounds a year.

Standing up against vested interests Conservatives must make clear that they are prepared to stand up forcefully against vested interests, whether they’re public sector trade unions or rent- seeking corporations. ‘Crony capitalism’ should have no more of a place in today’s economy than centrally controlled nationalised industries. Being the party of capitalism is not the same as being the party of big business. The Conservatives should be the party of the majority, standing up for consumers, small businessmen and hard-pressed workers. For inspiration, they should look no further than the great US President, Teddy Roosevelt – a great defender of free enterprise and competition, who also had no truck for monopolies abusing their power. He called for a ‘square deal’ for ordinary citizens, famously arguing that:

Every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.13

11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10043967/How-energy- bills-have-soared.html 12 Cited by Gavin Kelly, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3768335.ece 13 Theodore Roosevelt, New Nationalism speech 11

And there are many ways in which the Conservatives can make clear that they are comfortable taking on vested interests in the private sector and backing the active consumer. The first is by relentlessly standing up for consumer rights and consumer protection. This includes empowering the consumer by insisting on transparency and the provision of information to consumers. Big business, whether they are mobile phone companies, train companies, banks, big utilities (including what Robert Halfon described as ‘semi-privatised water monopolies’) or oil companies, shouldn’t be allowed to get away with practices that are seen as ripping off the consumer, from overdraft charges to roaming fees. As Laura Sandys argues, a Minister for Consumers should be appointed and be given real powers to protect the consumer. It might also be time to reconsider how competition policy works in the UK. The free market drives innovation and benefits the consumer when companies are incentivised through competition. When that incentive is removed, it is the consumer who suffers. The Government should also continue to lead by example by ensuring that government procurement doesn’t rely on a cosy monopoly – discouraging innovation and being more expensive for the taxpayer.

Being the party of house building Conservatism has always been at its most successful when it has been optimistic and aspirational. That is why house building is so important to broadening Tory appeal. 1.8 million people are stuck on the housing list, the average age of a first time buyer is now 37, and the cost of housing and rent continues to contribute significantly to the cost of living crisis (private rent has increased by 37% in 5 years).14 In 2012 it would have taken a low to middle income family 22 years to save up for an average first time buyer deposit, compared to 11 years in 2003 and 3 years in 1983.15 The last government consistently failed to meet their housing targets and the recession has meant that the number of housing starts has remained well below the level of need, meaning that, according to the census, in the first decade of the century, home ownership fell for the first time in 60 years, from 68% to 63%.16 To tackle the shortage of housing, Conservatives must position themselves

14 New Statesman leader, 1 May 2013 15 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3768335.ece 16 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6719c40c-7c49-11e2-91d2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2U6znTkt3 12 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton 13 squarely as the party of house building. In doing this, they would draw upon a distinguished past – Noel Skelton and ’s vision of a ‘property owning democracy’, ’s house building programme and ’s right to buy. As the poster on the following page from the 1955 election shows, house building has always been a key part of an optimistic Tory message.17 Such a mission could help bring down the cost of living and add a new moral purpose to the government – again informed by the mission of spreading property ownership and giving the opportunity to younger people to share in property ownership. Housing Minister, Nicholas Boles was quite right when he argued that:

If we believe in anything, we believe in the power of home ownership to motivate people to work hard, raise strong families and build healthy communities, to put down roots, take responsibility for their surroundings and look out for their neighbours.18

Top-down planning laws continue to hold back house building. Planning rules mean that housing is built where local authority bureaucrats think that people should live, rather than where people actually want to live. These rules should be changed to put more power in the hands of local people. Brownfield land, empty properties and ‘change of use’ – converting empty business premises to residential use, should also be used. But that isn’t going to single handedly tackle our housing crisis. Whilst protecting areas of natural beauty, some building on the greenbelt should be allowed, where it has local support and where the local community is adequately compensated.19 But changing planning rules are only half of the answer to boosting house building. The Government needs to act against the vested interests amongst the developers who are sitting on plots of land with planning permission (so called land banking) waiting for the value of the land to increase. A ‘right to build’ scheme, where local authorities allow local people to design their own homes

17 Conservative Party Archive Poster collection 18 Nicholas Boles MP, speech to Policy Exchange, 10 January 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/ speeches/housing-the-next-generation 19 See Policy Exchange, Cities for Growth, 2011 14 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton

and build on land that has already been granted planning permission could also boost house building.

Economic renewal and job creation Since the 1980s, the Conservative vote has collapsed in parts of the North, the Midlands and Scotland. The economic and social dislocation that followed de-industrialisation made the Tory brand toxic in many places as it became associated with mass unemployment. Although a shift from a predominantly industrial economy (as has happened in most other Western countries) was probably inevitable, there’s little doubt that it brought with it substantial hardship, from which some towns, such as my home town of Consett, have barely recovered. The black spots of ‘worklessness’ are generally towns that were once dominated by heavy industry.20 The Party needs to take steps to ensure that it becomes associated with job creation and tackling unemployment in parts of the country where it has long been associated with mass unemployment. Regional disparities in the UK are stronger than ever and the UK’s economy is the most regionally imbalanced in Europe.21 Old solutions have failed to narrow disparities that have existed for generations and the creation of public sector jobs hasn’t created the economic dynamism that de-industrialised areas need to get back on their feet. Conservatives need to put themselves at the forefront of a movement to restore hope and vitality to areas that long ago fell behind economically. ‘Things not getting worse’ can no longer be an option – it’s time for an ambitious vision of growth and renewal, driven by the private sector Although Enterprise Zones, Local Enterprise Partnerships and the regional growth fund are all welcome, there is a real need for the Conservatives to be bigger and bolder when it looks to re-energising high unemployment towns. Industrial policy could be crucial to creating regional growth. This isn’t about ‘picking winners’, but, instead, is about ensuring that the right conditions for growth, such as transport and digital infrastructure and support is given to potential high growth sectors. As Ed Glaeser has pointed out, strong and dynamic cities are always at the

20 See, for example, JRF, ‘Are Cultures of worklessness passed down through the generations?’ http://www.jrf. org.uk/sites/files/jrf/worklessness-families-employment-full.pdf 21 http://www.edmundconway.com/2013/05/1673/ 15 centre of economic growth in the globalised world and the Government has the opportunity to build on its existing City Deals and encourage a renaissance of the Northern economy, driven by its great cities. Planning must be a crucial element of this. Preston was one of the highest growth towns of the past decade because it was able to take advantage of a liberal planning regime and excellent transport links. The Government should look to build on the Preston example by devolving planning powers to the great Northern cities, meaning that rules that are set nationally would be set by the cities. This would help make Northern cities hugely attractive places for companies to be based. As opposition to planning reform largely comes from the overcrowded South, Northern cities could take advantage of this to narrow the economic gap, expand without impediment and become dynamic job creators. The Government should also consider devolving elements of welfare policy to major cities. In particular, elements of the welfare to work scheme or welfare conditionality could be devolved to cities, so they have the power to decide about conditions that are set around welfare payments. This could mean that Northern cities take the lead in making work pay and getting people off welfare and into work. Such an approach would ensure that Conservatives became associated with job creation in areas where they are generally, at present, associated with unemployment. Conservatives should make clear that, as a party, one of their key priorities is tackling the waste of human potential that is unemployment, positioning themselves at the head of a war on unemployment and associating the party squarely with job creation and economic renewal.

A Tory approach to low pay and economic security Conservatives have always been too ready to abandon the field to the left when it comes to low pay. Their continual holding out against the minimum wage before the 1997 election was unnecessary – making the party look uncaring. They must be careful not to make the same mistake again, particularly as the arguments that the minimum wage would price people out of jobs haven’t been borne out by evidence. And there’s evidence that the impression created by opposition to the Minimum Wage has lingered. Only 9% of voters think that the Tory Party best 16 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton

stands up for the interests of low paid public sector workers, 14% for low paid private sector workers and 18% for skilled manual workers.22 The Resolution Foundation has produced some excellent work putting ‘low pay Britain’ into context. Around one fifth of employees, or around five million workers are still paid below the ‘living wage’ level. This includes 27% of women, 16% of men and 41% of part time workers.23 Low paid workers are much less likely to move their way up the income ladder as time goes on, as well as being harder hit by the rising cost of living than other income groups.24 Conservatives should be the champions of the low paid, but it can often appear that the party is only interested in the views of the employer, not the employee. The measures taken by the coalition to take the lowest paid out of tax together have certainly helped the low paid, but they need to go further to show that they are on their side. Conservatives must be enthusiastic, rather than grudging, in their support of the minimum wage. And, as Matthew Hancock argues, Conservatives shouldn’t just support the minimum wage, they should strengthen it. There have only been a handful of cases of the minimum wage being enforced in the past 10 years. Strengthening powers to enforce the minimum wage would be the right thing to do and would help make clear that Conservatives were on the side of the low paid. Of course, there’s also a next step beyond the minimum wage and Conservatives should be careful not to put themselves on the wrong side of the argument about low pay. Whereas Labour’s approach to tackling low pay through child tax credits and above inflation increases in welfare damaged incentives to work, the Tory approach of increasing real incomes through the tax system increases incentives to work and acts in tandem with ’s welfare reforms Lifting the poorest out of tax altogether has been the most beneficial policy for low paid people since the introduction of the minimum wage. It stands in stark contrast to ’s cynical scrapping of the 10p tax band. Continuing to lift the poorest out of tax altogether will, of course, also help to create a genuine ‘living wage’ for the poorest and increase real incomes. The

22 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, p35 23 Resolution Foundation, ‘Lifting the lid on low pay Britain’, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/blog/2011/ Oct/04/lifting-lid-low-pay-britain/ 24 Resolution Foundation, ‘Snakes and Ladders’ , November 2011, http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/ media/media/downloads/Snakes_and_Ladders_Final_Report.pdf 17

Conservatives need to build on this policy and consider further ways to help the low paid. This should include considering ways in which the minimum wage could be increased without damaging job creation, such as through changes to the system of employer’s taxation. Renewal will be publishing further work on this in the coming months. Ultimately, of course, it’s important that skills of low paid workers are increased in order to allow them to rise up the career ladder. This is why it’s so important that the Government stick to their education and welfare reforms – giving people the skills to compete and making work pay.

Sticking to the right reforms The Government is implementing important and radical reforms. And many of these reforms are likely to help the Conservatives broaden their appeal amongst target voters. Immigration reforms, for example are indicative of the fact that uncontrolled immigration hit working class voters the hardest, acting, in the words of Jon Cruddas, as a ‘21st Century incomes policy, mixing a liberal sense of free for all with a free-market disdain for clear and effective rules.’25 Welfare reform, particularly popular amongst working class voters, is right to emphasise making work pay and ensuring that those who can work do work. But it’s the education reforms that will have the biggest long-term impact. As Damian Hinds points out, social mobility should be a potent weapon in the Conservative armoury. The Government’s reforms to education, from the pupil premium to Free Schools and Academy expansion, are radical attempts to improve the life chances of the poorest in society. The fact that the 7% of the population who attended fee paying schools dominate the professions illustrates quite how much the state education system has let down the poorest. And the success of education reform in improving education in London shows that reform shows the importance of reform to the life chances of the poorest. It’s important that education reform is accelerated in the coming years, with ideological objections, such as to profit making firms running schools, not getting in the way of helping the poorest make the most of their potential.

25 Jon Cruddas MP, the Guardian, 17 May 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/ labour-leadership-jon-cruddas 18 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton 19

People Policy will always make an important difference to the Tories’ party of the rich problem, but it’s hard to ignore the look and feel of the party as well. Research for Policy Exchange showed that voters believe that the priority for the Conservatives as they look to better reflect the country should be recruiting more working class candidates, as well as recruiting more candidates from outside of politics.26 Polling conducted for Philip Cowley at Nottingham University also showed that there is strong public demand for working class and local MPs.27 Despite progress in recent years, the Parliamentary Conservative Party still comes from a relatively narrow social base. Whilst 7% of the population attended fee paying schools, some 54% of Conservative MPs attended independent schools. Only 11 of the 306 Conservative MPs (just over 3%) are ethnic minorities, compared to 14% of the British population. It’s clear that the Conservatives have to go further as they attempt to look and sound like the country as a whole. It’s also clear that being a parliamentary candidate can be hugely expensive, which puts off many people from a lower income background from even considering standing for Parliament. Even the assessment centre to become a Conservative candidate costs almost £300 and there are numerous other costs involved in candidacy – such as travel, accommodation and lost income. More needs to be done to diversify the range of candidates and the A List failed to do that. A bursary scheme should be provided to help poorer potential candidates become involved and the party should consider waiving the cost of the assessment board in certain cases. As Gavin Barwell points out reforms such as open primaries could increase the diversity of candidates. The hugely effective campaign poster from the 1992 election on the opposite page is proof that the Conservatives have both attracted working class voters and have promoted working class leaders in the past.28 The Conservatives must also broaden their councillor base by lowering the barriers to involvement – minimising the cost of membership, making local

26 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights, p42 27 Philip Cowley, ‘The public do want more working class MPs – and more local ones too, http://nottspolitics. org/2013/02/01/the-public-do-want-working-class-mps-and-more-local-ones-too/ 28 Conservative Party archive 20 Beyond the party of the rich | David Skelton

meetings less stuffy and bureaucratic and, as Douglas Carswell argues, using social media effectively. A successful Tory Party won’t win on the back of billboard advertising. It needs to consider how it can become involve in real and digital social networks, particularly in areas where Conservatives have been near extinct on the ground for years. This means getting involved with community groups, sports clubs and other organisations that make a real difference to people’s lives. In his essay, Paul Uppal sets out how Conservatives have to be on the ground for the entire five years of a Parliament, not just a few months before an election, particularly in areas where Labour have dominated on the ground for decades. Just as the , set up in Disraeli’s memory, created a working class Tory base that was more numerous than the trade unions in certain Northern towns in the late 19th and early 20th century, so a new digital Primrose League could help widen the base of the Tory Party further.

Presentation Some have argued that Conservatives have the right policies, but are poor at presenting them in a way that appeals to target audiences. This is a comfort blanket, preventing the party from asking difficult questions. But that doesn’t mean that the Party should ignore issues of presentation – getting the message right is imperative. Empathy is crucial when policy is being presented. Conservatives must make it quite clear, and repeatedly so, that they understand the problems faced by lower and middle income voters, struggling with constantly squeezing living standards and are working hard to do something about it. And this must be at the core of policy presentation. Policies must be presented in a way that resonates instinctively and emotionally with hard-pressed voters. Politicians should use straightforward, no-nonsense language that cuts through to voters. Most voters don’t have the obsession with politics or policy that those in the Westminster bubble do. But they care about the big issues that affect themselves and their family directly. This is why Conservatives must be careful to relate every communication to how it affects ordinary people who are struggling with the cost of living. New policies and communication should be measures against this ‘blue collar’ test. 21

Conservatives should also remember that public sector workers and trade unionists are both crucial sets of voters, who shouldn’t be insulted using overzealous rhetoric. There are almost seven million trade unionists in the UK and almost as many public sector workers. Conservatives can disagree with trade union leaders and their political statements, but still acknowledge the role played by trade unions and take steps to appeal to ordinary union members. They should remember that more trade unionists voted for Margaret Thatcher than Jim Callaghan in 1979 and ‘Conservative Trade Unionists’ was once a significant organisation. Conservatives should make clear that they value the important work of trade unions, despite the grandstanding of union leaders. They could, as Robert Halfon has suggested, offer discounted Tory membership for union members or give more choice to ordinary union members about where their political levy should go. Reviving an organisation such as Conservative Trade Unionists would also be a good start. Equally, Conservatives must make clear that they value the role and the duty of service that public sector workers provide. Research for Renewal shows that the majority of top target seats in 2010 have a higher than average proportion of public sector workers, making appealing to public sector workers one of the party’s big pre 2015 tasks. Our analysis has shown that just over half of Tory held battleground seats have a higher than average (mean and median) proportion of public sector workers. Some 60% of Labour held battleground seats, which the Conservatives must win in order to gain a majority, have a higher than average (mean and median) proportion of public sector workers. In the top 20 Labour held seats that will be targeted by the Conservatives in 2015, 12 contain a higher than average proportion of public sector workers. This includes 5 of the 9 seats where Labour has a majority of less than 1,000. A similar pattern occurs for Liberal Democrat held seats that will be targeted by the Conservatives. Of the top 20, Liberal Democrat held seats that will be targeted by the Conservatives half have a higher than average (mean and median) proportion of public sector workers. This illustrates the importance of Conservatives building bridges with public sector workers and not being seen as too anti public sector in their rhetoric. It should also be remembered that public sector workers account for over 60% of trade union membership and over 56% of public sector workers are trade 22

union members, meaning that Conservatives should be aware that overzealous anti-union rhetoric is unlikely to help them in many target seats.29

A new Tory electoral coalition One of the Tory Party’s enduring strengths has been its ability to broaden its appeal. The Party survived successive extension of the franchise, two world wars, the rise of organised labour, the fall of Empire and other seismic events precisely because of its ability to adapt to changed circumstances. It reacted to defeats in 1832, 1906, 1945 and 1974 by understanding the need to do more to broaden its appeal, build new electoral coalitions and change to reflect changed circumstances. Disraeli understood how Conservatives could reach out to the newly enfranchised working class voters in the towns through a message of social reform and patriotism. Macmillan saw the importance of house building and jobs to successfully appeal to working class voters outside of the South East. And Thatcher used the language of aspiration and measures such as the Right to Buy and privatisation to bring aspirational working class voters back into the Tory fold. And there’s a real opportunity to build a new, and broader, electoral coalition today. Labour’s vote amongst the skilled working class dived from over 50% under Tony Blair to a mere 29% in 2010.30 The Liberal Democrat vote amongst working class voters has also hemorrhaged since the last election. Labour is now much more rooted in Islington than in Durham, with its leadership and its policies increasingly out of touch with the ordinary working voters they once represented. The cultural affinity towards the Labour Party that once existed in large parts of the country has now all but disappeared. This provides the opportunity for Conservatives to forge a new coalition of voters that could dominate British politics in future decades. The Conservatives can become the real worker’s party, standing up for ordinary, hard-working people trying to get on in life. With boldness and big thinking, the Conservatives can renew themselves and Britain in a way that strengthens Conservatism for decades to come.

DAVID SKELTON is founder of Renewal. He was the Conservative candidate for North Durham in the 2010 election.

29 James Kirkup, ‘shrinking unions take shelter in the public sector’, September 12th 2012, http://blogs. telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100180096/the-tuc-shrinking-unions-take-shelter-in-the-public-sector/; BIS, Trade Union Membership 2010, p18, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/32191/11-p77-trade-union-membership-2010.pdf 30 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=101 23

WHITE VAN CONSERVATISM

ROBERT HALFON MP

Many polls tell the same story. Conservatives made substantial progress in 2010, but are still not viewed as the party of One Nation in Scotland and the urban North.31 For right-wingers, there is little comfort in the mirror image of this in Labour’s retreat from England’s southern countryside. As Policy Exchange’s Northern Lights report points out:

Conservatives have no councillors at all in Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester or Sheffield, having been replaced by the Lib Dems as Labour’s opponents during the 1990s.

What characterises these Northern cities? First, a large public sector workforce. In some urban constituencies, the share of public workers is higher than 60%, compared to an average of 20% across the country.32 Figures from the House of Commons Library show a strong correlation between the concentration of workers from ‘public sector proxy industries’ and voting Labour. Of the top 50 constituencies by public sector workforce in 2008, more than 86% had elected a Labour MP. There were only four Conservative exceptions to this trend, and they were all in areas surrounded by rural Conservative seats outside of the main Midlands and Northern conurbations. Persuading public sector workers to vote Conservative remains a key priority for 2015. Second, we see a higher concentration of trade union membership in these Northern cities, because of the economic dependence on the public sector.

31 Policy Exchange, Northern Lights, http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/northern%20 lights.pdf 32 http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05635 24 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP

Of Britain’s 6.4 trade union members, more than two thirds work in public service.33 That is why Conservatives must moderate our language if we wish to speak better to these parts of Britain, where trade unions and their historic culture (for example, the Durham Miners Gala) are a stronger part of the landscape. One example springs to mind. Last year, there were reports that Unite were offering unemployed workers a chance to join for as little as 50p a week. In exchange, they got legal support and education facilities. Instead of welcoming this as a brilliant idea to help the jobless, some on the right indulged in their traditional union-bashing – making no distinction between the politics of Len McCluskey and the services that were being offered to vulnerable people. Helping those who have lost their job is something that every Conservative should support. The more help that can be offered to those without work, the better. I wish that our party offered these services as well. Third, many of these urban constituencies have pockets of severe deprivation. These include problems of low wages, benefits dependency, dysfunctional families, drug addiction, struggling hospitals and schools, entrenched health inequalities, and higher violent crime.34 Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world, and yet even quite close to the UK’s areas of affluence there are still acute levels of deprivation of the kind that Iain Duncan-Smith saw in Glasgow’s Easterhouse estate, where he was inspired to found the Centre for Social Justice. To be a genuine party of One Nation, Conservatives must speak up for people who find themselves trapped in those places, through no fault of their own. This is especially necessary, as polls repeatedly reflect a suspicion among voters that the Conservatives are ‘the party of the rich’ and not for people like them.35 So, what is the answer? Instead of knocking socialism, which at its heart has a noble message about helping the poor, we have to offer a stronger and more compassionate alternative. That is why I have started talking about ‘White Van Conservatism’: the ethos of people who wake up early; who work hard, save hard; who have hopes for themselves and their children. Last year’s conference in Birmingham, and especially the Prime Minister’s speech, showed that the Conservatives are the true Workers› Party now. Whilst Labour remain the party of

33 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100180096/the-tuc-shrinking-unions-take-shelter-in-the- public-sector/ 34 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/31/deprivation-map-indices-multiple 35 Lord Ashcroft, Blue Collar Tories, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/10/suspicious-strivers-hold-the-key-to- tory-election-prospects/ 25 state welfarism and a dependency culture, Conservatives re-took the battleground of aspiration — a primary Tory story through the ages. Many people have referred to this as ‘Blue Collar’ Conservatism. I am anxious about this term. Very few British voters will self-identify as ‘Blue Collar’, as the phrase is an Americanism. It also has old fashioned attachments to the phrase, and could signify that ‘Conservatism’ on its own is not friendly to lower earners. So, what is White Van Conservatism? It is not based on ‘right wing caricature’, as painted by our opponents. White Van Conservatives want strong policies – such as lower taxes for a fair wage, more purposeful and skilled immigration, and the chance of owning a home – but policies that are compassionate too. They want solid financial support for public services, especially schools and the NHS; a more sympathetic ear to Trade Union members, nurses, and Police officers; and a safety net for those who fall off the ladder. It reflects the fact that work in the 21st century has become much more individualised, as more and more people become self-employed (currently at around 4.1 million, and growing all the time), and micro and small businesses are the mainstay of the economy. White Van Conservatism is also a message for women. It is emphatically not just White Van ‘Man’ Conservatism, and it is patronising to caricature it this way. For example, between 2008 and 2011, self-employment rose in the UK by 147,000. Crucially, 80% of these new workers were women. According to the FSB’s 2012 member survey, a higher proportion of younger businesses are now micro businesses run by women.36 71% of small firms now have female owners or directors. Survey data shows that women entrepreneurs are especially well-represented in the following economic sectors:

• Financial services; • Education; • Business services; • Retailing; • Creative services; • Personal services (eg. dry cleaning, hairdressing); • Health and social work.

36 FSB Membership survey, http://www.fsb.org.uk/policy/assets/uk%20voice%20of%20small%20 business%20member%20survey%20report%20feb%202012.pdf 26 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP

However, for White Van Conservativism to triumph — and win electoral dividends in 2015 — the Government needs to build on its 2012 Conference platform. A relentless focus on tax cuts for the low-paid, not because we believe in an abstraction of a ‘smaller state’ but because we believe that everyone should be able to earn a Living Wage. A determination to reduce the cost of living, particularly through a wholesale assault on utility companies and further cuts in fuel duty; certainly no more rises. Support for smaller and micro businesses. Attacking vested interests, such as Britain’s semi-privatised water monopolies. Fighting the EU where it is crushing our living standards. Making it even easier to buy a council house; perhaps even for just the price of a deposit. On immigration, we need an approach rooted in the common ground. This is important, because peoples’ views about migration and race relations are far more nuanced than sometimes is credited to them. For example, the Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows a widely held feeling that immigration has been too high over the last decade. This view is especially held by older people over the age of 65, and started to become widely held in 2002.37 But, more specific polling questions reveal that attitudes depend on the type of migrant in question. Foreigners who come to Britain to work in our public services are actually quite popular. For example, a 2010 survey found that 72% of British people would support admitting more foreign doctors and nurses, if they came to boost our NHS.38 There is also majority support for admitting more care workers to help with the burdens of an aging population.39 In a 2001 ICM Research Guardian poll, 67% said that they were in favour of permitting entry to those who can provide for their own financial support, even without high levels of needed skill. These results need further study, but it important to note that perceptions of migrants are rather like perceptions of that other unpopular group: Members of Parliament. Namely: that there is a general dislike of the group, but the local example tends to be quite popular. Migrants in one’s own neighbourhood tend not to be a problem, say polls. As the Migration Observatory in Oxford University states:

37 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3154/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March- 2013-Issues-Index.aspx 38 http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and- level-concern 39 Transatlantic Trends 2010 27

In something of a paradox, while vast majorities view migration as harmful to Britain, few claim that their own neighbourhood is having problems due to migrants. Apparently, much of the opposition to migration comes from general concerns about Britain as a whole rather than from direct, negative experiences in one’s own community. For example, in an Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by the Sun newspaper in 2007 only 15% said that migrants are causing problems in their own neighbourhood, while 69% said that migrants were not having a strong local impact, either good or bad (Ipsos MORI 2007).

So, a White Van Conservative view of immigration and race relations is not a simple UKIP position of a flat ‘five year ban’. Instead, it would champion ethnic minorities who have come to Britain to work hard; especially in our NHS and Armed Forces. At the same time, it would press for much tougher controls on illegal migration; migrants who lack useful skills; those who abuse the welfare state; and those who refuse to learn English. On education, White Van Conservatives want better opportunities for the 60% of young people who do not go to university. Sadly, the latest annual report from Lord Baker’s EDGE foundation found that 23% of A-level pupils say their school is still more concerned with ‘sending students to university’ than concentrating on what is right for the individual. This contrasts sharply with parents’ wishes, where a clear majority 78% would support their child if they choose to take a vocational qualification. To be fair, Labour did spend millions on various schemes – like Train to Gain for example – trying to boost the take up of vocational routes. However, the results were patchy and over one million young people across the country were not in work or training by the time the Government left office. The Coalition’s push to strengthen the quality and quantity of apprenticeships is not just about economic efficiency. It is about social justice as well. If you give young people real opportunities of skills and training, you get them off the street, give them stability and a real chance of a job for the future. We are opening 24 University Technical Colleges – pre-apprentice schools – in this Parliament. That is a good start but we need more: 100 new UTCs should be our ambition. We have boosted apprenticeship starts to 500,000 a year. Excellent. But we need to radically expand 28 White van conservatism | Robert Halfon MP

the number of Level 4 and 5 ‘Higher’ apprenticeships, to compete with university courses. There are only a few thousand at present. The Technical Baccalaureate is welcome recognition that vocational courses should have the same rigour and prestige as A-Levels. But we must be relentless in schools and Colleges across the country, in our message that apprentices deserve equal prestige with students. If A-Level students can get free school meals in our schools, apprentices should also get them in our FE Colleges. Apprentices should have the same graduation ceremonies, the same preferential bank accounts and recruitment schemes. Whitehall should lead the public sector, with clear apprenticeship career paths in Government Departments and their major suppliers. Other Government Departments should study the DWP’s new model contract, introduced in July 2011, which encourages their contractors to hire apprentices as at least 5% of their workforce. We must also do more to allow parents and their children choice, over which school or apprenticeship they go to. None of the above is rocket science. But, it is often much harder to provide a clear direction and a story, than to set out the policies themselves. White Van Conservatism must be our narrative. A washing line, to hold all the clothes pegs together.

ROBERT HALFON is Member of Parliament for Harlow 29

THINKING BRAVE AND BIG TO WIN OVER ETHNIC MINORITY VOTERS

NADHIM ZAHAWI MP

At the 2010 general election just 16% of ethnic minority voters put their cross in the box marked Conservative while more than two thirds voted Labour.40 Our failure to appeal to ethnic minorities should send loud alarm bells ringing in Downing Street and Central Office. As Lord Ashcroft points out, ‘not being white was the single best predictor that somebody would not vote Conservative’ at the last election’, more than age, gender, geographical location or household income.41 Unless we act now this electoral penalty will only get worse. Ethnic minorities make up 14% of the population, a figure which is on an upward trend and predicted to grow to at least 20% by 2051.42 More importantly, we cannot claim to be the Conservative and Unionist Party if large numbers of non-white Britons continue to believe we aren’t capable of representing them. It’s a cliché of this debate that many ethnic minority voters are naturally sympathetic to the Conservative values of hard work and free enterprise but still find themselves unable to support the Conservative party. I recently commissioned some polling to test this idea out, asking a sample of BME voters what they thought about flagship Conservative policies. On the benefit cap, our poll saw 55% of the sample in favour with only 15% opposed. Support for raising the personal allowance to £10,000 saw 75% in favour. 72% agreed with our decision to ring-fence NHS spending, and 57% supported devolving planning power to local authorities. As you might expect,

40 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study 41 Lord Ashcroft, Ethnic Minority Voters and the Conservative Party, April 2012, http://lordashcroftpolls. com/2012/04/ethnic-minority-voters-and-the-conservative-party-2/ 42 2011 Census; University of Leeds study, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10607480 30 Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters | Nadhim Zahawi MP

immigration was further down our sample’s list of priorities compared to the population as a whole, but there was still support for Conservative positions. 41% were in favour of reducing non-EU immigration with only 23% opposed, while 66% were in favour of charging non-residents to use the NHS. Finally, when we asked which political party was most in touch with the needs of ethnic minorities 6% said the Conservatives, compared to 53% citing Labour. This suggests to me that the problem isn’t primarily the Conservative policy platform. It’s far deeper than that, a gut feeling which says ‘these people aren’t on my side; they don’t have my best interests at heart.’ Partly this is a legacy issue. Though both were repudiated by the party, many non-white Britons have never forgotten ’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech, nor the notorious slogan from the 1964 Smethwick election ‘if you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour’. The handling of the Brixton riots, as well as the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, convinced many others we were indifferent at best, downright hostile at worst. Given this history, it’s not going to be easy for us to gain the trust of ethnic minority voters who have never considered voting Conservative before. Under David Cameron the Parliamentary Party has become more representative of modern Britain, but we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that this alone will fix our problem. Lord Ashcroft’s research suggests that some voters believe Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds have only been accepted by the party because they are ‘rich’ or ‘posh’. Combating one stereotype can reinforce another.43 It’s small comfort that we’re not alone in this predicament. The centre-right parties of Germany, France, Australia, and of course the , all face the prospect of long term electoral irrelevance. One nation does stand out from the international trend however: Canada. In 2006 an ethnic minority voter was three times more likely to vote Liberal than Conservative. In Canada’s 2011 federal election 42% of voters born outside Canada voted Tory, a greater than Canadian born voters. Just as in the UK, the Canadian Tories conducted polls and focus groups which showed that minorities were often conservative in outlook, but strongly averse to voting Tory. The Canadian Conservative Party’s answer was simple:

43 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/04/ethnic-minority-voters-and-the-conservative-party-2/ 31 start a dialogue. Party strategists would work to identify small, symbolic issues which mattered a lot to particular communities. The party would then get behind those issues to show it was listening. To gain the trust of Vietnamese- Canadians who’d arrived as refugees in the 70s for example, Conservatives issued a strong condemnation of Vietnam’s one-party state. As a gesture to the Croatian community the process of visa applications for the relatives of Croatian- Canadians was sped up, and so on. This wasn’t about dispensing patronage, it was about opening up a conversation. Once the party had got the attention of a particular community it then became much easier to get a hearing for its core messages on tax, crime and enterprise. The same approach, a strategy of genuine dialogue rather than empty platitudes about ‘shared values’, should be tried here. One example of how this can work comes from my own community, the British Kurds. Earlier this year Conservative MPs led a debate in Parliament to formally recognise Saddam’s war against the Kurds as an act of genocide. This had a huge impact, I received hundreds of emails from British Kurds thanking me and the Party for our support and I firmly believe those people will now tune in when we engage them on other issues. Yet some of the polling makes for such grim reading that you wonder if a more seismic shift in policy is needed to signal our good intentions. We shouldn’t be afraid to think outside of our comfort zone. In the United States Republican Party senior figures like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio now openly champion the idea of a temporary amnesty for illegal immigrants, as has Boris here in the UK. Economically, a one-off amnesty would make sense. There are an estimated 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK; this vast hidden economy cheats the Treasury out of billions while undercutting the pay and conditions of low income workers. At a time of austerity, moving these people into the legitimate economy has obvious attractions, not least because the state of UKBA’s backlog means they already enjoy effective amnesty. Of course the objections are equally obvious: that we would be rewarding criminal behaviour and potentially putting further pressure on public funds. The latter could be solved by giving those under the amnesty some form of leave to remain rather than full citizenship. Such leave to remain would give them restricted or no access to the benefits and housing system and no ability to bring 32 Thinking brave and big to win over ethnic minority voters | Nadhim Zahawi MP

spouses and dependents to join them. They would also have to meet certain criteria such as having no criminal record and the ability to pass an English language test and the Life in the UK test. For the former, I would suggest that the amnesty was part of a comprehensive reform of our borders policy, with more and tougher enforcement action against businesses employing illegal workers, and crucially, overhauling the long term international migration survey so that we finally have a realistic idea of who is actually here. We should also ensure proper exit checks are carried out to provide a new UKBA rapid reaction team with the information required to start searching for visa over-stayers on day one of their overstay. At the same time a British Bill of Rights could ensure that over-stayers and fresh illegal immigrants can’t use the Human Rights Act to continually delay and put off their deportation. This would be on top of the significant changes to the immigration system we’ve already made. In fact it’s only because we’ve been so robust on immigration in government that we’re able to have this conversation with the electorate. We’ve earned the credibility to think outside the box. This is not to say an amnesty should be in the next manifesto, but we do need a serious debate within the party about what needs to be done to improve our standing with ethnic minority voters. That’s why I’m delighted that David Skelton, the former deputy director of Policy Exchange, is founding Renewal to focus on winning Tory votes in the North, ethnic minority communities and urban areas. What’s clear is that on their own the A-list and photo ops of Cabinet Ministers at their local temple or mosque, are not enough. If we want to recreate the electoral triumphs of the 1980s we must be Thatcher-like in our willingness to think brave and think big.

NADHIM ZAHAWI is Member of Parliament for Stratford on Avon 33

WINNING OVER ETHNIC MINORITY VOTERS

PAUL UPPAL MP

The problem As a Party, we have asked questions about why our performance in urban areas was not what we had hoped for. Whilst much has been attributed to our image with working class inner city voters, a new study suggests that our results with the ethnic minority voters also played a significant role. I will be developing this theme, exploring the problem that the Conservative Party faces and finally providing strategies to improve the Conservative party’s standing amongst BME communities. A recent major study, the Ethnic Minority British Election Study (EMBES) published by Runnymede Trust shows that at the 2010 General Election, only 16% of ethnic minorities voted Conservative.44 We must increase ethnic minority voting for the Conservative Party if we are to win in urban areas and adapt to the changing face of Britain. In David Cameron’s first conference speech in 2005 this issue was highlighted with Cameron saying what we need is ‘fundamental change ... that shows we’re comfortable with modern Britain and that we believe our best days lie ahead.’ This message is as true today as we sit in a as when we were recovering from electoral defeat. The Conservative Party must be willing to change and listen to become a strong electoral force in this modern Britain. Whilst Britain has changed over the past decade; the non-white British population has grown from 6.6 million in 2001 to 9.1 million in 2009 – or nearly one in six, the Conservative Party has been too slow to adapt.45 Whilst working harder to fight the image of the Party as one that only represents the rich is key to reaching working class voters, it is noticeable that

44 Runnymede Trust, Ethnic Minority British Election Study 45 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons 34 Winning over ethnic minority voters | Paul Uppal MP

the Runnymede Trust study shows class is not a major factor in voting behaviour of ethnic minorities. Ethnic minority voters tend to vote Labour regardless of their class. This is supported by research shows that the Conservatives under performance in seats with above average BME populations. Amongst seats with a high percentage of British Asians, Conservatives trail Labour by an average of 16 percentage points and won just 11 out of 58 seats. I believe that this underperformance amongst BME voters was a contributing factor to the Conservative Party failing to win an overall majority. There were eight target seats out of the top 100 that the failed to take from Labour, all but one can be described as having above average BME populations with half being described as having very large BME populations. If the Conservative Party continues to fail to win seats such as Westminster North and Birmingham Edgbaston, with relatively high BME populations of 31.4% and 18.9% respectively (according to the 2001 census), then I cannot envisage the Conservative Party governing alone.

Solutions It may seem that we have a mountain to climb, but I think we can be encouraged by what the Canadian Conservatives have achieved in transforming their success with BME voters. The Canadian Conservative Party achieved a landslide in May 2011 whilst also significantly increasing their appeal to ‘new Canadians’. In 2000 the Liberal Party had a 60 point lead with ‘new Canadians’ At the 2011 election, the Canadian Conservative Party turned this around to take a 20 point lead with ‘new Canadian voters’. Whilst I acknowledge every country is different, I do think we can be encouraged by their success and also learn some lessons. I disagree with some who would say our message needs changing; the barrier is largely one of perception of the party. This is the barrier we need to break down before we can realistically expect to significantly change our electoral success amongst the BME population. Disappointingly, studies such as Lord Ashcroft’s degree of separation have shown that one of the main drivers for not voting Conservative amongst BME communities is the perception that the Party is hostile towards black and ethnic minorities, and does not care about them. I find this very disappointing as this is not the Party I see today. Whilst we can’t change history and what has gone before, we can change perceptions. The Prime Minister, David 35

Cameron has done a lot to revitalise and grow the modern Conservative Party. Evidently, however, a lot more needs to be done to relay this to the voters. If the Conservative Party isn’t engaging with BME voters, if councillors and MPs aren’t attending celebrations at the mosques or temples and visiting community initiatives and if senior politicians aren’t recognising cultural events or being seen in the BME media then this message will continue to not reach BME voters. Our absence allows Labour in addition to other groups to define us to BME communities, entrenching negative perceptions further. To change perceptions we need to be engaged and visible from the grassroots to the top. Better awareness and better engagement are key, but as Baroness Warsi has said, ‘we won’t win hearts and minds overnight’. This cannot just be a strategy for 2015, but a long term process that becomes part of our ethos. Superficial efforts near an election won’t change longstanding perceptions. It’s important we grasp the importance of this now and are consistent with delivering the change. This is not just a message to be taken on by BME MPs or candidates with marginal or seats with a high BME population. If our strategy is to be effective and to be lasting it needs everyone from the , local Associations, MPs in safe seats and senior politicians. Lord Ashcroft’s study showed rather than feeling Conservatives were actively hostile, some felt that the party didn’t care about BME communities and did not value and respect them. It is important that we see better representation of BME communities amongst our MPs in Parliament and I know this is something the Party are committed to. But this won’t solve the problem for us. Whilst ethnic minorities are encouraged to see someone from their own community working as an MP, the Sikh population do not just want to see me addressing them on issues of importance on Sangat TV for example, but also want to see the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members. They want to know they are being listened to and taken seriously. Consequently this is a message for all Conservative MPs, to encourage them to actively be seeking to engage with all communities in their constituencies as the demographics of seats continue to change. I know many of my colleagues already do this and it enriches their work, enabling them to champion and bring to the fore issues they may not have been aware of without this engagement. Our counterparts in Canada have seen the importance of this, the need for serious engagement from the grassroots level right to the top. As through 36 Winning over ethnic minority voters | Paul Uppal MP

engagement we learn the issues, through learning the issues we can take action and through action we show credibility, understanding and support for communities. What was demonstrated in Canada was a deliberate strategy to deliver on the issues that mattered to BME communities, politicians went out into these communities listened and then responded. In raising issues such as the searching of Sikh turbans at airports and the theft of Asian jewellery the Conservative Party can mimic the strategy employed by the Canadian Conservatives and deliver a message that resonates with BME communities in the UK. If we can break through the barriers created by perception and history I believe we will see success as our message is one that will resonate with many BME voters. Whilst I certainly do not think BME voters can be seen as one homogenous group, many people from BME communities would be considered to be conservative in their values. As Katharine Birbalsingh wrote in The Telegraph, ‘It is difficult to talk about ‘ethnic minorities’ since they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, classes, religions, interests and motivations. But there is one thing, more often than not, that they have in common: ethnic minorities tend to be conservative with a small C’.46 As Jason Kenney, Minster for Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada noted, part of their success was through ‘making a sustained effort to reach out based on shared values – turning small c conservatives into big C Conservatives’. From my experience with the Indian Diaspora, who incidentally, from the Runnymede Trust study, are the most likely to vote Conservative, is that many British Indians are naturally small c conservatives in their values, lives and aspirations. As a candidate in Wolverhampton South West I found that when we spoke about the familial or grandparental responsibility, it seemed to resonate widely amongst these voters. Our message is not a difficult one, but perhaps we need to speak up our values more rather than allowing Labour to flood our message as being one of unfairness and ‘out of touch’. At our core we are a Party that stands for justice, personal responsibility, strong families and aspiration. Whilst tackling the deficit has rightly taken precedent since our election, in the years left in this term we must ensure that we are talking up Conservative values and bringing policies that support and reflect them, ensuring voters feel they can identify with us.

46 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100105353/why-do-the-tories-do-so-little-to-court- ethnic-minorities-theyre-natural-conservatives/ 37

Breaking down the barriers created by perception and history is a long term task. There is no single reason why BME communities are resilient to voting Conservative and there is no single message or approach that will remedy this. The facts are simple though; without the increased support of BME communities it is difficult to imagine a Conservative government, governing on its own. With simple steps and a genuine commitment I do believe this future is not inevitable. Once we have broken down these barriers the rest is simple, be careful in our language and strong with our message.

PAUL UPPAL is Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West 38

WINNING IN THE CITIES

GREG CLARK MP

There are 158 constituencies in the North of England. Just 43 of them returned a Conservative MP at the last general election. By way of comparison, Labour took just ten of the 197 constituencies in the South of England outside London. We could comfort ourselves with the thought that Labour has the bigger problem, but complacency won’t win us a majority. Nor is national unity best served by the polarisation of the electoral map. Of course, in any democracy, there will be geographical variations in support for different parties – but few countries are as starkly polarised as our own. It’s therefore time to take the North-South divide seriously. And to do so we need a better understanding of the nature of that divide. For instance, this is much more than a matter of physical distance from Westminster – after all, you can travel hundreds of miles from Big Ben and still find yourself in true-blue territory. We also need to look past differences in the socio-economic make-up of North and South. Though these do exist, it’s also the case that if you compare people from the same backgrounds, Northern voters are less likely than their Southern counterpart to support Conservative candidates. Clearly, there’s something else going on – a lot of things, in fact; but for me the biggest single factor that distinguishes the North from the South is cities. If you look at where people actually live, the North is much more urban place than the South. Of a total Northern population of 13.5 million people, 8.5 million – almost three-fifths – live in the metropolitan counties of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. Other heavily urban areas such as Hull and my native Teesside are home to much of the other two-fifths. Of course, the South has cities too. But leaving London aside, they’re fewer in number and generally smaller in size. Of England’s eight ‘Core Cities’ (the largest 39 cities beyond the capital), five are in the North, two in the Midlands and only one (Bristol) in the South. And if one doesn’t leave London aside? Well, in many ways, this only increases the contrast between North and South. London is in a category of its own – an order of magnitude bigger than any other city in Britain, a world city of enormous economic, political and cultural importance. So while the North is a region of cities, the South is a region of smaller communities centred on a single metropolis in which wealth and power is concentrated to an extraordinary degree. In my view, there is no serious analysis of the North-South divide that doesn’t begin with this vast difference in economic geography. As a capital without a counterweight, London’s sheer size helps explain how Britain became one of the most centralised countries in the free world. At its height, the industrial revolution provided the North – and its growing cities – with the dynamism they needed to escape London’s gravitational pull. But the technological and political products of that revolution gave Whitehall the means and the justification required to exert its control to an ever-greater degree. There are those who say that cities that were once in the right place to exploit the opportunities of industrialisation are now in the wrong place in the era of globalisation. But this utterly misses the point. The greatest strength of cities is their ability to innovate. By providing the greatest possible concentration of people and institutions, cities are where new ideas have the best chance of taking wing. Furthermore when it comes to applying new ideas to their own governance, cities – as spatially coherent, living communities – are ideally placed to know their own strengths and weaknesses and to adapt accordingly to changing economic conditions. This is why over-centralisation has been such a disaster for urban Britain. Over-mighty and over-extended, central government has, for decades, robbed our cities of their trump card: their ability to do things differently. This has been bad for the country as a whole, but particularly bad for the North – being a region characterised by its distinct and diverse cities. Each of these communities should have been empowered to plot its own course to the post-industrial future, but they were instead subject to the uniform prescriptions of a distant bureaucracy. It is this deliberate policy of disempowerment, and not geographical determinism, that explains the economic decline of the North. 40 Winning in the cities | Greg Clark MP

In 2012, the Government published its Unlocking Growth in Cities report, which compared England’s eight core cities (the largest cities outside London) with their equivalents in Germany, France and Italy. In Germany all eight of the biggest cities outside Berlin outperformed the national average in terms of GDP per capita. The same was true of all but two of the Italian core cities. In France, three of the eight outperformed the national average, while none fell significantly below it. Moreover, it wasn’t only GDP that followed this pattern, it could also be seen in respect to the percentage of the workforce with higher qualification and rates of innovation (as measured by patent applications). Patterns like this don’t form themselves over night. They are the result of decisions taken over a century of ever increasing centralisation. In more recent decades, there have been signs of economic renewal in our great cities, which are especially visible in the regeneration of their city centres. But huge reserves of untapped potential remain. The progress that had been made since the 1980s is only the start of what is both possible and necessary. Our cities have already proved that they can make good use of whatever freedoms that national governments have granted to them. But halting, fitful experiments in localism are not enough. Only a sustained and expanding policy of radical decentralisation will do. There need to be qualitative differences in the process of reform too: The irony of previous attempts at decentralisation is that they have been highly centralised in nature – Whitehall has decided which resources and responsible to devolve, making a one-size-fits-all offer to each community on a take-it-or-leave it basis. The City Deals programme, which I’m responsible for as Cities Minister, takes a completely different approach. Each deal is bespoke, not off-the-peg. It is agreed in a two-way negotiation between central government and the city in question. Each community has a right of initiative – to propose what it wants in the deal. And rather than the city having to show why it should have this or that item in the deal, the burden of proof – in the event of a disagreement – is on Ministers to show why it shouldn’t. The first wave of City Deals have already been agreed with the core cities of Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. The second wave, involving twenty additional urban areas, is currently in progress. With the publication of Lord Heseltine’s landmark report 41 on promoting growth in local economies – No stone unturned – decentralisation will move to an even higher gear. From the moment that this Government took office and set about dismantling the apparatus of top-down state control, we made it clear that each decentralising reform represented a point of departure not a destination. To remove a central control, to devolve a decision-making power doesn’t just serve a purpose in itself, it lays the foundation for further decentralisation – by reducing dependency on the centre, building up local capacity and inspiring further city-led initiatives. I believe that this dynamic process of change will produce positive economic results for our cities long before any shift in party political allegiances. However, it is pretty clear to me that the old order of disempowered Northern cities, prevented from shaping their own futures, was very much to the advantage of our opponents. All the time the main question is ‘what can the Government do for our cities?’ then the party of tax, borrow and spend will have the upper hand. But if we can change the question to ‘what can this city do for itself?’, then many good things are sure to follow.

GREG CLARK is the Minister for Cities, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Member of Parliament for Tunbridge Wells. 42

ENGAGING WITH ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE

SHAUN BAILEY

This essay will seek to examine why it is important that the Conservative Party engage with the working vote, and the methods and policies that can be used to do so.

Look – Acknowledging the Problem This essay will define the ‘working vote’ to be those who work, and those that do not work but want to, who earn between £15,000 and £40,000 a year. According to The Resolution Foundation this translates to around a third of working-age households, and 7.8 million workers.47 What happens in this group affects everyone: if you’re one of the lowest earners in the country, you’re trying to move into this group, and if you’re beyond this group, there is a strong likelihood that your children are in this group. This group touches all vocations, genders, ages and ethnic groups in society. Ultimately though, this is the demographic that the Conservative Party finds hardest to reach. Whether it’s young people, ethnic minorities, public sector workers, or Northerners, we have to repair the relationship between the Conservatives and working people, in the run up to the next election. We’ve got to realign voters with the party and disrupt the relationship that Labour have simply assumed they hold with British workers. We must establish trust between the party and the public, and focus on combating the ‘out of touch’ narrative. We have to show that the Conservative Party do understand the difficulties that people face. When 52% of people who earn less than £20,000 and 46% of those who earn between £20,000 and £39,999

47 The Resolution Foundation, Squeezed Britain 2013, p.5. 43 believe they are going to be worse off in 2015 than at present, we need to give them a reason to believe we’re the right party to run the country.48 To do this, we need a dual focus on both communication and policy.

Talk – Establishing Effective Communication Regular and Often The foundation of our communication needs to be an understanding of ‘regular and often’. People only absorb a message when they hear it repeatedly, and it’s our job to make sure they are hearing the right messages. The leadership and the Party need to match their rhetoric and communication with continual, planned actions that show an ability to follow through on promises. There has to be a consistency of message coming from MP’s as well. This repetition might appear dull to the press, but the public never grow tired of hearing how their concerns are being dealt with. This cannot be done only in the top levels of the party; it must be spread throughout the entire party to show widespread understanding and empathy. This activity needs to challenge the very powerful twin notions that ‘the Conservatives aren’t for me’, and ‘Labour understand me better’. Lord Ashcroft’s report suggested that, only 30% of white voters agreed the Conservative Party was ‘in touch with the concerns of people like you’; Labour did rather better on 45%, a lead of 15 points. Among Asian voters, though, Labour led by 37 points on this measure (65% to 28%), and among black voters by 59 points (75% to 16%).49 This pattern is a damaging one. The party need to look, talk and act more diversely. At the last election the Party increased its number of BME MPs from 2 to 11 which was a big improvement. Yet we still remain behind Labour with 16 BME MPs. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand have no BME MPs. Despite our progress, you would never know there was diversity in the party by looking at the front bench. This failure robs the Conservatives of appeal, on both television and in the media more widely. By not visually presenting our diversity, we are missing out on opportunities to demonstrate that the Conservatives are for everybody.

48 The Resolution Foundation, The Living Standards Election, p.9. 49 Lord Ashcroft KCMG, Degrees of Separation: Ethnic Minority and the Conservative Party, p.28 44 Engaging with Ordinary Working People | Shaun Bailey

We are a meritocratic party but we have to ensure that this is matched with diversity; politicians from working class and minority backgrounds must be visible to the public. Whether it’s on the front bench or in the or party spokespeople, people from these backgrounds need to be seen to be supporting the party. This will help us build momentum. It isn’t about offering token placements, but recognising the strength and ability within our ranks and talking about how valued this is. Alongside this, we need to put down new markers about what it is to be British and repeat this message of inclusivity time and again. Talking about a colourless Britain is not as powerful as talking about a diverse and integrated Britain. The public need to understand what we are aiming for, and the fact that this is underpinned by a belief that integration is absolutely the right thing to do. It’s time to redefine the civic test. Could the Party be the ones to galvanise the term ‘Black British’? How we welcome this new notion of ‘Britishness’ is important. Diversity must be talked about as a point of strength. We need party members to realise that an inclusive party is the only way to win a majority. We cannot settle for the guilty, left-wing take on diversity that gives token roles to token people; we need a cohesive understanding that diversity makes us stronger. Our words are only going to hold meaning, though, if they are backed by actions. It is imperative, therefore, that we are use events to demonstrate our core beliefs. We need to be running quality events that are based on problems working people are concerned with, focussing on issues like the living wage, house prices, the cost of living, crime, and the cost of food. We must be seen to put the public ahead of big business, and display our concern if we hope to find a platform for dialogue that connects with working people. By carefully choosing speakers and venues that are designed to add to the effectiveness of our message, we can align ourselves with the right kind of third party endorsement that will show our diversity as we work alongside others.

Holding Labour to account Alongside these actions, it is right that we develop a narrative on Labour and their policy. We should look to expose how their policies are destined to fail and are the ‘same old same old’ – that they’re still committed to tax and spend, the hypocrisy of Ed Miliband attending the anti-cuts march and later saying Labour would also 45 have to cut, their lack of investment in the sectors that provide high paying jobs, skilled and unskilled, to benefit the groups that they claim to have affinity with. We must question all of their rhetoric to challenge its apparent attractiveness, before revealing the inherent weaknesses. Whilst none of this is new, it does need to be done in systematic fashion, using a ‘language pallet’ designed to be memorable. Similar to the tactic used to highlight the failings of Gordon Brown’s policies in the last election, simple, emotional phrases that ‘stick’, and can be repeated time and time again, should be developed. When Brown left our criticisms, to some extent, became invalid because they were based on his leadership. Learning from this, we have to build strong arguments against the Labour Party ethos. Equally, we have allowed the Liberal Democrats to assume a position of a civilising force on the Conservatives. This happened because we have not talked enough about the positive changes we have made for working people whilst in government. Reading this, you may be thinking ‘yes we have’ but my contention is, if the message is not delivered again and again by a diverse group of people we have not. Achievements such as the massive amount of low paid workers moved out of the tax system and the delivery of a fairer benefit system are all important issues to this group; but the message will only be heard when coming from the right people. The Liberal Democrats have shown a pattern of inconsistency which makes them unpopular, and yet we have not engaged with this narrative to show contrast between their work and ours, if we hope to gain soft Lib Dem votes at the election we should use this opportunity to show we have delivered our policy pledges.

Act – Being Proactive in Policy Policy action is vital to reach the 42% of people that have stated they would never vote Conservative. Policies need to reflect an understanding of what working people face in day to day life. These recommendations are a starting point for some for the policy direction that could be taken:

• The Prime Minister making a speech addressing working people, and the desire to see Great Britain working again, thus showing from that this is a Party wide initiative. This should be approached as a compelling invitation to those who have not ever voted Conservative to do so; then lay out why. 46 Engaging with Ordinary Working People | Shaun Bailey

• A cost of living task force to look at how the Government and commercial companies can reduce/control the cost of living. This task force could look at things such as access to cheap credit for low income households, utility bills and petrol prices. • Increased support for credit unions to encourage low income families/ people to establish savings. Savings are the single biggest factor in helping people stay positive. Just over half of low – middle income households have no savings at all and two-thirds have less than a month’s income in savings. This leaves them vulnerable to unexpected costs that are beyond their means. By vocalising our support for credit unions, we establish an understanding that savings equate to security and stability; something many people they do not have. • A housing strategy that builds a large number and wide variety of homes including council houses. We have all the necessary resources and components to make this happen, but we don’t have the culture. This is something that the Government can step in and change. These homes should be available to be bought by the average household. • We should consider tagging particular types of offenders systematically e.g. Convicted paedophiles or other serious violent offenders to allow police and other authorities to track their location 24 hours a day. • We should legislate on policy that supports small businesses by setting a standard of 30 days in which small businesses must be paid for goods or services provided. Cutting red tape, providing a VAT holiday, and any other initiatives that encourage business development.

Anybody who has been involved in the front line of Conservative politics for the last ten years or more (councillors and activists) will know the need for clear domestic policy in order to win the doorstep battle. To anybody involved in national Conservative politics, you will know the long-term battle we have had with our ‘out of touch’ reputation, and our retreat to the South. But make no mistake; this can be changed. For years we have let The Labour Party control our relationship with the working vote by setting the conversation; in effect, controlling our PR with certain groups. It has not always been this way; most people don’t believe me when I tell them there was a time when most trade unionists voted Conservative, but there was and it was not so long ago. It is time 47 that the Conservative Party took control of this because if we don’t winning a majority will be impossible. I feel like the change is underway, with the advent of groups such as Renewal. We now need to build on this, and do it quickly; clear, powerful, simple and most of all consistent messaging.

SHAUN BAILEY was the Conservative candidate for Hammersmith at the 2010 election and is the Government Youth and Community Engagement Champion.

49

CONSERVATISM FOR THE PEOPLE 50

CONSERVATISM FOR THE CONSUMER

LAURA SANDYS MP

It is important that the Conservative Party has a clear, coherent consumer policy that informs departmental thinking, and places consumers centre stage. We must regain our ambition for delivering competition, improved customer service and innovation across our economy. These are the values that guided our policies around privatisation – we can do the same for consumers by reviving our belief that they are the true arbiters of markets. We have always believed that capitalism is there to serve consumers and is at its best when driven by informed, powerful consumers, who demand market innovation and greater efficiency. What is good for consumers and competition is ultimately good for the best businesses and delivers sustainable growth. Bad markets disguise, mislead or control consumer choice. Over the past ten years government policy has been captured by the supply side of markets – we now need to reboot our commitment to consumers. We need a fundamental redesign of markets, regulators and government departments to put the real market makers – the consumers – at the heart of our economy. A 21st century set of consumer policies would re-engineer our current consumer policies from being solely those of a ‘victim needing protection’ and include consumer empowerment and self determination. These polices must explicitly include our recognition that consumers deserve fair markets, real competition and truthful, transparent and comprehensible information. We must value the consumer’s independence from the supply chain as this makes them the only ‘dispassionate’ player in a dynamic market. Although Whitehall and legislators often focus on the supply chain, the demand chain offers us a new set of priorities in framing markets – it is not for us to determine the nature of markets, but it is for the consumer to have all the information – easily available, in clear language with comparable units of value. 51

It is only once they have this information that consumers truly have the ability to influence the market. Horsemeat, dodgy promotions, Equitable Life, doorstep selling, PPI – the news is full of rip-offs, lies and deceit at the heart of our market economy. Worryingly the consumer rip off is being conflated by some with the free market – linking these travesties, and even criminality, with the principle of deregulated markets and privatisation. Due to sharp practices, consumers are sometimes being asked to absorb inflation with no knowledge that the real value or unit price has increased. It must never be acceptable to ‘disguise’ a price rise or a value reduction by packaging, ingredient shifts or promotions that do not deliver better price per unit. Consumers need clear information that reduces the asymmetry of information between the producer and the consumer and delivers real purchasing power. Of all the practices being used to rip off consumers, shrinking the size of products has become a particular favourite of favourite of food companies. This sees product packaging and presentation remaining the same, but the ‘consumerable content’ shrinking. This is happening across a wide range of products – but, of course, with no banner saying ‘30% LESS’. Consumers do not, and should not have to, remember content weights and measures for their favourite products in order to try and establish whether its content has been reduced. The ‘promotion’ is also keenly pursued by companies to excite and incentivise customers, but again, is this becoming a mechanism to disguise price rises and hide product changes? With sometimes 60% of products in supermarkets on promotion one needs to question if the promotional price is the real price and that the ‘normal’ price is inflated. One supermarket has been accused of raising and lowering prices on products so that no one knows what the promotional price is. Others have had their ‘value’ promise investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority. In order to combat market asymmetry and to reinstate the consumer to their rightful place at the heart of markets, I am proposing that the Conservative Party adopts the following policies:

Establishment of a for Consumers: The Minister responsible for the consumer needs to have a government-wide role. By being based in the 52 Conservatism for the consumer | Laura Sandys MP

Cabinet Office this Minister would be able to migrate across all government departments to seek out market failure.

Strengthen the Competition and Market Authority’s Consumer Remit: We need to review the CMA’s consumer remit and assess whether its scope and powers could be further enhanced to ensure greater transparency and symmetry between the consumer and the supply chain.

Reform of Consumer Governance: While each regulator has consumer representatives on their board, market design is often focused around the supply dynamic. We need to review regulator’s remits to strengthen the consumer voice not just in terms of redress but in terms of consumer activism and efficiency. Consumer research needs to be ongoing to assess behaviour and level of engagement with the markets. Consumer activism within markets needs to be guiding the regulators decision-making and be part of their reporting requirements.

Simplify product information for the Consumer: Simplifying terms and conditions, complaints/redress should be a central theme for Government. Conservatives regularly discuss simplifying regulations for businesses, but are rarely heard advocating the same for consumers. ‘Simple’ product design should be implemented, rather than expecting consumers to do mental contortions in order to understand a product group or business sector. We also need to do more to take the friction out of switching in difficult markets – be that energy or banking.

Greater standardisation of consumer metrics and comprehensible labelling: Weights and measures/pricing units/quality units need to be reviewed to ensure consistency in both unit and information delivered. Data must be comprehensible, clear, comparable and contestable. Meaningful units must be introduced – e.g.: What is a kWh? What does it mean and what does it deliver? Labelling is still not understandable by consumers and needs to be designed around real consumer values.

Presumption of Truth: Consumers should be able to rely on a presumption of truth from companies with increased penalties to companies who either distort the truth 53 or whose information is intentionally misleading. The role of trading standards should be enhanced and corporate deceit should attract greater penalties.

Corporate ‘Village Green Stocks’: Redress needs to become much simpler and public, with compulsory reporting of consumer breaches prominently displayed on regulators websites, and part of the annual reporting from departments on any regulated sectors. Hidden costs, unexpected changes, shocks and surprises for consumers must be borne down on.

As a party, Conservatives need to re-engineer how they look at markets and ensure that the push and pull of the consumer can be felt throughout the supply chain, not just when they become victims of a supply led system. Consumer interests and activism need to be promoted through all departments and the supply chain design needs to be replaced by strong demand side policies. Politically there is also a vacuum. No party has embraced the philosophy of delivering true markets through serving the consumer. There is no party that is more appropriate to take up the consumer’s mantle than the Conservative Party. We truly believe in markets, but most importantly we believe that the consumer has the ability to make, shape or break a product. Consumers as market makers and market shapers must be the most important element of a vibrant, healthy and innovative market. It is now our role to remind the market that the consumer must be king.

LAURA SANDYS is Member of Parliament for South Thanet and is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Greg Barker MP at the Department for Energy and Climate Change. 54

CONSERVATISM FOR THE LOW PAID

MATTHEW HANCOCK MP

Wrongly, tackling low pay hasn’t always been seen as a Conservative priority in the past. That must change. There is a huge job to do to ensure growth in the economy benefits everyone in our society. Unfortunately, the last Labour Government provided us with pretty sound empirical proof that growth doesn’t necessarily reach the pay packet. In the so-called boom years between 2003 and 2008 GDP grew by 11% while median earnings remained flat. The subsequent crash taught us an important lesson: you create sustainable growth by strengthening pay for low and middle income earners, not the other way round. Rapid GDP growth at a time of stagnant earnings is positively dangerous, because the whole edifice relies on borrowing to make up the shortfall in demand. If anything should happen to cut off the supply of credit – like a banking crash for example – then the economy is in serious trouble. So low pay matters to the centre-right. Not only is the economic case overwhelming but the moral case too. As unabashed supporters of the free market we have a special responsibility to ensure that capitalism works for everyone. We are the party of aspiration, and the low paid shift-worker who works overtime and saves hard wants the best for his family no less than his boss, or his boss’s boss. Under Labour, the answer to low pay was welfarism in the form of tax credits. This only entrenched the problem of an economy that was too on dependent on debt, since higher welfare spending was financed by growing the deficit. It also damaged incentives, not only the incentives of employees but also of employers. After all, if wages are subsidised by the state why bother investing in the skills and capital needed to raise productivity? The left’s approach has been tested to 55 destruction, now we on the centre-right must make the case that Conservative policies are best placed to deliver for the low paid. In areas where it directly controls pay this Government has protected the low paid as much as possible. Those earning under £21,000 are exempt from the public sector pay freeze, and our reforms to public sector pensions were designed to be progressive, with the best paid taking the biggest hit. Outside the employment directly controlled by the state there are three more levers of policy which government can use to influence earnings: the minimum wage, tax, and productivity. The most explicit rule governing low pay is the national minimum wage. Some on the right maintain that the minimum wage harms our economy by undermining competitiveness, but again this has things back to front. Of course we need to make Britain more competitive, but the reason we’re competing in the first place is so people can be better paid. Competition is a means of achieving greater freedom and opportunity, it is not an end in itself. The standard economic argument against the minimum wage is that it prices people out of the labour market. Given that the minimum wage is one of the most intensively studied topics in the whole of economics, you would expect opponents of the policy to be able to prove this fairly conclusively. There are now so many papers on the minimum wage that economists have started to publish studies of studies. But what the empirical literature actually shows is that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low wage workers. This is partly because increased pay raises the efficiency of the workforce – employers have a greater incentive to get more out of their staff – and partly because profits rather than jobs tend to absorb the impact on the wage bill. So Conservatives should stop worrying and learn to love the minimum wage. A stronger minimum wage is a powerful incentive, particularly when it comes to welfare reform. The bigger the pay rise you get when you come off benefits and into work, the more likely you are to get off benefits. A strong minimum wage creates the right incentives by helping make work pay. So we need to strengthen the minimum wage, as we did recently when we raised the apprentice minimum wage above the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission. On its own, however, the minimum wage is not enough. We also have to look at the tax system, because post-tax pay is what really matters. Again, Conservatives 56 Conservatism for the low paid | Matthew Hancock MP

in government have a powerful story to tell. Raising the tax threshold from £6,475 to £10,000 has cut by three quarters the income tax paid by someone working 35 hours a week on the current minimum wage. This amounts to a rise in take- home pay of £700, or three weeks wages, with almost three million of the lowest earners taken out of paying income tax altogether. Left-wing economists argue that tax credits are a cheaper, more targeted way of achieving the same result, but again this ignores the crucial question of incentives. By increasing the marginal withdrawal rate, tax credits damage work incentives, whereas by lowering the marginal rate of tax for the low paid, higher tax thresholds improve them. The centre-right are best placed to deliver on post-tax pay because sustainable tax cuts can only be paid for by reductions in public spending, and a party without credibility on controlling spending has no credibility on cutting taxes. Tax and the minimum wage are essential elements in the plan to tackle low pay over the short term, but over the long term the only way to secure better pay is to become more productive. To be clear, this does not mean working longer hours, any more than being more competitive equates to paying people less. More time at work means less time in the garden, less time with the family. I want to see the kind of productivity gains which make us more free, not less. The key thing is to increase output per hour, not output per worker. In part, improving productivity is about maintaining a highly flexible jobs market, with efficient job matching, low barriers to job creation, and a diverse range of working patterns available to people. Flexibility in the non-wage part of the labour market helps support the low paid by ensuring that businesses can respond to shocks without cutting wages. More importantly, we need to help businesses increase the value of whatever it is they are selling, so that higher wage bills are more than offset by extra money in the till. I’m prepared to spend more at my favourite coffee shop because on top their basic training, the staff there really know how to make a good coffee. In other words, they are highly skilled. Specialised expertise raises the status of the profession, creating a better motivated workforce, and a more confident and effective sales team. Because his or her services are worth more to the business, a trained barista may well be able to command higher wages. Our own history provides good evidence that higher wages can actually result in greater competitiveness. In the late eighteenth century British workers’ wages 57 were among the highest in the world, thanks to the success of our global trading empire. The relatively high cost of labour was what led British entrepreneurs to invest in labour-saving devices like the spinning jenny in textiles, allowing workers to produce much more for much less than our competitors. As a result, Britain was the first country in the world to industrialise. Today, investment in human capital is just as important as investment in physical capital. The iPhone costs Apple around $180 to manufacture and assemble, it’s able to retail for three times that because millions of people are prepared to pay top dollar for the design. In a world where value is added on the drawing board rather than the production line, education and skills matter more than ever before. Strengthening the skills system must be at the heart of our strategy to drive up pay. We’ve made a good start. Under this Government more than a million new Apprenticeships have begun. The money spent on Apprenticeships pays for itself twenty times over with the direct benefit to a Higher Apprentice estimated at £150,000 over the course of their lifetime. And because we listen to employers rather than assume that Whitehall knows best, we’re making the system more rigorous and responsive to the needs of business. It’s consistently shown that English and maths are the building blocks of the skills system, so reforming schools to ensure that everyone gets a decent education is vital too. Again, the centre-right is best placed to deliver on reform because we’re prepared to take on the vested interests who oppose it. The essence of Conservatism is helping the individual to help themselves. In the twenty-first century there can be no better application of that principle than supporting the low paid by cutting taxes, backing the minimum wage and improving skills. It’s critical for the freedom and prosperity of the whole nation that we succeed.

MATTHEW HANCOCK is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills and Member of Parliament for West Suffolk 58

CONSERVATISM FOR SOCIAL MOBILITY

DAMIEN HINDS MP

Opportunity for all Right up there with family, enterprise and nation, Conservatives are the party of opportunity. We believe it is self-evident that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential. We also know that, in a competitive world, individual opportunity is a must for our collective prosperity; studies show that reaching international benchmarks for social mobility could eventually be worth 4% on GDP.50 The ‘global race’ that David Cameron spoke of at the 2012 Conservative conference is the context of all policy, and class or occupational immobility impedes a country’s ability to compete. That is where we are. Our children’s prospects are significantly more predictable from their parents’ social class than in most competitor nations. Today’s forty somethings have been less socially mobile than those born a decade earlier. The gap between the privately educated elite and the rest yawns pretty much as wide as ever. Famously, private schools educate 7% of people, but 70% of High Court judges. The underlying causes are manifold. A 2012 all-party parliamentary group report, Seven Key Truths about Social Mobility,51 illustrated the range of ‘swing factors’ throughout the life cycle. Parenting, teacher quality, out of school opportunities, careers advice, and the development of ‘character’ and personal resilience all play a part. The Coalition has a strong record here, especially through ’s education reforms. Perhaps most important in this sphere is the pupil premium, which starts to rebalance the odds for the disadvantaged. Less well known

50 BCG / Sutton Trust 51 http://www.appg-socialmobility.org/ 59 but equally important is the £125m investment in an Education Endowment Foundation to stimulate innovation and help scale-up projects proven to help break the link between poorer backgrounds and poorer educational outcomes. Other key initiatives include the extension of childcare entitlement among disadvantaged families, increases in the number of health visitors, reform of both academic and vocational qualifications, raising the school/college leaving age, and the massive growth in apprenticeships. But given the scale of the challenge there is a long way to go. Whilst there is a wide range of public policy issues involved three good places to start are home life, school, and the ‘x-factor’.

It starts at home The point of greatest leverage for someone’s chances in life is what happens at the very start. Recent academic studies52 have questioned some of the more dramatic findings on how ‘rich thick kids’ quickly overtake their brighter but poorer peers. But the underlying point stands: from even a very early age big differences in development are discernible between children from different socioeconomic backgrounds – and this gap persists. Inherited ability cannot explain the extent of the gap, and clearly what happens in those first few months and years makes a big difference. Books at home, reading aloud, regular bed times, a good diet, ‘tough love’ – these are all things that improve development and are also, for whatever reason, on average correlated with parental income.53 Already by the age of five there is said to be a 19 month gap in vocabulary between children from the highest income and lowest income homes.54 Policy responses thus far have centred on childcare and nursery education, through Sure Start and the 15 hours entitlement extended to disadvantaged two year olds. This can clearly make a difference, but there is a limit to which you can or would want to bring more and more children, earlier and earlier, into a state childcare setting. In any case most of a baby and toddler’s time is spent at home and much of what makes the biggest difference can generally only be done by Mum.

52 See Jerrim and Vignoles’s 2011 Instituite of Education paper http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1101.pdf 53 See Goodman & Gregg, cited in An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK, National Equality Panel, 2010 54 Waldfogel & Washbrook, Research Findings for the Sutton Trust / Carnegie Foundation Social Mobility Summit, May 2012 60 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP

At the most acute end of scale, the government is rightly promoting proven early intervention programmes like the Family Nurse Partnership, and getting agencies to work together in the Troubled Families initiative. Innovative approaches like the Parent Infant Project (PIP-UK), championed by MP, are gaining traction. The effective financial returns of these programmes are generally attractive, since the downside costs of inaction (more children in care, more social problems, eventually more criminal justice cases) are so great. The next challenge is broader and harder: supporting parenting through a much wider part of the population. This can be uncomfortable territory for Conservatives as no one wants to be nannying, telling other parents how to bring up their children. There is also not the option of spending large amounts of money. But we do need to find creative ways to ensure there is support available when needed with early attachment, and to improve the home learning environment. One interesting idea, put forward by the think tank CentreForum, is to adopt a version of the ‘five-a-day’ awareness campaign for parenting (read a story; turn off the TV and talk to baby; etc.).55 Popular media have a role to play, and perhaps social media do, too. But the human approach is irreplaceable – which is why finding new reasons for mums and dads to want to come to Children’s Centres is so crucial. And alongside increasing numbers of health visitors, we also need a review of how best they can support.

School It is not that parents’ social class dictates their children’s social class. Rather, parents’ social class has a massive effect on their children’s educational attainment and it is that which predicts their eventual place in society. The link is an indirect one, and it can be broken through what is achieved at school and if/where you go to university. That last bit is really important. Going to university levels the playing field – with your peers at the same tier of university. It is noteworthy that while there has been a significant increase in Higher Education participation among disadvantaged young people, this has been concentrated on ‘recruiting’ (as opposed to ‘selecting’) universities, while the rate at which those young people get into the top third of universities has remained broadly flat since the mid 1990s.56

55 Centre Forum, Parenting Matters, http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/parenting-matters.pdf 56 See Figure 34 in http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economics-and-statistics/docs/s/11-1007-supporting- analysis-for-higher-education-white-paper 61

The university admissions gap isn’t only or even mainly about the difference between private and state schools – but that distinction is perhaps the starkest and certainly one of the easiest to measure. It seems wrong that 21% of offers at Russell group universities are made to pupils from schools who account for only 7% of the total school population.57 But the analysis of what may be awry changes when you know that those same schools account for 13% of those even studying A Levels, 19% of those passing three (at C or above) and fully 32% of those with three A grades.58 The obvious point is that attainment in state schools needs to be improved. This is not just about raw numbers of exams at Grade C or above, but about stretching pupils at all ability levels, and improving subject choices – in high quality vocational qualifications and the sorts of core academic (as it happens, traditional) subjects that the best universities favour. Michael Gove’s record on all this could hardly be faulted and stands in contrast to the ‘good average’ approach taken by the last government. Sir Michael Wilshaw is quite right that ‘satisfactory’ is not, in fact, very satisfactory. Social mobility challenges are rarely simple. Different approaches are generally needed on different parts of the scale: to tackle the most entrenched disadvantage; to nurture outstanding talent at the top end; and to ensure we fully stimulate and stretch those most likely to be forgotten in the debate – the 60% or 70% in between.

Tackling disadvantage Durham University have produced a comprehensive analysis of which techniques and programmes work not only overall, but specifically also help narrow the gap for the disadvantaged.59 It turns out that some cherished initiatives – especially reducing class sizes and appointing more classroom assistants – are not only expensive but relatively ineffective too. Some of the things said to be most effective, and cost effective, have names – ‘Meta-cognition and self-regulation strategies’, ‘Peer-assisted learning’ – that may not immediately endear them. But we need to keep an open mind and ensure evidence-based programmes are pursued (and constantly challenged).

57 Hansard 23 Mar 2012 : Column 890W 58 Hansard 23 Feb 2012 : Column 955W 59 http://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/ 62 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP

There is a particular challenge with children in care. State boarding schools could perhaps play a bigger role and could be supported or run on shared sites by strong Academies.

Stretching the brightest The grammar school debate is not about to go away. But if you probe deeper, when people talk about wanting a grammar school often it turns out that they are less bothered about academic selection than about a school on a human scale, where teachers wear suits but not ID badges, and the children wear ties and stand up when an adult enters the room. Gove’s reforms can deliver the quality and diversity in the education system that people want. But if we are serious about nurturing outstanding talent, really equalising the odds with sector, we have to think radically. There is no appetite in the country for a wholesale return to academic selection at 11, for good reasons, but why not have at least one unashamedly academically elite state school in each county or major conurbation? The Sutton Trust point out that before the abolition of the direct grant scheme in 1976, 70% of leading private day schools in England were principally state funded. The Trust is now floating a modernised version, places allocated on a ‘needs-blind’ basis, with fee subsidies up to 100% according to parental income. The overall cost per place to the state need be no more than at a maintained comprehensive.

Everybody else Wherever on the ability scale you are, and whatever type of school, one factor dominates all others, and that is the quality of the person standing at the front of class. The Government have done very well with Teach First expansion and raising the bar for entry – and thus the status of the profession. But it is difficult for you, or indeed anyone else, to know if you’ll make a good teacher until you’ve actually tried it. There should be more taster session opportunities and auditioning of would-be teachers. Once in, performance related pay is long overdue; and more attention needs to be given to managing those unsuited to the profession out and into an alternative career. 63

The ‘x’ factor Whatever GCSEs you got you are more likely to get on in life if you believe you can, if you have the drive to keep on doing what it takes, and the fortitude to bounce back when things inevitably go wrong. Many believe that these attributes – let’s call them character and resilience – over-index among the alumni of top schools (whether state or private). There is another set of skills, too, that help you succeed regardless of your academic record. These skills, ranging from teamwork to self-presentation to customer empathy, are termed ‘non-cognitive skills’ in contrast to the ‘cognitive skills’ typically tested for at the school – but at least as vital in the workplace. Though impossible to quantify, the two sets of skills or attributes – character/ resilience and non-cognitive skills – play a vital role in progress through life with the potential to mitigate or trump any deficit in paper qualifications. They must therefore be a key focus for public policy on social mobility. Many Conservatives will, like me, be sceptical that you can ‘teach’ teamwork, leadership, self-belief or the work ethic. Actually, there are ways in which curriculum and subject content design can contribute. But a hard-nosed appraisal is required, lest we encourage less-rigorous subjects, on account of their supposed ‘soft skills’ element. But there is another, broader way that the education system can develop these traits: through the discipline of stretching courses with terminal exams that require persistence in study, and some of which you may well fail. More broadly, we need to think about how these less tangible characteristics develop, and why they appear to do so in different ways in different places and for different people. From a social mobility perspective we could say, crudely, that the challenge is how to replicate ‘public school confidence’ at scale in the state sector. Whenever you ask an educationalist the reasons that private schools outperform state schools, the two responses you invariable get are: money (and therefore facilities and small classes) and intake selection. Clearly both of these are massive factors. But perhaps their enormity blinds us to everything else. We should look also at the role of team games, class rankings, self-study, subject mix, the house system and learning beyond the curriculum. It is notable that many (though certainly not all) top-performing state schools mimic some or all of these features. It’s also about what happens after the school bell rings. Intuitively, we know that organisations like the Scouts and Cadets do a great deal to develop character. 64 Conservatism for social mobility | Damien Hinds MP

On extra-curricular activities, often the gap between richer areas and poorer ones is less about availability than participation rates, so throwing more money at it isn’t necessarily the answer. We need to learn from the programmes and organisations that do manage to get and keep people signed up. Along with character comes attitude and aspiration, and this is where the government’s wider agenda comes in. If you live in a home where no adult has ever gone out to work, in an estate where no one goes to university, attend a school where no one is pushed to As and A*s, it is hardly surprising if your own horizons get limited. For social mobility, welfare reform and school reform go hand in hand. Social mobility – opportunity for all – is at the heart of Conservatism. The Coalition government has been bold. The next, majority Conservative, government can be bolder still. It is crucial for social justice and imperative for our national competitiveness and prosperity.

DAMIEN HINDS is the Member of Parliament for East Hampshire 65

CONSERVATISM FOR EVERY PART OF THE COUNTRY 66

WINNING IN THE NORTH

GUY OPPERMAN MP

I have spent a large part of the last twelve months analysing, writing and discussing the Conservative Party’s ‘Northern problem’. My conclusion may be somewhat surprising: I don’t think we actually have a Northern problem. What my party does have is a problem speaking to certain key parts of the North. For the last 20 years we haven’t been able to get a single Tory elected in Newcastle. It’s not just Newcastle: in four of our greatest cities, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, out of the 348 Councillors they elect, not one is a Conservative. I wanted to know why. I wanted to work out what was going wrong. My journey started on the 1 August 2012, when I set off from Sheffield to walk 270 miles to Scotland, broadly sticking to the route of the Pennine Way, but stopping off in the many towns, cities and villages which make up ‘the North’. I dusted down my walking boots, and started one of the most interesting and enlightening 22 days of my short political career. Why? I wanted to find out for myself why our party, the true ‘One Nation’ party, had stopped connecting with large sections of the Northern counties. I spent a lot of time talking to people, quizzing them and listening to how they perceived us. I did fourteen events along the way, including a Q and A session at the Comrades Club in Haltwhistle, and an event with a Labour MP in Sheffield. I talked to the good people of Halifax, Skipton and Bradford, and was in last summer when the English Defence League came mob handed into town trying to cause trouble with the Kashmiri community. What I found was fascinating: in many of the towns and all across the industrial manufacturing heartland of Yorkshire we are doing surprisingly well. Where we had a strong base of activists and Councillors, and a hardworking MP – like 67

Kris Hopkins in Keighley, or Jason McCartney in Colne Valley – our message about reforming welfare, helping working families and clearing up Labour’s mess was penetrating. Spending time in Sheffield, Bradford and Newcastle made me question why areas with so much in common, could diverge so much politically. Bradford once had as leader of the Council, and shortly before he became MP for neighbouring Keighley in 2010, Kris Hopkins MP was the leader of the Bradford Council. When I started out on my walk, in Northumberland, the most Northern County in England, we had 17 Conservative County Councillors. Fast forward 9 months, and after this May 2013’s tough set of local elections, we actually increased our number of seats in Northumberland to 21. In my constituency of Hexham the 2013 County Council Elections saw our vote share up from 50% to 55%. In seats like Hexham West, which we hadn’t held for the last decade, we managed to turn a 14% Lib Dem majority into a 19% Conservative one. Better still, in the urban South East of the County, we were able to win Cramlington West – an offshoot of North Newcastle, which Labour has held for almost 100 years. This was the only Conservative gain from Labour in the whole Country. UKIP failed to register at all, gaining less than 10% across my own constituency. I also spent time in April 2013 helping to run our party’s by-election in South Shields, after abandoned the seat for the bright lights of New York. It is true that South Shields was probably never going to elect a Tory MP. However, what was interesting was the lack of enthusiasm for Labour. In a constituency where voting Labour is often seen as a matter of tribal loyalty, rather than one of political choice, Labour hit just 50.4% of the vote. This at a time when we are 3 years into the Coalition Government, in the worst recession in living memory. Labour quite strangely are in decline in places like South Shields; their vote has been falling, slowly but consistently, by 21% since 1997. Labour may be far from dead and buried in the North East, but the patient is sicker than for a long time. There may be many reasons for that, but one has shone through on the doorstep. Time and time again, as I have wandered the streets canvassing in the North East these last 12 months, I have found a strange, almost surreal, lack of support for a Prime Minister Miliband. Yes, people are unhappy at a Coalition Government that has to reduce public spending, and annoyed when we 68 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP

muck things up. Yet they know that on the key issue – of who is best to keep the country from rack and ruin – very few have any faith in the two Eds. Miliband has failed to build confidence in its ability to handle the economy. Labour score good headlines every now and again, and woo individual groups by opposing every government cut since Beveridge was a boy, but Miliband does not possess a winning economic message, particularly as his positions on opposing the benefits and immigration caps are vote losers here in the North. However, this article isn’t just about winning the 2015 election. It’s about winning in the North of England. The breakthrough will not be sudden. Political turnarounds take years to achieve. It took the Labour Party 18 years in opposition before it learnt how to win again. Our journey to win again in those urban areas of the North will take time. It is a journey where, in many places, we have a very low base. We need to pick local candidates on a long term basis and then support them. Without such candidates and councillors as the local Conservative leaders we will struggle. In order to reach out to the inner cities and suburbs which dominate the urban North we need a renewed focus, a manifesto for cities, which makes a grand bargain with the urban North. We need a message to sell. That work, reconnecting our party with huge swathes of disenchanted voters in the urban North, is the big prize. We also need to look beyond 2015. To do something political parties and politicians very rarely do: we need to take a long term view and ask how voters will see our party 2 or 3 General Elections down the line. For my part, as London and the South East becomes ever more powerful in terms of revenue and tax generation, I believe that addressing this economic imbalance is the most pressing problem facing this country today. I do not propose we can do it by 2015, but it can be done. Labour tried and failed to find the answer by throwing good public money after bad, with little thought and poor planning. If we are to convince people that we are the party for everyone we need to transform our positions, not just on the issues that matter to voters today, but on the issues that will matter tomorrow too. I want the Conservatives to empower the urban North to bring about the social and civic renewal northern people are crying out for. To do that I have been working on some ideas which I think make up a narrative for our message to cities. 69

One of these key changes would be local lending by a revolution in bank lending away from City based London banks to regional local banking and expanded credit unions. How our banks work as we emerge from these tough times will dominate the future of this country, and our Northern economy for the next decade and much longer. I believe we need to learn from the Germans. In Germany, 70% of bank lending is by community local banks. Here over 80% of our UK lending is by the big 6 London banks, which are all London based, profit driven and totally removed from our local community. The German local banks are embedded in the community, run locally, only lend to that community, and then return some of their profits to that community. We could have the Bank of Newcastle, Hexham or South Shields, whose sole aim was to lend to local SME’s and start ups, empower the local mortgage market, and revitalise their local economies. Such banks would be run by local people, motivated by their pride in their community, and not some fat cat in London. Similarly, we have begun to free up credit unions so that they can do so much more and expand upon their base as a trusted local provider. This June I hosted the first ever regional banking conference, in Gateshead, specifically designed to explain to locals how they can set up a local regional bank. All the key players were there and within a year I fully expect to see local banks beginning to take shape up and down the country – but crucially starting in the North East. If the Conservative party embraces the concept of local banking, and tears down the monopoly of the big City banks, we will send a signal to the North that we get ‘it’. We will have revolutionised a demonised system with one in favour of the regions, in favour of small businesses, which can help deliver prosperity for the urban North. This goes to my desire for a real sense of belief in the power of local people to turn a community around. I have written previously for the High Pay Centre about the importance of companies having Corporate Social Responsibility at the heart of their ethos, and the need for firms to have fair executive pay, and make a real contribution to their community. This dovetails well with the massive increase in manufacturing and apprenticeships that should slowly see a return to traditional businesses to the North. In my area alone, apprenticeships have doubled. I have played my small part by being the first MP to hire, train, and then give a job to a local Prudhoe school leaver, called Jade. 70 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP

I have 2 companies that each employs 500 people in my local community. Both are foreign owned but locally respected as community based employers. It is only when these local firms accept that they are part of a wider community, rather than allow a simply focus on their accountant’s financial projections, does that local community thrive with the local business. The Conservative party is well recognised as the party of business. Only when these businesses are connected positively to their local communities will people give the Conservative Party a political dividend. We must make capitalism work for northern urban communities. This then feeds into local pride, and an acceptance that every person can influence their surrounding town: in my own constituency we are developing a project called ‘In Hexham for Hexham’, whereby every shop, from the independent trader to the omnipresent Tesco, takes an individual and collective responsibility for civic pride; we are urging people to buy local, and take pride in their community. It has become increasingly clear that central and local can help restore urban spaces and towns. If we take the risks to empower the North, to give those communities a sense of control, more responsibilities over local spending and more freedom, then in the long term we will be given the nod by those Northern voters who right now aren’t sure we are for them. There are, however, much bigger economic challenges for the North we must face as well. I helped work on the Adonis review for the North East Local Enterprise Partnership. I can do no more than say the Conservatives Party would do well to embrace many of its ideas as a blueprint for a transformation of our regional economy: we need to focus on our local innovation opportunities and allow thriving sectors to see the North East as the place to do business. This involves support for local students leaving our universities so that they stay in the North East and set their businesses up here. To do that we need a ‘Silicon Tyne’ approach focusing on hubs and enterprise zones based around engineering, offshore renewable, and our excellent manufacturing base. The North East is the only area of the country with a positive balance of payments and yet everyone acknowledges that there is so much more we could do. The potential is unquestioned. We are also not selling the great ideas we have brought in: to far too little fanfare the Conservatives have already made historic progress in the devolving of economic power to our great Northern cities. 71

Cities Minister Greg Clarke has already ushered in City Deals for places like Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle. These deals will have transformative effects on the urban north. Newcastle’s City Deal alone will bring 13,000 jobs, up to 15,000 homes on brownfield sites, reduced congestion on the A1 and 500 new apprenticeships in next three years. But don’t listen to me. This is what Labour Leader of Newcastle City Council, Coun Nick Forbes, said of the deal:

This announcement is magnificent news for Newcastle and the wider region. We take very seriously our responsibilities for creating the right climate for jobs, and are delighted in this vote of confidence. Our top priority has always been to make Newcastle a working city – and the creation of up to 13,000 jobs will go a long way to achieving that. These jobs will improve the lives of thousands of families and give many young people the chance to start their careers.60

It should worry my party deeply that few know it is the hard work of Conservative ministers which inspired those words from one of the Government’s normally harshest critics. Perhaps it is time the Conservatives spent a little less time discussing our political and economic relationship with the EU, and more on the relationship between London and the North. I would urge us to go further, take risks and welcome the changes to skills training and devolved powers put forward in the Heseltine review. Policy however is only one half of the political equation. There is little point in us having a raft of exciting policies if no one but ourselves knows about them. That is why it is so crucial, so fundamental to our success in the North, that we build a campaign infrastructure which can deliver a Conservative message.

Putting the plans in to practice Certain places in the North have been able to show that we have the political answers that resonate on the ground. The conclusions we can draw from my own experiences in Northumberland, South Shields and my experiences walking through the North last year, are the same.

60 http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/news-story/council-wins-major-jobs-boost-tyneside 72 WINNING IN THE NORTH | Guy Opperman MP

Firstly, ‘where we work we win’. I illustrate this with two examples from my county of Northumberland: In Cramlington West a local leaflet was delivered every 6 weeks, throughout the year, for 2 and a half years prior to the 2013 local election. As a result the Conservatives went from fourth to first. This made it the only Conservative gain from Labour across the Country. In Hexham West we canvassed so hard over the 2 years before the local election that we knew how over 75% of the electorate planned to vote by the time we got to polling day. The results was turning a 14% Lib Dem majority into a 19% Conservative one. The voters will not come to us. We must go to them. We need to get out there and sell our message, both local and national, to the electorate. In so many parts of the North, and especially the urban North, as a party, we have simply stopped doing that. That is not to rest any blame on the hardworking activists who keep the Conservative Party alive in the places we don’t have Councillors; it is instead an ultimatum for the Conservative Party as a whole. If we want to win in Manchester, in Newcastle, in Liverpool, in Sheffield we can – if we really want it. If so, then we must organise in those communities. We must invest in our candidates, with time, support, staff and yes, financial support. The answers about our failure to win in parts of the North aren’t to be found in some academic tome, or socio-demographic report, they are found in lack of communication between our party and the electorate on the ground. There are some, sadly some inside our party, as well as outside of it, who will say it simply a matter of economics. Or to put it more succinctly: the posh bits vote Tory and the rest don’t. Not only is that analysis lazy, it’s wrong too. In my patch, we held the marginal council ward of Haltwhistle by a majority of 7%; this is a town where the average house price is £120,714. In one of Newcastle’s most exclusive suburbs, Gosforth, where the average house price is more than £100,000 more than in Haltwhistle at some £235,128, we haven’t had a Conservative Councillor elected since 1995. The good people of Gosforth incidentally had a Conservative MP until 1987. We only need look at our opponents to see organisation is key to electoral success at all levels. At the May 2013 elections for the Mayoralty the Conservatives elected Mayor of North Tyneside lost 73

36% to 55% to her union backed Labour opponent. Linda was a good, local candidate with a good record. However, Labour have become painfully strong in this part of the North East where right up until 2010 we were seeing something of a Conservative renaissance. In 2008 the Conservatives held 31 seats. Now Labour have 42 Councillors and the Conservatives 12. Of course there is a natural ebb and flow to local success based on national popularity. However, it is worth noting that even in periods not noted for the national popularity of the Conservative Party, such as in 2003, Linda won the elected mayoralty and we had some 21 Conservative Councillors. What changed in North Tyneside is the converse of what has happened to the Conservatives in large parts of the urban North. Labour got organised. Worried by a challenge at the 2010 General election in the Tynemouth constituency Labour has roared back with a powerful, union backed, infrastructure. It hoovers up postal votes, with a combination of mail shots, advertising, and canvassing: these tools show that Labour is trying to secure its local position. Those are effective tools alien to much of our own activity in the areas where we are failing to win. There is no silver bullet in politics. The lessons from the Conservatives in places like Northumberland, or the other areas where we have built up our success, or indeed from our opponents, are clear. Only where we have good candidates, armed with a strong local message, and a well developed local infrastructure behind them can we hope to break through across the North. It will take time, effort and money. Central government can then back up these candidates with some of the local conservative policies that our candidates can then champion. It is a good recipe for a revival and I am confident we can turn it around In the next two years we can win the General Election. However, it may take a lot longer to win back the North. But if we have a long term plan, it is a job that can be done. Firstly, the party must decide if it really wants to.

GUY OPPERMAN is the Member of Parliament for Hexham 74

THE NORTH IN RETROSPECTIVE

LORD BATES

Bill Shankly, the legendary manager of Liverpool Football Club and occasional philosopher, took over a Liverpool team languishing at the bottom of the Second Division in 1959. Asked what his approach to the task was going to be, he answered ‘Do the right things for long enough and you will get the right results.’ Within six years he had taken them to two First Division Championships and the FA Cup and laid the foundations of a footballing dynasty that would dominate the English game for the next twenty years. What has this got to do with political strategy? Everything. I have been involved in politics in the North of England for much of the past thirty years. Occasionally I will be asked my opinion as to what more the Party should be doing in the regions of the North to gain electoral success. Normally what people are searching for is a quick fix rather than lasting change. A celebrity candidate, focus groups, a leader donning a cloth cap and awkwardly sipping a pint of bitter, or a dozen glossy leaflets over a six week campaign are all meant to counter years of political struggle. In responding, I am often reminded of Shankly’s wisdom about doing the right things for long enough getting the right results, and I point to the record of Margaret Thatcher in the North. In political folklore the argument was made that we lost ground in the North under Margaret Thatcher. Not so. We won 63 seats in 1979 (an increase on 1974); increased this again to 69 seats in 1983, before it fell back under her third General Election in 1987 to 64. It was only in 1992 that we started significantly losing ground, winning only 53 seats in 1992 before the rout of 1997, when we went down to 17 seats. The reason for the rout was that the Conservative Party had never been loved in the North but it had been respected as economically competent. It was the competence 75 bubble which burst so spectacularly on Black Wednesday in September 1992 and it took almost twenty years for it to come back. We made no advance in the North in 2001, remaining at 17 seats. In 2005 there was a slight increase to 19 seats and the major breakthrough came under David Cameron in 2010 when we won 42 seats. The point being that political performance in the North of England is not a cultural issue but a competence issue. In other words, during a time of unprecedented socio-economic change impacting most sharply on the traditional nationalised heavy industries of the North of England, the North continued to vote Conservative. Why? Because I believe that people saw that we were doing the right things: the nationalised industries were massively uncompetitive and the trade unions way too powerful. Social mobility had slumped as grammar schools had been closed and modern liberal teaching methods and ‘Loony Left’ councils had trashed the education system. Entrepreneurship and wealth creation had been taxed to death so there were few new jobs. There was immense fear of the Cold War becoming a nuclear Armageddon. Social order was declining through weakening the powers of the police and the courts and strengthening the rights of criminals. Labour could not tackle these problems because it had created the system and now depended upon its patronage for survival. People looked to the Conservatives for change and we delivered. Machiavelli reminded us that in politics one doesn’t need to be liked, but one must be respected. The people of the North, as in the country as a whole, respected Margaret Thatcher as a leader who was doing the right thing: returning the control of the unions to their members; creating Enterprise Zones where new businesses could flourish uninhibited by local authorities; encouraging wealth creators rather than punishing them through the tax system; privatising the nationalised industries; becoming globally competitive and sharing the profits with a massively increased pool of shareholders; creating City Technology Colleges as independent beacons of educational excellence in inner city areas; giving long-standing council tenants the right to buy their homes and get a foot on the property ladder; giving powers and resources to the police and the criminal justice system to tackle offending behaviour; working with NATO to present a strong and credible nuclear deterrent to Soviet aggression. In return for doing the right thing, the people repaid her by giving her and our Party the right results. 76 The North in retrospective | Lord Bates

Roll the clock forward to circa 2010, and more importantly 2015, and I believe that we are witnessing similar forces at play which may impact upon voting behaviour. Once again we see a period of Labour government characterised by a failure to face up to the tough choices leading to a breakdown in the socio- economic order. They see a massively inflated public sector and a withering private sector saddled with rising taxes and bureaucracy and increasingly unable to support it. They see an economy weighted far too much in favour of services and imports than manufacturing and exports. They see an economy losing its competitive edge in the global market. There was a welfare-state spiralling out of control. They see precarious national finances threatening the services they need, the infrastructure investment they need, and the assets which they have worked hard to accumulate for their families and retirement. They see a culture of mediocrity in education still pervading far too many of our inner cities. They see the local planning system as a barrier to job creation rather than a catalyst for it. They see staying at home rewarded and going out to work punished through the tax and benefits system. Once again Labour could not tackle these problems because it had created the system and now depended upon its patronage for survival. Once again they turned to the Conservatives to sort out the mess even though they knew that the North of England had a higher reliance on the public sector and dependence on benefits that other regions. The pain would be greater in the short term but the gain would be stronger in the long term. The first ‘right thing’ which David Cameron did was to be prepared to work with political opponents in the national interest, which was the need for a five year period of political stability through which the acute wounds of the economy could begin to heal. Ring-fencing NHS spending. Protecting low paid public sector workers from a pay freeze. Halting the gravy train of Quangos and public spending. Leading by example with pay cuts for ministers and a freeze on salaries for politicians. Raising the tax threshold, taking over 531,000 people from the North of England out of tax altogether. Putting in place welfare reforms which will mean that you will always be better off if you go out to work. Freeing up schools and introducing rigor into the examination system and excellence into the curriculum, and not being deflected by socio-economic excuses for poor school performance – in Barnsley 20% of children attend a good or outstanding 77 school where as in Wigan it is 95%. Introducing the Regional Growth Fund whose investments to date (Round 3) will have created or safeguarded 195,000 jobs. Increasing the number of apprenticeships in the North by over 80% from 103,320 (2009/10) to 183,840 (2011/12). Significant infrastructure investments have been made in rail – £560 million (The Northern Hub around Manchester); upgrading the A1 – £378 million (North Yorkshire and Tyneside) and £580 million to upgrade the Tyne & Wear Metro. Exports from the North East are at record levels. We are now witnessing record levels of business start-ups, and the private sector is creating jobs at almost twice the rate at which the public sector is losing them. As a result total employment is higher in each of the three regions of the North in 2012 than it was in the same period (August-October) in 2010. This is not to say that there are not other factors at play in the electoral fortunes of the Conservative Party in the North of England. Over the past twenty years, as the party has struggled to regain ground in the North, it is true to say that the Liberal Democrats have built an effective political base in parts of the North, especially in local government. In 1979 the Liberal Democrats won only 2 seats in the North of England; in 2010 they won 11. In part their success is attributed to being hitherto the ‘None of the above’ choice on the ballot paper, but it is also because in many of the areas where Conservatives lost ground they simply outworked us in terms of year-round campaigning. At this point we also need to draw a clear distinction between Conservative Party performance in the North of England and that across the border in Scotland. In 1979, the Conservatives in Scotland won 22 parliamentary seats at Westminster, in 1997 they went down to zero, but in 2010 they only won a single seat. In the North of England in 1979 the Conservatives in the North of England won 63 parliamentary seats, in 1997 they went down to 17, but in 2010 they bounced back to win 42. In areas where we continued to have highly effective Conservative political campaign forces in places like North Tyneside, Leeds, Bradford, Trafford and Sunderland, for example, we continued to buck the national trend. The Crewe and Nantwich by election, which was a safe Labour seat, was an example of what happens when the Conservative electoral machine is in full campaign mode: the Conservatives achieved a 17.8% swing against Labour, and Edward Timpson held the seat for the Conservatives with an 11.8% majority in 2010. The point is that 78 The North in retrospective | Lord Bates

it is not sufficient to do the right things in policy terms: we must do the rights things in communicating our message on the ground as well. This brings me to my final point – Don’t be shy: There is a popular phrase in the North East which states, ‘Shy bairns get nowt.’ For many years the Conservative Party had a nervous tremor when it talked about the North. It didn’t know quite how to react in a way which didn’t sound shrill or patronising. This was a Labour heartland and there was a temptation for Conservative Party leaders to be wary about venturing into ‘Labour territory.’ Soon after becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 2006, David Cameron and then-Party Chairman launched an audacious strategy to target advising the Party in the North – ‘Campaign North’ – and engaged to lead the charge. The impact was instantaneous on Party morale. The strategy consisted of four main strands:

Resources: Every penny raised from donors and members in the North of England would be spent on campaigning in the North of England. This funded the establishment of three new state of the art regional campaign centres in Manchester, Bradford and Newcastle, a doubling of campaign staff and the recruitment of regional press officers.

Campaigning Esprit de Corps: A new Northern Board of the Conservative Party was established, bringing together MPs, MEPs, councillors, volunteers, candidates, Conservative Future and business representatives which was brilliantly chaired by William Hague and which transformed the collective campaigning culture and self-belief of the Party faithful in the North.

Candidates: It had long been recognised that the North had too often been seen as a training ground for parliamentary candidates from outside the region to ‘cut their teeth’. The response was to establish Northern Selection Boards which would identify and assess candidates who lived and worked in the areas which they sought to represent at Westminster and therefore could campaign all year round. This work would often take the shape of social action for the local community rather than traditional party-political campaigning. 79

Connect: Opinion polls would often reveal that the views of the voters in the North of England were not hostile to the Conservative Party, they just never saw Conservatives. The response to this was to assign Shadow City Ministers: for example Alan Duncan (Tyneside); Sayeeda Warsi (Sheffield); and (Liverpool) who would visit their areas often to meet with community leaders and the media. Moreover, David Cameron would make more of his major policy announcements outside of London in places like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. The regional media appreciated these efforts and would often give the announcements a fair hearing. It is perhaps in the last area where the greatest work needs to be done in advance of the 2015 election. It is all well and good doing the right thing and making the change but if we leave the platform to our political opponents to communicate what we have done, don’t be surprised if we don’t quite get the credit we deserve. The public sector unions don’t just campaign for and fund the Labour Party in the North of England; in most places they are the Labour Party in the North of England. Let us not be too shy in claiming the credit for the tough choices we have taken or reminding people of the dangers of handing the keys of their economy back to the guys who ran it into the ditch. We have an incredibly able cohort of forty two MPs in the North--twenty-three more than in 2010-- who can and must lead the charge, but they need backing encouragement and resources from the leadership of the party. The message is simple—do the right things in increasing measure, don’t be shy in telling people what you have done or why and the Conservative Party will never ‘Walk alone’ in the North of England.

LORD BATES of Langbaurgh was Member of Parliament for Langbaurgh between 1992 and 1997, serving as . 80

WINNING IN THE MIDLANDS

RACHEL MACLEAN

It was a great day for me when I was selected to represent Birmingham Northfield. Because I feel that there is no battle more worth fighting than that of winning a seat here. And I’m grateful that David Skelton has given me the opportunity to contribute to this project and set out both why Birmingham Northfield is so important, and what we need to do as a party to win in Birmingham Northfield. Every constituency is different, but I believe there are common themes that will chime with other Midlands and Northern seats. Birmingham Northfield is a predominantly white working class area, on the south-western edge of our city and quite different from some of the inner city Birmingham constituencies with significant ethnic populations. It’s been Labour held since 1992 by Richard Burden, and it’s been identified as one of the 40 target seats to win, currently the only one in Birmingham. Our challenge is enormous – but not impossible. Across Birmingham, where I’ve grown up and lived all my life, associations have dwindled. With only a few satellites in Sutton Coldfield and Meriden – who are busy fighting their own battles – we are surrounded on all sides in the Birmingham city seats by a sea of red. Our best hope in 2010, Edgbaston, was narrowly lost. We have little money and few members, and nowhere to put Merlin. But what we do have here is a core of experienced and committed local councillors and activists, quietly getting on with the job and winning local elections in areas that look nothing like the leafy suburbs of Edgbaston or supposedly naturally deep blue . We stand a good chance of winning some council seats in 2014, building a platform for victory in 2015. And from our daily contact with Northfield voters, it’s clear that the path to victory here in 2015 must come from uniting Britain’s politics. To understand the particular context of this in Birmingham, let’s briefly revisit the period when 81

Conservatism flourished in Birmingham, personified in Joseph Chamberlain. Because our message to today’s voters in Birmingham is deeply rooted in the civic and Conservative traditions of this city that Birmingham is so rightly proud of. Chamberlain started out a Liberal and his mission was to give the working classes a stake and a voice in how their city was run. In words that have a striking resonance for the audience of today, he once proclaimed, ‘I am prouder of having been engaged with you in warring against ignorance and disease and crime in Birmingham than if I had… instigated the invasion of Afghanistan’ , another Birmingham boy, in his excellent pamphlet ‘Conservatives in Birmingham’ sums it up thus:

It was Birmingham and the Chamberlain tradition which was to be the crucial driver of Conservative social reform right through the twentieth century. Chamberlain discovered that ‘in social questions the Conservatives have always been more progressive than the Liberals’. But the Chamberlains were always uncomfortable at just being described as Conservatives – they were Unionists. And Union came to mean both the Union of the United Kingdom and the union across the social classes61

Today, uniting Britain’s politics is still our challenge as Conservatives. We must unite our political values and mission with the concerns and aspirations of working class voters in the cities of the Midlands and the North. The world is changing, and the pace of change will only increase. The only question in politics worth answering is how we tackle the impact of the very real and painful readjustment to change, and what we have to offer to those people who see the fruits of change going elsewhere. Working class people in Northfield rightly fear the future for themselves and their families. If instead of calling them working class, we call them the ‘want-to- haves’, it can help us frame the global change being played out here in a tangible way in the conflict between the ‘haves’ and the ‘want-to-haves’. From the perspective of many the marginal and marginalized constituencies across Britain, national politics of all sides is viewed as being aligned with the ‘haves;’ strongly representing the established and entrenched interests.

61 David Willetts, Conservatism in Birmingham, p18 82 Winning in the Midlands | Rachel Maclean

Northfield is an extreme case of the marginalized and forgotten heartland.

• De-industrialisation hit Northfield hard. In the late sixties, the Austin (British Leyland) motor works at Longbridge employed 250,000 people. Now, the regeneration scheme has created perhaps 6,000 jobs – an impressive figure but in no way a replacement to what has been lost. • We have lost the pathways to quality jobs through training and apprenticeships that blue-collar workers in Northfield relied on. We are left with a one-size fits all low performing education system unsuited to the needs of the economy of the future. Birmingham in particular has some of the poorest schools in the country. • The tower blocks of Birmingham are a blight. Young people are growing up in the city unable to afford the sort of housing they grew up in. Thatcher gave people a stake in their communities with the right to buy, creating a property owning democracy and a generation of loyal Conservative voters in Birmingham. Let’s enfranchise city dwellers again in the same way with a massive program of affordable house building.

Across Britain, people vote for hope and change, and in Northfield they voted for Thatcher to free them from the tyranny of union power, and the grip of the consensus of decline. Then they voted for Blair to give them a stronger safety net once globalisation began to take its toll. It is time for the Conservative party to bring a new message of hope to Northfield. In some cases, the state safety net has become a trap, ameliorating the impact of change and global forces, but not helping families to build a better future. People in Northfield want fairness: a new definition of fairness. Where everyone gets a fair go to improve themselves, with the state offering a helping hand when they need it. This will give them the confidence to take opportunities and invest and work for the future. They want to see the great escalators of self-improvement and social mobility; education, low cost quality housing and a vocational pathway to good jobs. The Conservatives need to be seen to declare war on incumbent vested interests and privilege to be credible in Northfield. Its unfortunate that the political discourse is often dominated by the tenacious battles with which the 83

‘already haves’ battle to protect their narrow interests. This needs to be met head on with a mission for the greater good of Britain. That battle begins in Northfield, but includes the party, Parliament, and the state itself. And it is this battle that chimes with my own values. I became a Conservative and decided to stand for election because when I look around me in Birmingham I know well how lucky I am to be born who and where I was. But it is not the politics of equality and socialism from the left that are the answer to the questions posed by the accident of an individual’s birth. It’s only by giving people the tools to help themselves that we liberate our citizens in Birmingham Northfield to live out their potential. This is as true now as it was in Chamberlain’s time. These challenges are for our party policy makers to consider. And when they do, I have one request – think about how our manifesto would look to voters in Birmingham Northfield. And then consider how we communicate that message. For here we have an electorate so totally fed up with politics, and politicians, that almost half of them in this constituency never vote. The challenge is huge, but the will is there! We are starting to see traction on some of the difficult decisions we’ve taken in Government. The welfare reforms are manifestly overdue and are loudly applauded by our working constituents on lower incomes than their benefit-receiving neighbours. Our approach to immigration is exactly what they want to see. But they’re still worried about their future, about their children, about paying the bills and keeping their jobs. We can win here in 2015, and in other constituencies like it if we have the courage to steadfastly pursue the radical reforms we began in 2010. Voters like what we are doing. We must not weaken or give up. We must embody the message of hope. Labour want to put a sticking plaster over the pain of change, and their entire message is negative. They want our country to lose so they can win. Conservative policies will give our people the tools to tackle the future with optimism, confident in the knowledge that they are equipped to win in the global race. Only we can give people the courage to change for the future – and the future of Northfield, our city and the country depends on us to win here.

RACHEL MACLEAN is the Conservative candidate for Birmingham Northfield 84

WINNING IN WALES

STEPHEN CRABB MP

When Gordon Brown and the current Welsh Labour leader, Carwyn Jones, urged voters in Wales to ‘come home to Labour’ they were unthinkingly recycling the Labour Party’s article of faith: that it is the natural party of Wales and only Labour embodies the intrinsic values of Welsh people. I will set out in this essay why it is the Conservatives, rather than Labour, who share Welsh values and the Party should continue to emphasise this as they challenge Labour in Wales.

Wales under Labour • The truth is that Labour Government, both UK wide and in Wales, has been particularly bad for Welsh public services and the Welsh economy: Between 1999 and 2010 Labour ran both the UK and Welsh government and this period coincided with deterioration in Wales’ economic performance relative to the rest of the UK and worsening outcomes in key devolved public services like the NHS and education. • GDP per capita over the decade from 2001, fell from 77% of the UK average to 74%. GDP per hour level of productivity fell from 91% of the UK average in 2000 to 84% of the UK average by 2009.62 • In addition, Wales’ Gross Value Added per head in 2011, as a percentage of the UK average, was a lowly 75.2% compared to 102.3% in England, 98.6% in Scotland and 79.2% in Northern Ireland.63 • In a Centre for Public Policy for Regions report from 2011, it was claimed that Wales’ economy has fared the worst of UK nations in a decade of devolution. • Evidence of relative decline in education and skills has led many in the business community to question how the economic gap can be closed. In the latest PISA

62 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2011/04/13/wales-economy-has-fared- worst-of-uk-nations-in-decade-of-devolution-91466-28509628/ 63 ONS, 12 December 2012 85

results, Wales has fallen further behind the rest of the UK in reading, maths and science. Since the 2006 results, Welsh teenagers have ranked alongside the Czech Republic for reading and Estonia and Latvia outperformed Wales in mathematics. • The most recent report by Estyn, the Welsh schools inspection body, claimed that nearly one third of schools in Wales are not of a good enough standard and 40% of Welsh children entering secondary school had a reading age below their chronological age.64 • Perhaps the biggest policy area devolved to Welsh Government, the NHS in Wales, has seen a similarly disappointing performance over recent years. Increased waiting times, staffing shortages, an ambulance service that consistently misses response time targets, local services cut and in six years a tripling of complaints to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales.65 In contrast to the protection of NHS budgets in England and Scotland, Welsh Labour is cutting almost half a billion pounds from its NHS budget. • So far, Welsh ministers have been getting away with it. That the public outcry over the Welsh Government’s deep cut in the health budget has not been stronger is remarkable. That is because currently Welsh Government enjoys the benefits of having a large measure of responsibility over most public services in Wales but accountability for policy outcomes is weak. • With Wales being the only part of the UK where Labour is still in power, the Labour leadership is keen to talk up the record of Welsh Government as they approach the 2015 general election. Ed Balls has claimed that ‘the UK can learn from what Carwyn Jones is doing in Wales’. If Miliband and Balls wish to present Wales as an incubator for the kind of policies that a UK Labour government would pursue in future , then will gladly accept the invitation to make Labour’s record in Wales a key battle-ground.

Welsh Labour The dead hand of Welsh labour remains in evidence today. Within weeks of his appointment as the Shadow Welsh Secretary, Owen Smith MP was adopting all of the old Labour language and assumptions about Wales, claiming that Labour is the

64 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12266117 65 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21416621 86 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP

‘true party of Wales’.66 At its heart is a sense of entitlement and absence of humility, characteristic of old-style machine politics, which takes Welsh voters for granted. While their leaders try to expropriate the language of One Nation politics, it is still Welsh Labour’s ambition, above all else, to make Wales a one-party nation. Since 1945 Labour has won more than half of all Welsh parliamentary constituencies at each general election and has, on several occasions, swept up more than 80% of the seats. It has been in government continuously in Cardiff since the creation of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999. Labour’s position is buttressed by the economic structure of Wales, with its high levels of state spending, greater proportion of public sector workers, and still relatively greater prevalence of heavy industry. Around 35% of the Welsh workforce is a member of a trade union compared to under a quarter in England. Wales has the highest density of trade union membership of any of the UK’s regions and devolved areas. Most people know all this, and as a result find it surprising that so many that Welsh people can, and do, vote Conservative. This should not be the case. In the last decade the Welsh Conservatives have bounced back strongly from the disastrous 1997 campaign when its representation was wiped out. In 2009 Welsh Conservatives topped the European elections in Wales, beating Labour into second place – the first time since 1918 that Labour failed to come first in a Wales-wide election. In 2010 Welsh Conservatives increased their parliamentary representation from three to eight seats, and in 2011 became the second largest party in the Welsh Assembly.

Conservatives and Working Welsh values It is a point often exaggerated, but nevertheless true, that the Welsh national experience has given its people a different outlook and set of values. But it is not the case that these values are essentially social democratic and that they translate into a preference for state intervention, higher taxes and public spending. Welsh values can be described as: communitarian, less individualistic, borne out of strong family and community bonds and a deep sense of history and place. Wales also enjoys a high stock of social capital with relatively high rates

66 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2012/09/25/owen-smith-welsh- labour-is-the-true-party-of-wales-91466-31899089/ 87 of volunteering and community participation, with one estimate suggesting that Wales has the highest level of participation in engineering in Europe.67 This is fertile ground for a Conservative Party which emphasises the social market, as opposed to socialism; localism and community solutions instead of centralised diktat; and values the dynamism of the voluntary sector rather than sees it as a poor second-best to state action. Far from being intrinsically hostile, the distinctive values of Wales actually underpin much of modern Conservatism and are, in turn, celebrated by it. If communitarian does not equal socialist, neither does patriotism equal nationalism; and this is another area where Welsh distinctiveness needs to be properly understood if the Party is to continue its growth. The starting point for Welsh Conservatism is a recognition of the central – and growing – importance of Welsh identity in our politics and, with that, the role of the Welsh language. The Welsh Conservative Party has increased its representation at every tier of elected politics over the last decade because it has understood that Wales is different; because it has been comfortable putting Welsh identity at the heart of its message; and, most of all, because the Party owns a set of policies that speaks directly to the values and aspirations of families in Wales, both in rural and urban communities, among the low paid, those running micro and small businesses, and the self-employed – among whom the Party has gained most ground in Wales.

Patriotism is not separatist nationalism Although nationalism, in the sense of separatism, is a minority interest in Wales albeit with powerful friends in media and academic circles, Welsh patriotism runs very high indeed. A recent UK opinion poll found that the Welsh were the most likely to say they took pride in their flag (86%), ahead of people from Scotland (84%) and the English (61%).68 Nine out of ten Welsh people also say they take pride in their national sporting teams – a far higher figure than in Scotland (65%) or England (68%). With this patriotism comes also a tolerance. In the same poll 81% said it was not important for a person to be white to be Welsh, compared to 74% in England. But patriotism is not to be confused with nationalism and it would be a mistake for the Welsh Conservative Party to mimic Plaid Cymru, with a sort of

67 http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/news-views/news/doc/wales-has-highest-level.html 68 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the- English.html 88 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP

‘Plaid-lite’ strategy of arguing for ever looser union with England and the wider UK. Despite the advent of devolution providing a boost for Plaid Cymru’s vote at the start of the 2000’s, there has been a steady fall in their support. 2011 saw their lowest share of the vote in any devolved election so far, enabling the Welsh Conservatives to become the official opposition in the Assembly. At the beginning of 2012 an ITV Wales/YouGov poll showed that only 10% of Welsh voters were in favour of independence. The poll also showed that, even if Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom, only a third of Plaid Cymru voters would want an independent Wales. The very purpose of Plaid Cymru’s existence, to secure independence for Wales, is an objective not shared by the majority of Welsh voters.69 Nevertheless, the people of Wales want, more than ever before, to elect people who share their patriotism, who will fight for Wales, and who communicate a sense of belief in the Welsh nation. This extends to support for the Welsh language which has become a touchstone issue. Although a decreasing minority of Welsh people speak it fluently, there is an enormous underlying bank of good will for the language which goes beyond native speakers. Welsh Conservatives have made much of the running in the Assembly in terms of arguing for stronger protections for the language. The Party that acted as midwife at the birth of S4C, the Welsh language TV channel, in the 1980s must always keep working to renew its reputation as a defender of the language. The Party now campaigns confidently as a distinctively Welsh Conservative Party and, more than ever before, selects Welsh activists as its candidates. For the first time there is now a Welsh-speaking Conservative Secretary of State for Wales at Gwydyr House; a half of all Welsh Conservative MPs have served previously in the Welsh Assembly; and all eight MPs represent constituencies in which they have long-standing and deep family ties.

More devolution There must be no reversal in this trend. In an age of localism, when voters demand authenticity and accessibility on the part of their representatives, the Party must in future always rely on Welsh party members and supporters for the bulk of its candidates.

69 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/02/02/scottish-independence-would-add-to-calls-for- more-devolution-to-wales-91466-30254322/ 89

Welsh Labour delight in publicising ‘made in Wales’ policies but the buck never stops in Cardiff. All debate is overlaid with claims that Wales is underfunded, and every problem is pushed back to Westminster with a plea for more public spending. The First Minister himself has now become a convert to the mythology of underfunding, and has started to argue that Wales must get an extra £350 million a year granted from London to end structural unfairness in the public funding allocation. It was telling that Welsh Ministers were among the very few across Europe to publically criticise the first ever real-terms cut in European spending agreed at European Council in February 2013, cementing the view among many that they exist in an alternative fiscal reality. So one of the keys to further progress for the Welsh Conservative Party must be to challenge and change the entire template in which Welsh politics is conducted. To this end, there is a growing appetite among Welsh Conservatives to see a more balanced devolution settlement where legislative devolution is accompanied by fiscal devolution. Rather than simply spending a block grant voted by Parliament each year, Welsh Government would be responsible for raising a share of their spending. As well as providing new financial levers to supplement Welsh policy options, it would enhance the accountability of Welsh Government by creating for the first time a direct link between Welsh taxpayers and elected politicians in Cardiff. Importantly, fiscal devolution may provide the oxygen for new centre-right ideas to flourish in Wales. Welsh Conservatism should begin to set out how fiscal devolution can create opportunities for helping to rebalance the economy in Wales, stimulate entrepreneurship and foster growth in a financially responsible way. Welsh Labour shows little appetite for seeing a visible tax like Income Tax devolved, with some regarding it as ‘a trap’,70 because they know it would force them away from the sweet spot they currently occupy where every Welsh problem can be dressed up as one of underfunding and the blame shifted to London.

Coalition Ten years ago former Conservative Assembly Leader was far-sighted in spotting the opportunity to craft a ‘Rainbow Coalition’ alternative to Welsh Labour. Some Party activists reacted with horror, but the experience of working

70 Geraint Davies MP, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201213/cmgeneral/wgrand/130123/am/130123s01.htm 90 Winning in Wales | Stephen Crabb MP

with Liberal Democrats in London has demonstrated that while coalition may not be perfect, it can be a whole lot better than allowing Labour to stay in office. Having now governed in coalition at a UK level, the Party can work with even greater confidence and understanding towards being part of a potential coalition to remove Labour control over Welsh Government in future. Only the Welsh Conservative Party has the reach throughout Wales to challenge this because for Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats are irritants. But the Conservative Party is the only party which competes directly with Labour in all regions of Wales. Seven out of the eight current Welsh Conservative seats were direct gains from Labour.]

Optimism and ambition for the future The Conservative resurgence in Wales demonstrates that the Party has a genuine UK-wide offer. As the United Kingdom has changed, socially and constitutionally, so the Conservative Party in Wales has changed making it more relevant political force. Welsh Conservatives have good reason to be optimistic and ambitious for the future. Wales will always represent one of the more challenging areas of the United Kingdom in which to campaign and win, but by adapting to the new realities of devolution and national self-consciousness the Party has shown that it can once again be the principal alternative to Labour in all parts of Wales.

STEPHEN CRABB is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Wales Office, a Government Whip and Member of Parliament for Pembrokeshire 91

REFORMING THE PARTY 92

TRANSFORMING THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY’S ORGANISATION

GAVIN BARWELL MP

Most of the debate about what the Conservative Party needs to do to win overall majorities at future General Elections focuses on policy and message – and rightly so: even without an organisation on the ground, parties with an attractive message can achieve success (Labour won seats in its 1997 landslide that it wasn’t even targeting and hence saw very little Labour ground campaign). But organisation does matter. In marginal seats, it can make the difference between victory and defeat. And our organisation – in common with those of the other main political parties – is not what it used to be. The basic problem is that fewer people are inclined to join political parties. There are a number of explanations for this. First, politics is held in lower esteem than it used to be. Second, fewer people feel aligned to the two main parties – the proportion of the electorate that votes either Conservative or Labour has been in decline for some time. Third, people are working longer hours than they used to so they have less spare time. And fourth, there’s so much more than they can do with the spare time they do have. But the way in which we have historically organised ourselves has compounded that basic problem in two ways. First, because we still generally organise on a constituency-by-constituency basis (with each constituency having its own which, unless something goes wrong, is largely left to get on with things) rather than pooling resources across a wider area, the general decline in membership has been felt most in safe Labour seats and Conservative/Labour marginals, particularly those in parts of the country that are more difficult territory for us 93

(much of Scotland and Wales and the industrial cities of the Midlands and the North). In some safe Labour seats, we have simply ceased to exist. And in many Conservative/Labour marginals, our membership is so small that it is impossible to employ an agent and difficult to raise funds for campaigning or find enough people to deliver our literature. What strength we have left tends to be in safe Conservative seats and it is very difficult to motivate activists in these areas to go and campaign elsewhere where their efforts might have some impact on the number of Conservative MPs elected to Parliament. Second, because the central organisation of the Party is under the control of the Leader of the Party (the Hague reforms set up a Board of the Party with significant representation from the voluntary party, but this Board is chaired by the Chairman of the Party who is appointed by the Leader so in practice the leadership still has control), our organisational focus is always on the next General Election to the exclusion of all else. When I worked at Central Office (or Conservative Campaign Headquarters as it is now known), we would agree after each General Election defeat that we needed to rebuild a Conservative presence in places like Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. We would start to invest a bit of resource in this work but as soon as a General Election approached everything would be focused on winning that Election. Now you may ask whether it really matters that we have no presence in these areas. I would argue that it does for two reasons. First, there is an issue of principle: I believe that at our best we are a ‘One Nation’ party. That’s an over- used term – Ed Miliband is ludicrously trying to portray himself as a One Nation politician at the moment – so I should explain what I mean. At our best, we do not seek to pit one section of society against another as Labour does, but to unite people of all backgrounds from all parts of the country who share a set of values. We can’t do that if we don’t aspire to represent all parts of the country. But there’s also a practical reason why our lack of organisation in our major cities matters: it affects our prospects of winning suburban marginals. The media tends to be based in cities. If they don’t see Conservative activity in their area, it affects their coverage – which is read, watched and listened to by many people in suburbs as well as in the cities themselves. Of course the Leader of the Party needs to have the power to determine the Party’s policies and message and its strategy for winning the next General 94 Transforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation | Gavin Barwell MP

Election, but there should be someone whose job is to focus on the long-term strength of our organisation across the country. So we face three problems: the decline in the number of people willing to join a political party, the particular impact this has had in safe Labour seats and some marginals because we organise on a constituency-by-constituency basis and the way in which our organisation focuses on the next Election to the exclusion of all else. What should we do about these problems?

Getting more people involved in the Party Spreading good practice – getting members to pay by Direct Debit, writing to Conservative pledges inviting them to join the Party and then following up these letters on the doorstep – would help. If every ward had the same proportion of its Conservative voters as members as the best-performing wards in the country, we would have many more members! But we have to accept that the days when over a million people were prepared to join the Party have gone for good, so we need to find other ways of engaging people with the Party, whether that’s by registering as a ‘friend’ online, supporting a particular campaign, getting involved in a social action project or attending a public meeting organised by their local MP or councillor. By way of example, in Croydon I’ve started advertising the Conservative Policy Forum meetings that I speak at to all the electors for whom I have an email address and as a result we’ve increased attendance at these meetings five-fold. The lesson is clear: there are far more people who will attend a public meeting, help out clearing up the local park, support a campaign to save the local library from closure or even help to deliver our literature than are willing to pay a membership subscription. And once we have begun to build relationships with such people, we may over time be able to get them involved in other ways. One big opportunity to engage more people in what the Party is doing is when we select candidates, whether for local council elections or for Parliament – and doing so is likely to boost the electoral prospects of those candidates too. Take the selection process in Totnes in south Devon in the run-up to the last General Election. The local Association sent all 69,000 electors a postal ballot paper. 16,639 people returned their ballot paper, 20 or 30 times as many as would have taken party in a traditional process. They chose Dr Sarah Wollaston, who 95 was duly elected Member of Parliament for Totnes with 3,000 more votes than her predecessor. It would be impractical to hold a postal ballot of all electors for every selection, but we certainly could – and should – involve more than just our members. Members should do the initial sift as now to ensure that they are happy to campaign for whoever is selected, but why not allow anyone who registers an interest to be involved in the final decision? It gives the candidates selected more legitimacy, it engages people with the Party and it is likely to lead to better candidates being selected (better in several senses – more representative of the communities we aspire to serve, a better reflection of what the wider electorate are looking for in an MP and hence better able to get elected). If we are selecting a candidate, holding a discussion meeting or running a campaign then, our aim should be to get the maximum number of people involved regardless of whether or not they have paid a membership subscription. Some people argue that this will make matters worse: if there aren’t significant benefits to being a member even fewer people will join, they say. I think this is mistaken on several levels. First, some things will be still reserved to members (when it comes to selecting candidates for example, members should still control the initial sift, otherwise there is a danger of our opponents controlling the process and selecting someone unsuitable). Second, most people don’t join the Party because of the benefits attached to being a member but to make a financial contribution to the Conservative cause. But third and most importantly, people are more likely to join a vibrant organisation.

Organising on a wider-than-constituency basis When deciding what our organisational structure should be in a particular part of the country, we should be guided by three principles. First, identity: Associations should cover areas that people identify with (one of the problems with organising on a constituency basis is that whilst some constituencies like the Isle of Wight reflect community boundaries, others like Brigg & Goole cross them). Second, scale: Associations should cover a large enough area to sustain a viable organisation with a headquarters and some professional support (some people question the need for professional support because their previous experience has been a negative one, but anyone who has ever worked with a competent 96 Transforming the Conservative Party’s Organisation | Gavin Barwell MP

professional agent or organiser will attest to how much easier they make the role of volunteers). Third, permanence: if possible we want to avoid having to re-organise ourselves every time constituency boundaries change. In Croydon, we’ve merged the three Associations within the borough to form the Croydon Conservative Federation. This passes the identity test: no-one (apart from long-standing members of the Party!) identifies with the constituency boundaries; they identify with the borough and the particular communities within it – Addiscombe, New Addington, Shirley etc. It passes the scale test: we have an office and can afford to employ several staff (if we organised as three constituencies, the safe seat of Croydon South would have an office and an agent but marginal Croydon Central would have neither). And it passes the permanence test – the borough of Croydon isn’t going anywhere anytime soon (or at least I hope it’s not!) And strange though it may sound, this organisational shift has changed the culture of our organisation. We think of ourselves as Croydon Conservatives. When there are Council elections, we go and work in the marginal wards, whether they are in ‘our’ constituency or another part of the borough. When there’s a General Election, everyone works in Croydon Central. People attend branch fundraising events right across the borough, not just those in ‘their’ constituency. There are other solutions short of federation. In , the six Associations have kept their independence but come together to fund a state-of- the-art county campaign centre. In other parts of the country, Associations have kept their own offices but share an agent who works between these offices or a safe Conservative-held seat pays for professional cover in a nearby marginal. What matters is not the detailed structure but the principle that we concentrate the resources – both financial and human – that we have in the seats that will determine whether or not we win elections.

Having a long-term strategy Finally, we need to think about how the central organisation of the Party is structured and who it reports to so that there is someone whose job it is to think long-term. There used to be separate teams at Conservative Central Office, one focused on elections, the other focused on organisation. We may not want to return to that structure, but we do need to ensure that the Leader of our Party has 97 complete control of policy, message and election strategy, that winning the next Election gets the lion’s share of resources, but that some priority is still given to the long-term health of our organisation. Organisational strength matters. We can’t afford to ignore the decline in our organisation any longer. Alongside the strategy Lynton Crosby is developing to win the next Election, we need to think about a long-term plan to rebuild our Party.

GAVIN BARWELL is Member of Parliament for Croydon Central 98

WATERING THE DESERT – A FORTY FOR THE NORTH

PAUL MAYNARD MP

The first poem I ever studied at A-Level was ‘Here’ by Philip Larkin, a powerful evocation of the landscape and local geography of the Humber estuary. It describes a notional train journey to Hull and beyond to the tip of the Holderness Peninsula, and sweeps majestically across our northern landscape: ‘Swerving east, from rich industrial shadows, and traffic all night north ... The piled gold clouds, the shining gull-marked mud, gathers to the surprise of a large town’. That town was Hull – a good example of a town in the north where our political potential is not being met, and where we might not even be aware there even is potential, perhaps. Larkin was cruel about the people of Hull, calling them a ‘cut-price crowd, urban yet simple’. Such patronising views, thankfully, are not the views of the Parliamentary Party. Rather as with Larkin’s rail journey, many fellow MPs have been on journeys round the North of late, travelling up hill and down dale in search of some hidden magic golden lever that we need only pull for the ‘northern electorate’ [insert preferred description here] to have the scales fall from their eyes and see us revealed in our fullest majesty, suddenly electable again. Of course, no such lever exists. It isn’t about our accent, our look, our educational background, our wealth, or any other single identifying feature. It is about ensuring that we appear authentic, part of our local community rather than emissaries from Planet Westminster bearing strange language. As much as I admire the work of think tanks like the IPPR, and devotee that I am of transport devolution to encourage regional development, even I realise the difference between good policy and good politics. Standing on a damp doorstep 99 explaining the intricacies of regional transport funding priority mechanisms will not work miracles. The end result – a better regional transport infrastructure which enhances economic growth through enhanced connectivity certainly will. But focusing on policy tools alone rather than addressing the ‘image’ problem we all like to think we have won’t provide the answer. After endless seminars and pamphlets and hand-wringing, we are left with an unhealthy obsession with what I call the 3Ms – millionaires, Maggie and the miners. We accuse ourselves of favouring millionaires, with having an unhealthy obsession with Margaret Thatcher, and with having been damned for ever by a strike that took place when I was nine years old. All of these deliberately miss the point, if only because they try to relocate blame away from ourselves, it seems. There’s no requirement to do anything if the past is to blame, other than wring those hands that bit more. We have all gone questing for the answer to a self-diagnosed Northern Problem, and we have returned from the forage defining ourselves by what we should not be, rather than what we need to become. And I don’t mean whippets, flat caps and any other northern stereotype either. If we are saddled by a perception, which we feed, that we under-perform in the north, the only genuine solution is to confront this head on and deal with it. Conservatives in areas such as Salford and Wallasey in the North West, North Tyneside in the North East, and towns like Keighley in Yorkshire have shown how success in areas perhaps considered unlikely is not unachievable. But the challenge is to universalise these bright spots. The lack of councillors in major cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle is a millstone round our necks if only because it is a convenient shorthand for the media to describe our ‘northern problem’. We know what the ‘perfect’ campaign should look like. It isn’t actually complex. Three or four newsletters a year from local campaigners, the building up of a pledge base, an effective canvassing effort year-round, a solid GOTV operation, and then the purchasing of the marked registers to calculate the ‘yield’. It’s the ‘yield’ we often miss – how many of our pledges actually voted. It is also a good way to assess the accuracy of a pledge base. Imagine a pledge base of 2000 of whom half are marked as having voted. That should indicate we take 1000 votes in that ward. If we only get 250, we know our pledge base isn’t accurate. So ‘yield’ matters. 100 Watering the desert – a forty for the North | Paul Maynard MP

Every ward starts to matter more too if we are to enter a world of more frequent boundary changes. Consider the lessons of Bolton West, where a ward was added from Wigan Council which had never been properly contested before. It had potential, but it required a lot of extra input to get it ‘up to speed’. That we lost by only 42 votes demonstrates that no stone should ever be left unturned. As seats become potentially larger, and local government boundaries less sacrosanct to the Electoral Commission, we can’t allow opportunities to be missed. Nor can we risk a safe seat being presented with the unwelcome surprise of a slab of previously untapped middle-class wards from the neighbouring safe Labour seat. That doesn’t mean we will know all the answers when we look at any constituency. I’m always very wary of parachuting into a constituency and telling them what they are doing wrong. It may be, for all I know, that Atherton was the best organised ward in Bolton West on the day. But I do know what the questions we should be asking ourselves. I am still kicking myself for not throwing more of a tantrum that we weren’t having a proper telling operation in one of my wards we narrowly lost in 2011. It could have been the added element that got us across the finishing line. There are no no-go areas for the Party. I wish I had a fiver for every time I have heard that down the years. I know from my own time standing for local government elections in the Labour fortress of Newham that much can be built out of something with seemingly little promise. I stood in a by-election in December with a 10% turnout (eat your heart out, PCC candidates) in Custom House & Silvertown and ran a textbook campaign as best I could with limited resources – lost by 578 to 329 to Labour, but my yield was 80%. I stood in another by-election for the neighbouring ward a few months later, slightly less promising territory, but still managed to ensure I got my voters out (admittedly only 73 of them!). When boundary changes rearranged matters for 2002, we came within 190 votes of taking a seat off Labour after two year’s hard campaigning. It wasn’t perfect, and I learnt all the time what made a difference and what didn’t. Up in Blackpool in the summer of 2008, circumstances conspired to give us an opportunity to snatch away Labour’s strongest ward in my constituency. The right candidate (the local postmaster), the right campaign (textbook, beginning to end!) and the right timing (Labour’s assault on the 10p tax rate really hit many of their key voters here) saw us gain the ward with 55% of the vote, up 28% on a strong performance in 2007. 101

This gives me the confidence that even in the hardest places, we can make a difference. But it needn’t be the hardest places that we focus on first. We must start by understanding demographic change, and what demographics are. As a party, I often hear us talk of areas moving away from us. We rarely hear of areas moving towards us. But considering the demographics of the north, and changing patterns of habitation, it is true. Anyone who drives the M62 from Liverpool to Manchester won’t pass through a Conservative seat, yet it is the ultimate commuter belt! Whether it is the income domain of DCLG’s Indices of Multiple Deprivation from 2010, or Experian’s Mosaic data with which so many of us are familiar, there is no lack of information allowing us to determine where we could be doing better. The missing element in all of the appraisals of our electoral performances is whether we are ‘under-‘ or ‘over-performing’ against demographically similar areas. Mosaic is too often rejected on the basis that it said that voter X was Mosaic category Y when she is a multi-millionaire. We can all find an example of a nonsensical category if we look hard enough. Yet Mosaic remains a powerful tool for analysing the totality of an electorate, and understanding what Conservative areas could or should look like. This is a crucial piece of the jigsaw, since it allows us to ask the right questions. No longer can we determine target lists of wards merely by the number votes we are behind, but we can identify wards where we ought to be doing better than we are, and then, critically, look at what the reasons are for under-performance. And that is where the novelty is here. I’m not just saying ‘Do as your Campaign Director says or else’. Under-performance is a concept that I think we have fought shy of for too long. It isn’t about castigating a particular branch or Association for not winning a ward. It’s about the wider Party family asking itself the right questions, identifying where value can be added to existing campaigns, or initiating where there isn’t much to build on. We can know where we ought to be winning, and we can try to do something about it. There will be arguments against this. Some will say that it diverts effort and attention away from key targets. This may be true, but I would argue having a Councillor in Liverpool might transform that media market’s narrative, and benefit us in Wirral South or Sefton Central. Some will say it costs money. This is indubitably true – but if we are looking at wards where little happens currently, then costs will be relatively low. I have 102 Watering the desert – a forty for the North | Paul Maynard MP

just done a postal survey of a marginal ward of 5,000 voters in my constituency. Printing a nice double-sided glossy A4 survey, with window envelope and reply- paid envelope cost us £300. This is calculated on the basis of a 2.5% response rate where half put a stamp on (always put the prompt on, you’ll be amazed how many will) and we pay 33p per reply. On top of that is the time I spend composing overly-detailed replies – but its worth it, and it is how I build the delivery network. So in front of me right now I have my ‘top secret’ Forty for the North. These are affluent wards where we underperform – sometimes struggling to even get 5% of the vote – and are all in constituencies we do not hold, and which have not yet been announced for selection in the first batch. A few are in 2010 target seats, but the bulk is actually in safe Labour seats. Fifteen are in the North West, fifteen under the geographical misnomer that is ‘Yorkshire & Humber’ and a further fifteen in the North East. My challenge to the Party is to work with the local associations to ask the right questions to understand what the political ‘aroma’ is in each ward. There may be a good reason why we can’t get 5% of the vote in a ward which is amongst the 10% most affluent in the country and the LibDems win with 80% of the vote, still, despite their difficulties. But we won’t know that if we don’t ask and seek to understand why. We then need to invest a bit of time and effort in building up a pledge base in each ward, ensuring that election campaigns are run professionally, that delivery networks are built up using surveys and canvassing, and that GOTV on the day maximises yield, and that we analyse yield afterwards. All pretty straightforward stuff the Party has preached for years – yet it might be the first time ever in many of these fifty wards, perhaps. We can’t guarantee every year will be a bumper year, but we can do our utmost to ensure that we maximise our return on seats given any level of national support. We have to be authentic in our constituencies, not pretending to be someone we’re not, rooted and embedded in our local communities rather than merely appearing come election time like will o’the wisps. I challenge every incumbent MP in the North, every Euro-candidate on the list, every aspiring MP on the list to donate a Saturday afternoon to one of the fifty. We all have a stake in changing the facts on the ground. This isn’t about ‘one more heave’ to get us over a finishing line. It isn’t even about trying to win the 103 unwinnable. But it is about the ‘theory of marginal gains’ that brought British cycling such triumphs, and which I think can make such a difference in our local election performance. Starting from a premise that a seat is one we ought to be able to win, even if we are 75% behind at the previous election, is a very different attitude from only focusing on closely-fought wards. It’s about party building, pure and simple, and reaching back into the areas we might never have realised we retreated from. If we spend too much time yearning for a nostalgic past, as Larkin’s own poetry did, rather than engaging with the present, then the closing lines of Here will describe us all too perfectly: ‘untalkative, out of reach’. That won’t solve the Northern Dilemma any more than hunting the magic policy lever at the end of the rainbow will.

PAUL MAYNARD is Member of Parliament for Blackpool North and Cleveleys 104

iDEMOCRACY AND THE NEW MODEL PARTY

DOUGLAS CARSWELL MP

The Conservative party is a bit like HMV, the bankrupt music business. For years, just like HMV, we were market leaders. We won 44% of the vote in 1979, 42% in 1983 and 44% again in 1987. But like the old music retailer, we have been losing touch with our customer base. HMV sold music the wrong way, via a costly chain of shop outlets. We, too, have been retailing politics the wrong way. We last won a Parliamentary majority over twenty years ago. When we gained office after the 2010 election, we did so having got 36% of the vote. A pinnacle of success? 36% would have once been regarded as a disastrous trough. The stark truth we must confront is that the Tory party has wasted away across many parts of the country. In much of Scotland, we are a remote memory. In towns and cities across the north of England, there are not only no Tory councillors, but there have not been any for over twenty years. Even more alarming, perhaps, many constituency associations in southern England exist more on paper than in practice. A mass membership organisation, with over two million members a generation ago, has become a shadow of its former self. As late as the 1990s, we still had over 400,000 members. We have lost half our members since 2005. Some party strategists fear that we may never be able to win an outright majority again. Will we, they muse privately, forever have to depend on a coalition with the Liberal Democrats? My fear is that without change, we might become a kind of English version of Italy’s Northern League. A rump party confined to one region of the country, neither able nor willing to try to galvanise the whole country. For all the Cameroon talk of modernisation, when it comes to reforming the 105 party, we have had remarkably little of it. We continue to try to mobilise electoral support by running what are, in effect, a series of dining clubs scattered across the south east of England. No wonder we continue to fight the long retreat. ‘But’ you interrupt ‘it was all that Cameroon modernisation talk that was the problem. If only the party leadership had not focused on wind turbines and hugging hoodies, all would be well’. Really? Party membership was in serious decline long before anyone started to pepper the landscape with wind farms. Our share of the vote was in sharp decline long before anyone tried to get down with the hoodies. Modernisation has not been the problem. Our problem rather has been an almost complete absence of serious effort to change the way that we run our party and seek to mobilise mass support.

The digital revolution What is a political party for? First and foremost, to aggregate votes and opinion. In a democracy, where lots of people have a vote, parties ensure that voters have some sense of what it is that they might be voting for. The existence of parties allows they some idea of how different representatives might work together once in office. But along comes the internet, and suddenly it is possible to aggregate votes – and ideas – without having an established political party. We have seen this most dramatically with the emergence of the Five Star Movement in Italy. It came from obscurity to win one in four votes in the recent Italian elections. Of course, the Five Star Movement might not last more than a few months. But the forces that allow votes to aggregate online the way the Five Star has are now with us forever. From book selling to music retail, every market that the internet touches it changes. The barriers to entry come tumbling down. New niche competitors are able to take on established players on equal terms. So, too, in politics. The internet not only allows insurgent movements, like Five Star, to build a brand at a national level. Here in Britain, we are starting to see insurgents building successful local brands. As George Galloway, victor of the Bradford West by-election, put it ‘our media was social media ... , Facebook and YouTube ... at the touch of a button, 106 iDemocracy and the new model party | Douglas Carswell MP

I can speak to thousands of people ... Our election campaign was built entirely outside the Westminster bubble’.71 The internet, in short, is made for political insurgency. So we need a new kind of insurgent Conservatism.

Insurgent Conservatism The Conservative party can either harness the new forces that the internet is unleashing. Or be defeated by them. We can continue to sell ourselves politically the way that HMV sold music. Or we can become the political equivalent of spotify.

iMembership: In the age of the internet, it has never been easier to build mass membership organisations. Yet Conservative party membership is falling. We are doing something wrong. Today, being a member of the Tory party to often means paying £25 for the privilege of then being sent invitations to costly dinners. Not a great retail proposition, is it? So we need to change. There are over a quarter of a million folk living in Britain who describe themselves as conservative on Facebook and Twitter. Why don’t we adapt our membership structure to get as many of them as possible to join? Why not let anyone – literally anyone – have ‘supporter status’ provided they register online giving us just their name, email and postcode. Why not let anyone become an ‘iMember’ for £1 a year? If they are only joining online, why bill them for the off line overheads? Here is a really radical idea. Why not allow iMembers to vote to determine aspects of party policy, or elect members of the Party Board? Why not let iMembers and supporters vote online to select candidate shortlists? Or to facilitate primary candidate selections?

Candidate selection: The Cameroon diagnosis was spot on. In far too many seats, a diminished membership was selecting candidates that appealed to them – not necessarily those best placed to win over swing voters.

71 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9216743/Is-politics-on-the-verge-of-a-breakdown.html 107

The trouble was with the remedy. Drawing up an A list of candidates did not solve the problem. Party officials in London charged with drawing up the A list might have ensured a broader range of candidates were selected in terms of gender, background and heritage. It did little to ensure a broader range of candidates in terms of outlook and attitude. The Conservatives need to adopt proper open primary candidate selection. In the two seats, Totnes and Gosport, where the Conservatives did hold proper open primaries (as opposed to caucuses), they gained not only two remarkable results on polling day, but two exceptional MPs, Sarah Wollaston and . Costly to run as postal ballots, open primaries candidate selection could either be ‘piggy backed’ on to pre-existing local elections, or alternatively run online. Once voters are allowed to register as supporters online, large numbers of local people could be invited to take part in online polls to pick candidates. If you select candidates that are well rooted in their local communities, they probably won’t then need to be prepped on how to reach out to the electorate.

A different style: A freshly adopted parliamentary candidate, I once received some sage advice from my predecessor, Sir Julian Ridsdale. An MP for 38 years, he gave me his top tip: ‘Go to the places where the people gather.’ He might have had in mind the morning markets or bring-and-buy sales. But ‘the places where the people gather’ today are on Twitter and Facebook, too. Applying Sir Julian’s advice in the age of the internet means parties and their candidates need to be online. Not a ‘look-at-me’ boast site, but proper engagement. But engaging online demands a very different style. Back in the days when a candidate’s main opportunity to speak to the voters was via a TV studio, he or she would stick to the carefully rehearsed ‘lines to take’, prepared by party HQ. Try tweeting sound bites, and – unless you are being ironic – you soon look ridiculous. Social media create a ‘long tail’ in communication. Uniformity becomes impossible as candidates have to create authentic responses to the niche audience they are communicating with. The generic party brand and message might be important, but not as important as in the days when media was broadcast, not social. You will almost necessarily 108 iDemocracy and the new model party | Douglas Carswell MP

have to go beyond any generic messages if you want to have any kind of authentic online interaction.

Insurgent policy: The internet is a collective endeavour, without any central directing authority. If you are going to harness the internet to mobilise the Conservative party, you need to appreciate that it will no longer be possible to have a central directing authority control the party the way it has in the past. With a broader, looser membership base, the party base will be less deferential. With open primary selection, candidates will answer outward to their constituents, not merely inward to the hierarchy and whips. The party must become insurgent in not only style, but in outlook. To a certain kind of Westminster grandee, that alone would put them off the idea of change. But maybe that is the problem. Perhaps the Tory party has been run for too long as though it belongs to a certain kind of grandee in SW1, the property of those who are a little bit too comfortable with the way things are. Contemporary Conservatism is too at ease with a failed elite in Whitehall; with central bankers that ran the economy into the ground; with Europhile mandarins keen to sign us up to more Brussels; with an inept, self-regarding administrative

class that thought it could control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but, it turns out, could not even control our own borders. Insurgent Conservatism means that we would become the party of change. From Disraeli, to Thatcher and – yes, even to Cameron – the Tories have been at their greatest not when they merely seek to conserve things, but when they look to overturn the way things are.

DOUGLAS CARSWELL is Member of Parliament for Clacton. He is the author of ‘The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy’. Renewal’s goal is to help the Conservative Party to broaden its appeal in order to win an overall majority and be able to govern alone for a sustained period of time. In particular, we consider four overlapping challenges for the Conservative Party, aiming to set out how it can serve and appeal to: • Working people. • People living outside of the traditional Conservative heartlands. • Ethnic minority voters. • Voters living in cities, major urban centres and their suburbs. We aim to develop practical solutions to these Conservative challenges, with a particular focus on: • Building more housing. • Moving towards full employment. • Urban renewal and reviving less prosperous parts of the UK. • Helping the low paid. • Protecting consumers. • Creating a cohesive society. This book of essays brings together MPs and other key figures from across the Conservative Party to consider how the Conservatives can achieve success at the next election and beyond, championing ordinary working people, reaching out to parts of the country where there is little Conservative presence and reforming the Party machine. These essays are only the beginning of a campaign designed to generate ideas and provoke debate. www.renewalgroup.org.uk