CentreRight

As Michael Martin concedes that the game is up, attention shifts to the list of his potential successors. One thing is clear: the personal qualities of the new Speaker, especially his or her attitude to expenses (the new proxy for decency and integrity) will override all party political considerations.

 Rachel Sylvester in today's Times believes that the balance of power has shifted away from organisations and towards individuals, because we've lost faith in institutions and will no longer defer to elites.Certainly Michael Martin has discovered to his cost that he cannot rely on the protection afforded by deference to his office. But Sylvester omits an important point: that the reason why we are reluctant to accept the authority of institutions is because the holders of office have abused their position. This is not about institutional failure, but personal failure. Institutions which still command popular respect do so because of the personal qualities of those who represent them, the Queen being a conspicuous example.

Rebuilding public trust in politicians will be dependent on their personal conduct. But the ultimate objective of those politicians must be to gain respect for Parliament, rather than the pursuit of individual success. The health – indeed, the survival - of a free society depends on the strength of its institutions. Yes, the new Speaker should have a clean expenses record. But he (or she) must first and foremost believe in the institutional significance of the office of Speaker and the sovereignty of parliament.

In the think-tanks of Westminster, especially on the centre-right, the big question driving much of our work is this: what are the practical policy recommendations which will enable a future government to reduce public spending and public debt, and get the nation's finances back on track? In other words, planning for austerity government.

But as Anthony King points out in today's Telegraph,  for austerity government to be successful its ministers must have the confidence of the nation. This is why the latest twist of the MPs' expenses story is so depressing. We are facing, in King's words, "British political leaders' loss of moral authority during a time of dislocation and recession when – more than for many years past – moral authority is badly needed. Whichever party wins the next general election, millions of Britons are going to have to make personal sacrifices during the coming decade.

It would be hard enough for a Winston Churchill or a Clement Attlee to persuade them to accept those sacrifices with good grace. It will be far harder, perhaps impossible, for the present generation of leaders to achieve the same effect."

If David Cameron is to gain the moral authority he will need to govern austerity Britain, he needs to act boldly now to restore trust in his colleagues. Let us hope there are enough capable Tories with modest expenses records to enable Cameron to make a few strategic appointments.

At what point does a technical word or phrase acquire the critical mass (a case in point) to make the transition from specialist usage to common parlance? Yesterday saw the first appearance in the British media of the trilemma, a concept formerly confined to Christian apologetics or monetary theory. Harvard professor and telly-don Niall Ferguson brought the term to light in a dazzling lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies last night. Not only did Ferguson establish his credentials as the most compelling intellectual of the centre-right, he may also have succeeded in bringing the trilemma into mainstream political language, where it looks set to be widely adopted (and adapted). Michael White puts it on a high-wire in today's Guardian; in the Indie  Deborah Orr applies the device to the 'Daily Mail problem' of rights and responsibilities. At the Centre for Policy Studies we'll be tracking the trilemma's progress over the coming weeks and months - trilemma-spotters welcome, email blog@cps.org.uk - or tell me here at Centre Right.

Baroness Thatcher was on top form at the Centre for Policy Studies last night for the annual Keith Joseph Memorial lecture. Engaging Sir Bob Geldof and CPS Chairman Lord Saatchi in animated conversation over drinks afterwards, it was clear she was enjoying herself far too much to slip away quietly.

Peter Oborne, who gave this year's lecture, delivered some harsh criticism of today's political classes, especially the 'truth-creating, post modern' approach of the Labour government, and concluded by quoting the great Lady on the importance of honesty when facing the electorate. ‘In politics' she declared 'integrity really lies in the conviction that it’s only on the basis of truth that power should be won — or indeed can be worth winning.’  Words spoken thirteen years ago, at the first Keith Joseph lecture, but very timely advice for politicians of today.

And as he paid tribute to Sir Keith as a man who engaged in truth telling even at the expense of his own political advancement, Peter threw down a challenge to the Conservative party of 2009. If they are to to govern effectively in a bleak economic climate, they must 'not only dismantle the apparatus of postmodern government but also reclaim the truth, and look back to their own roots in the British empirical tradition.'

One question remained unspoken: are today's politicians held in such low regard that the British public is no longer prepared to believe any of them?

A shamelessly cheerful Harriet Harman was the keynote speaker at today's breakfast launch of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation "definitive" report on poverty, inequality and policy in the Labour years; Nick Timmins gives a pretty fair summary in today's FT .

Put briefly: as Labour poured money into welfare spending during its first term, the resultant redistribution shrank (modestly) the numbers of pensioners and children in relative poverty; by 2004 child and pensioner poverty started rising again, and wages were stalling. And as we already know, a plethora of expensive intitiatives made no impact whatosever on the NEETS (16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training) - despite a buoyant economy with no lack of of jobs.

As we stare into the pit of a plunging labour market, there is not much for the Government to be proud of. While she wages war on Mandy, staking out her place as the true champion of equality, Hattie would do well to apologise - on behalf of all her colleagues and especially her erstwhile friend and mentor Gordon Brown - for the wasted years, the wasted billions and the wasted opportunities. Opportunites to create a pro-work, pro-family welfare system with reduced dependency and genuine (not grade-inflated) educational opportunities for all. It's no good telling us you cared, or asking us to let you try more of the same. You had your chance (and our money) and you blew it. You might at least say sorry. 

Quote of the day - and a mini-manifesto for all of us on the centre-right - is from Frank Field in the Indie:

"We are caught up in believing that it is the State that ensures social progress. History teaches otherwise. Secure social advance has been achieved by freeing up the basic impulses of human beings to do good, and to improve the conditions of their families and friends. For politicians to learn that getting off the back of families and communities might be the best way to drive a social advance may be the hardest lesson that the new politics demands."

Those who do not learn from (economic) history are condemned to repeat it. One of the conclusions offered by IFS Director Robert Chote at this morning's Green Budget was that the path of the public finances over the last twelve years and predicted over the next five is 'uncannily similar to that trodden by the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997.' In other words, from deficit to surplus in the first three years in office, then eight years of 'fiscal drift masked by economic overconfidence.' In year 12 'hubris gave way to nemesis' as the country plunged into recession. Despite the attempts at even-handed comparisons, however, Chote's presentation went on to show significantly higher levels of public sector net debt under this Government than in the Conservative years (higher, in fact, than at any time since the inter-war years) - and that's without Northern Rock and all the other 'off-balance sheet liabilities' such as PFI and public sector pensions. The overall message was clear enough: Brown's hubristic claims to have re-invented the economic cycle and abolished 'boom and bust' has led this country to the biggest bust of all.

You might think that the Government's record on losing our personal data would have made ministers more cautious about sharing that data across govenrment departments and agencies. No chance. Take a look at the provisions tucked away in small print of the Coroners and Justice Bill in yesterday's Queen's Speech , supposedly a bill to put the interests of victims and the bereaved at the heart of the justice system. The bill includes provisions to "remove barriers to effective data sharing to support improved public services and the fight against crime and terrorism." Under the guise of strengthening the powers of the Information Commissioner, the Bill will in fact reduce parliamentary scrutiny, providing ministers with a "fast-track" procedure for sharing personal data wherever they consider it appropriate. As I warned in my CPS report earlier this year, the Government is hell-bent on managing and controlling our every interaction with public services through the accumulation and transfer of personal information. What's more, they don't want us to see it happening. If they have any concern for privacy, or for keeeping big (Brother) government in its place, Conservatives and Lib Dems should be all over this Bill.

Bureaucracy kills. According to Haringey Council, the decision to send Baby P home - to undergo six months of unspeakable torture ending in a painful death – was made at a ‘multi-agency meeting.’  The entire child protection structure post-Climbie is designed on a ‘multi-disciplinary’ model. The theory is that if all the public agencies with a role in child protection (social services, health, education, police) are brought together to make decisions, the right outcome will be reached. However, it’s just as likely that the wrong outcome will be arrived at, as in Baby P’s case, because the ‘partnership’ structure dilutes accountability. Everyone – and no-one – is to blame. Or as the DCSF puts it:

"The pitfall to watch out for is 'collaborative inertia', in which the process of integration actually gets in the way of effective service delivery, leading to negligible outputs and slow, often painful, progress."

There are so many things wrong with the current structure I won’t attempt to list them here; I have written extensively on the subject for the Centre for Policy Studies and (on a case dismaying similar to Baby P) in the Sunday Times.

All I will say is this: the death of Baby P is the bleakest indictment yet of the colossal and expensive failure of Every Child Matters, so often  trumpeted by this government as evidence of Labour compassion.

I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that the NI holiday for new jobs announced by David Cameron yesterday will represent only a small part of the Conservatives’ new recession-beating tax cuts.  Because there is certainly a sense of anti-climax after the intense press and media build up at the weekend. It’s hard to disagree with David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce when he says that this is a welfare reform suited to better economic times, rather than a tool for the downturn we are now experiencing. With the announcement of 4,000 jobs lost in the UK in just one day, it’s clear that the overriding concern of most businesses is whether they can stay afloat and how many jobs may have to be cut in order to survive – not the prospect of creating new jobs.

These are extreme circumstances which call for extreme measures, and it is a bitter irony that one G Brown, prime architect of Britain’s economic crisis, is now garnering praise for the urgency and gravity with which he responds to the crisis, the shameless abandonment of his own golden rules being presented as  just more proof of his ability to do “whatever is necessary” to get  Britain through the crisis.

So the Conservatives need to show that they do indeed grasp the scale of the downturn, and that they are prepared to move out of the narrow political confines in which they are in danger of being trapped. There is a route open to them which is entirely consistent with their pre-recession narrative of the “post-bureaucratic age.” It is to reduce the size of the state, because it is increasingly obvious that a shrinking private sector cannot support – and will not continue to tolerate - the bureaucratic public sector which so far remains impervious to economic reality. Removing entire layers of government, cancelling billions of pounds worth of useless (and damaging) databases, radical reform of public sector pensions and bonuses, ending the daily diet of pointless and self-defeating government initiatives , not to mention culling a few ministries and more than a few quangos. There has never been a better time to make the case for lean government – so what are we waiting for?

As the markets give their daily, desperate verdict on the banking collapse and on the lack of urgency in the Government's response, journalists and commentators are torn between prescribing solutions and deciding who, or what, to blame. And as Ruth Lea points out here on Centre Right, collapse of trust between banks is key to the current problem. But collapse of trust in government is also a huge factor.

Perhaps the most damaging inheritance of the Blair/Brown years has been the death of trust in politicians. In the aftermath of the 'dodgy dossier' days, we thought that the the failure of trust would most jeopardise a future government's ability to uphold confidence in times of war. Now we know that the death of trust can jeopardise our economic future. And trust, once lost, is the hardest quality to rebuild.

If you haven't already had a surfeit of Mandy coverage, do see the FT's interview today, in which the new Secretary of State for Business explains how he - and Gordon, and Alastair - have undergone remarkable personal transformation. Mandy is now, by his own account,"'mature" and "collegiate" as a result of his European experiences; Alastair has "regenerated" and is "a different person." Gordon has, amazingly, needed only a short break over the summer to achieve his own metamorphosis (must have been all those chats with Mandy): he has not just lost physical weight but so much baggage that he can now "see the wood for the trees." Well I never.

Try counting the first person pronouns in the interview, however, and you'll see that in one respect Mandy is the same old Peter. Contrary to Brown and co's feeble claims all weekend that personalities are irrelevant, the return of  Mandelson to front line politics ensures that it will (up to an including the next fall from grace) be "all about me."

The beleagured Gordon Brown is playing a last desperate card in his bid to regain the respect of his party and the public, claiming that his personal expereince of adversity makes him the man to lead Britian through its economic woes. According to today's Times front page, Brown says he will confront current problems in the way he has dealt with his own troubles, making a reference to the death of his premature baby daughter and the loss of an eye in a school rubgy accident.

This is not a show of strength, Prime Minister, it's a naked bid for sympathy. The loss of a child - or an eye - is life-changing. The experience of such tragedies can make you stronger and more determined - or weaker and more susceptible to emotion. They can make you more obstinate - or more vulnerable. But they do not equip you to lead the country. Right now, your decision to trade on tragedy just looks like another bad call.

If we lose our privacy, do we also lose our humanity? It might seem an odd question to ask in the week when Max Mosley looks set to win his case against the News of the World for their lurid allegations about his sexual activities. Yesterday the Centre for Policy Studies held a seminar to examine the right to a private life; noted human rights lawyer Jonathan Cooper OBE explained the history of privacy law, a concept largely neglected by the English legal system and now reliant on the European Convention on Human Rights. As the law gradually develops a more detailed definition of privacy rights, clearly we need a balance between legitimate public interest and the right of public figures to a private life.

But what about the rest of us? We might not be at risk of paparazzi intrusion, but the 'surveillance society' requires ordinary citizens increasingly to surrender their privacy to agencies of the State. Is it alarmist to care about this? I don't think so. The more data the government collects, the more it seeks to define and manage our identities, the less we are able to call any part of our lives our own. In Cooper's words "It is the everyday quality of the right to private life that makes its protection so important within the human rights lexicon." And maybe it's one of those things you don't think about much - until you lose it.

Does reducing the stigma of family breakdown make its consequences any easier to bear? A short item in   today's Telegraph reports on the latest data from the National Child Development Study , which tracks the lives of children born in 1958 and compares them to those born in 1970. One of the biggest social changes in that period was the explosion in divorce and family breakdown. Those of us now hitting 50 had just a 9% chance of parental break-up, but for today's thirty-somethings, the rate more than doubled (21%). As sociologist Kathleen Kiernan comments in her report on the NCDS data, one might expect that the increased prevalence of divorce would have reduced its impact on children - after all, if break-up is 'normalised', wouldn't the consequences would be less disruptive?

Not so, says Kiernan: the damaging effects (such as poor educational outcomes, unemployment and depression)  are just as prevalent in the 1970 generation. As the children of the millennium face an estimated 1 in 3 risk of family breakdown, this conclusion is disheartening. It certainly underlines the need for policymakers to find ways to increase family stability, and to reduce the number of children exposed to parental divorce and separation. Taking away the stigma is not the answer.

Speaking at a Centre for Policy Studies seminar yesterday David Cameron acknowledged that the best way for government to help people struggling with higher living costs is to reduce their tax burden. To achieve that reduction, government must do less. And the way to ensure that government does less is to place fewer demands upon it.

Hence the virtuous circle which a Conservative government would seek to create in the 'post-bureaucratic age.' The aim is that voluntary, private and social enterprise organisations will be given much greater freedom to provide services currently in the public sector. Dismantling the bureaucracy which at present inhibits this freedom is a huge task. As Eric Pickles explained in the same seminar, public services today are dominated by the requirements of 'structure' rather than 'function.' 

This series of seminars continues to wrestle with the difficulties inherent in moving to the 'function-led' approach. The goal is worthy  - to create a stronger society in which fewer individuals depend on the state. The dangers are that the project can sound too daunting (how many governments have tried and failed to reduce bureaucracy?) and that the language can be too esoteric. David Cameron's remarks yesterday succeeded in bringing the discussion down to earth. Less dependency= less government= lower tax.

"The reason I'm a marriage freak is because I'm a commitment freak." David Cameron, answering a question this morning at his lecture to Relate, deftly explained why he thinks marriage is deserving of special treatment not accorded to other relationships (and why he includes civil partnerships but not cohabitation in the deserving category). And certainly Cameron has shown real commitment to supporting marriage, in contrast to many other politicians of recent years, both Tory and (especially) Labour. 

Today's lecture aimed to put that support in the wider context of  'family-friendly' policies, like affordable childcare, the right to request flexible working for all parents (of children up to 18), and 'corporate social responsibilty' (aka the chocolate orange offensive). It was delivered with passion, a few (but not too many) personal comments, and a very welcome name-check for Dr Wade Horn, whose credentials for promoting marriage as the basis of family stability are impeccable.

Extensive coverage on this morning's Today programme of the state of child protection in the UK, including an interview with the mother of Victoria Climbie, reviewing the impact of government action in response to the Laming Inquiry (into Victoria's death eight years ago).

Mme Climbie is - rightly - concerned that children are no safer now than they were before the Every Child Matters agenda was implemented. Placing the blame on local authorities, some of whom seem to be incapable of fulfilling basic child protection procedures, Mme Climbie - mistakenly although understandably - praises the Government for Every Child Matters.

What the Today programme neglected to consider, however, was the possibility that Every Child Matters has actually put more children at risk. By creating a responsibility to safeguard every child - rather than focusing on the most vulnerable - the government has diverted scarce resources, confused front line staff and - characteristically - generated more mindless bureaucracy.

This was dismayingly predictable and a subject on which I have writtten in the press and for the Centre for Policy Studies. I am not alone in taking this view, which is shared by many child health professionals,  and on which many of them are now actively lobbying.  There is a huge challenge here for the Conservatives, who will naturally be fearful of recommending yet more re-organisation of child protection but risk inheriting a deeply flawed system.

The Conservatives are today claiming credit for the introduction of a National Money Guidance Service. Regardless of which party thought of it first, it's a bad idea to impose a  'Social Responsibility Levy' (ie a tax) to pay for 'independent' (ie Government-approved) advisors. Especially when it will be 'delivered' by the FSA.  A supervisory body which failed spot trouble brewing at Northern Rock is the last place I should look for a guarantee of financial wisdom.

The social cost of family breakdown, especially its impact on children, is nowadays widely understood, as research evidence mounts in both Britain and the US. Attempting to assess the economic cost of transitory relationships and father-absent families is a more difficult task. However, as Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation reports on her blog for the Centre for Policy Studies, four American institutes have combined to produce the first-ever US survey (over all 50 states) of the total annual cost of family break-up. They have come up with a figure of  $112 billion, which they describe as a 'conservative' estimate.The intention is clear: to strengthen the case for funding marriage-support programmes and to ensure that welfare systems do not penalise couple families.

Given that UK rates of family breakdown, non-marital births and one-parent households all rival or outstrip US rates, there's no doubt that a UK audit of this kind would present some dramatic figures. The Conservatives under David Cameron have made commendably clear their commitment to removing the 'couple penalty' from the welfare system and to supporting marriage through the tax system, although they remain cautious about the means of funding both intitiatives. A UK investigation into the cost to taxpayers of family breakdown would undoubtedly make both of those commitments look remarkably good value.

Today's must-read is Jeff Randall in Telegraph Business, on a new book also flagged up by Nick Cohen in the Observer. Key quote: "In 10 years, Labour has spent about £1trillion - that's £1,000,000,000,000 - more than would have been the case, inflation adjusted, if government spending had been held at 1997-98 levels. That's about £50,000 for every household." The book, 'Squandered - How Gordon Brown is wasting over one trillion pounds of our money, is by David Craig. Well worth investing £8.99, I should think.

Devotees of CentreRight will know that I have little faith in national obesity strategies - but I'm all for slimmer government. Today's report from the Centre for Policy Studies  (usefully summed up by BBC news online) provides evidence from 20 countries to dispel a few of the widely-accepted myths about the impact of tax cuts. In particular, the myth that cutting taxes leads to cuts in public services and/or cuts in defence budgets, or law and order. It also dispels the myth that tax-cutting governments preside over countries with big income disparities. And the report shows that governments which cut or hold down income and corporate tax rates enjoy stronger growth, create more jobs, and keep down government debt. In other words, slimmer governments are much better able to react nimbly to a global downturn - unlike our own, bloated and lumbering state.

Bloggers converged on Portcullis House last night for a packed seminar held by the Centre for Policy Studies and the Daily Telegraph to discuss Robert Colvile’s recent CPS report on the impact of the internet on the UK political scene. Speaking alongside Robert were George Osborne, the Telegraph's Iain Martin and founder of mySociety Tom Steinberg.

Speakers concurred that thanks to the power of search engines and the scale of information available online, never has the adage of the man in Whitehall knowing best seemed more out of date.   George Osborne noted the dominance of the centre right in the British blogosphere and the way that Conservative Home and Iain Dale’s Diary have enlivened political discussion and debate. In a political culture of message control and centralised Party discipline the Internet certainly challenges politicians’ fear of ‘letting go’ and using new technology in a genuinely collaborative way.

The Centre for Policy Studies is breaking ground here with its new online forum ‘Webjam’ , attempting to rise to the challenge  laid down by Alex Singleton in his Brassneck account of the seminar. But let's hope that online interaction, however innovative and empowering, never kills off the face-to-face event. There was a buzz in the room last night that you simply can't create on a screen.

In only one aspect of the British education system do we remain world leaders: the independent sector. Until now, that sector has managed to resist most of the malign influences of dumbing down, progressive education  and grade inflation. By responding to parental choice, encouraging achievement and expecting the best for their pupils, independent schools have demonstrated that (as everyone on CentreRight understands) freedom from government intervention leads to the best outcomes

But if the Charity Commission has its way, with the draft guidelines (published today and reviewed in the Telegraph), such freedom will end. Tories may be nervous about defending the private sector lest they be accused of elitism. But we should be in no doubt that penalising success is no way to remedy failure.

Q:When is a target not a target?
A: When it's an aspiration.

OK, so you've all heard that one before (especially if you've read the 2008 Lexicon from the Centre for Policy Studies).

But what about the latest definition from Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, quoted in today's Guardian on the Government's dismal failure to meet its child poverty target: "The target is a statement of our values; it is a statement of our aspiration for Britain, and it is a statement of something we will continue to be committed to over the next decade."

So now we know.