CentreRight

David Cameron's speech to the CBI starts to set out how we can build a richer future for our country. This is incredibly important. As reported yesterday, our real pay packets have been pretty much flat for the seven years since 2002. Rescuing the nation's finances is only half the story. Building a greater future so that our nation is a richer and more fun place to be is essential too.

It is important that David Cameron debunked the idea that deficit spending is somehow a good thing. It's not. It's a fools errand. Recovery can only be built on sound public finances, not by Government sucking up all available credit to fund reckless defict spending. We need to spend less. And we saw clear measures set out to control spending.  The Conservatives have also set out an important and positive agenda for growth. Strongly pro enterprise. Lower corporation tax rates, on which the Conservatives want to go further, lower NICs for smaller businesses, getting business the credit it needs and upskilling workers.

This was a really important speech. It starts to move beyond how bad things are now to how good they could be. The richer destiny our nation could have with the Conservatives. People tell me constantly on the doorstep how they want to hear more about our plans for more jobs and money. Today's speech sets out that positive agenda. And it's essential, because after seven years of tiny pay rises. . . we rather need seven (ideally more) years of more plentiful pay!

We should all be interested in the Government’s manoeuvres with the banks. A good receipt in a few years is important to the nation's finances. If an unwise move is made now, Gordon Brown’s “car boot sale” might more resemble the “closing down sale” so lampooned in Private Eye. It really matters to us all now – and in ensuring our children’s futures are unscorched.

The Government is planning to force RBS to offload its insurance division, including Direct Line, Churchill and Green Flag. Meanwhile RBS-branded branches in England may be sold off as Williams and Glyn Bank. We also learn that RBS is also under pressure to shed some of its investment banking units. Lloyds too will likely have to offload some of its operations - including the Intelligent Finance internet banking division.

Now here’s the key question. When is the best time to sell off insurance, retail banking and investment banking businesses? Sure as eggs, now is not the time to sell of investment banking. Investment banking will likely be a growth story that would fetch a very good price in a few years time. Retail internet banking is also a growth story. Traditional retail banking resembles a utility in nature – except right now market sentiment does not favour it for a good sale price. Insurance has certainly been more stable, but share prices suggest now would not be a great time to sell. The insurance sector was far higher in 2007 and likely to be back to stronger levels two or more years from now.

The best time to sell such businesses is not likely to be now – and may not be next year either. The difference could be very substantial. Any move to stuff these assets into Gordon Brown’s car boot must be viewed with grave caution and substantial concern. Brown has form when it comes to selling at the bottom of the market and the nation simply cannot afford a repeat of the Gold sale fiasco.

This video is well worth watching to get a sense of the impact the information age will have on election campaigning.

Mendip Media, the people behind the video, also build websites. An example is Mark Garnier's brilliant website for his campaign to win back Wyre Forest.

I'd be really interested to know where readers think this is all going. This is my take . . . Many people think the next election will be the first true internet election. While I find internet campaiging fascinating and six months is a long time in the information age, I'm not convinced. My sense is that web campaigning has not yet caught fire in the same way as it did in the US Presidential election. Traffic levels are good, but not yet transformative. Somehow the tipping point has not quite been reached.

Most likely is that in local campaigns and nationally, the broadcast and print media, lots of leaflets and getting out and about at fetes and community events will matter far more. A shoe leather election more than an internet election. But still . . . watch out for being done over on YouTube and be prepared for the election of 2014 / 2015 being a full blown information age election.

So it is coming down the line. The most likely scenario for now is that the internet will be important for finding and marshalling helpers, supporters and fellow travellers. And to engage effectively with younger people in our communities. This is the experience that I have had with using social media in Dover & Deal. Sam Coates' brilliant work on myconservatives may well surprise in how effective it will make campaigning on the ground. And engaging with potential supporters in the sort of conversation you can have with Web 2.0 and social media like Facebook and Twitter is an essential to turn "I might help" into "I am engaged and will help to make the difference." That seems a key difference between the old shop window web page and the newer two way conversation you can have.

The expected announcement today of the privatisation of £16 Bn assets owned by the Government is reckless and irresponsible. It amounts to a firesale.

There is nothing wrong with selling off assets or Labour's privatisation programme as a matter of general principle, but it is incredibly poor timing. Right now the values of all assets classes are low thanks to the credit crunch and the recession. So it makes no sense at all to be privatising assets. As a nation, we simply won't get the value out of them that we could and should.

What's the better strategy? To live within our means and get the deficit under control, which is the underlying problem. To wait for economic recovery which will bring with it a recovery in the value of assets. That's likely a three to six year horizon, not the firesale we are witnessing. And to take great care before selling assets that touch and concern the security of the nation - like Uranium enrichment. But then Gordon Brown has form on this doesn't he? We all remember how he sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market. And we are all too keenly aware of his scorched earth policy which will see Britain's finances shredded ahead of a possible change in Government next year. We are witnessing an extension of Brown's scorched earth policy. This firesale is not in the national interest.

Conservative Way Forward kindly asked me to edit the Conference edition of its magazine, Forward!, which is available to download here as a pdf file (although be warned it is a very big file). It includes articles by Philip Hammond MP, Dr Liam Fox MP and Greg Hands MP, yet the focus of the magazine is on the "Class of 2010", the candidates who are standing for Parliament and what motivates them.

Obviously, there is no complacency. As David Cameron keeps saying, to elect a Conservative Government needs an historically big swing. In asking people to write - from a very wide range of seats - I gave a totally free hand on what could be written about. It's clear from the articles that candidates are very concerned about public services, are deeply compassionate, ambitious for Britain, looking for more decentralisation with power to the people and showing a strong desire to restore trust and confidence in our public life.

I hope this will make for an interesting read and demostrate how committed and thoughtful our Parliamentary candidates are. The magazine is also being handed out at the Conference in Manchester, so any Conference-goers should be able to pick up a hard copy.

The Conservatives are leading the way in the blogosphere, social networking and online campaigning. So a few of us thought it would be a good idea to hold a fringe to discuss best practice and tips for success.

Rishi Saha, Head of New Media at CCHQ, will talk about myconservatives.com and all the other great things CCHQ are working on. Louise Bagshawe, Prospective MP for Corby, will lead on twitter, facebook and how the get the best out of social networking. Stephan Shakespeare, founder of YouGov, will look to the future and I will chat about campaign websites and online campaign building. Tim Montgomerie is the panel chairman.

Do come along. The fringe is on Tuesday, 12.45 for 1 in the Colony Dining Room of the Midland Hotel. It should be fun and there is a free buffet lunch as well! Click on the flyer (below) to get it in full size.

There is nothing I hate more than traffic jams.  Sure, better public transport would help.  Major projects like High Speed Rail will make a big difference, yet will take time to come on line. And even longer to change the fact that the average person goes nearly 6,000 miles a year in a car, but just 1,000 miles by public transport (see table 11.4 here - little changed on the late 1990s as shown by table 10.6 here).

But it’s more than the tedium of sitting in traffic queues for an age while the kids scream in the back. It costs us money. Lots of money.  £20 Billion a year according to the CBI. And there’s an environmental cost too. We are not talking about a carbon footprint here, it’s more like a giant carbon boot. An hour in a jam results in about 2.36 Kg of Carbon according to the AA.  So traffic jams are an all round bad thing.

I write this as while stopping off on a trip recently I saw how things can be done better.  The (clickable) picture shows road workers busy on a Sunday.  A team was scraping off tarmac on one side of the road while on the other they were resurfacing.  The whole operation was being done at incredible speed. Often we see one person do the work while one or two others look on.  Not here – everyone was hard at it and very well organised.  Which made me think how an incoming Conservative Government could do much to tackle traffic jams and congestion.  Here are some ideas:

• Works on busy roads should be overnight or on days where road use is lightest. Motorway works should only be done overnight unless there is a very good reason not to;
• Rent a lane should be used as much as possible to encourage contractors to get a move on;
• It should only be possible for utility undertakers to dig up a road once a year in co-ordination with other undertakers except in real emergencies;
• Traffic lights should be phased to minimise jams and keep traffic moving; and
• The necessity for traffic lights that cause hold ups should be reviewed – anyone heading to Norwich by road lately will have noticed that the lights on the A11 through the Thetford Forest routinely cause long tailbacks polluting the forest . . . could a roundabout not make things go more quickly? There are lots of examples like this up and down the land.

We know that money will be tight for a Conservative Government. These ideas are not about big money – they are about how we can do more for less. And do more to protect our environment at the same time.

The other day, the IMF warned that the Budget deficit this year and next will be some 13% - taking GDP at £1.4 Trillions, that’s over £180 Billion each year.  Meaningless eh? How about £15,000 a household over these two years. That’s the real cost of Gordon Brown’s economic incompetence.  We’re in the middle of the bitterest recession in 60 years.  The IMF warn that we risk a double dip downturn as well as 100% debt to GDP ratio in five years if action is not taken. The possibility of a run on Sterling is included for good measure.

The upshot of Brown’s misrule is that public spending will have to be reined in sharply - some say by up to £100 Billion - to have a hope of stabilising the economy. It will take time to alter things so we can do more for less. Ken Clarke is being honest in warning of higher taxes. History shows that tax rises may will be necessary in the short term, just as Margaret Thatcher found back in 1979. And that’s just to stabilise the public finances and close the budget deficit.  Paying down the national debt is a whole different ball game.

Every day Gordon Brown stays in office, the earth is being further scorched to the tune of nearly £500 million.  And each day the medicine that will be required to put it right gets stronger and more distasteful. Trident, ID cards, NHS IT projects, carriers . . . at these levels of financial chaos, all the big projects must be in the mix for the difficult decisions.  What do Centre Right readers think are the projects we must keep and which should be let go?

The Telegraph is wrong to be critical of of the Conservatives considering a plan to lower business taxes. Lower and simpler business taxes are a good idea and will do much to spur the attractiveness of Britain as a place to do business. Reducing Britain's debt mountain is really important for all of us too.

The business tax system allows a lot of reliefs - notably for capital allowances and debt interest. Some of these reliefs could be reduced and the tax rate cut.  A "Lawsonian" approach. This means you get a lower tax rate and a simpler tax system. Discourage excessive debt by treating interest more like dividends and you encourage more equity investment. Can't pay a dividend? Well, the business passes on the dividend and can keep going until better times. Can't pay the interest? The business cuts investment or, worse, goes bust. Debt financing seems great on the way up - it is terrible on the way down. This is exactly what we are seeing. It has made the recession tougher than it needed to be.

So why then are some business interests so keen on debt being so tax attractive? Well a culture has grown up where interest is basically used to avoid UK tax. On an industrial scale. Large multinationals and private equity barons use this relief to reduce UK profits and get the money offshore to places where there is no tax - like the Channel Islands. Great for them, bad for the taxpayer, bad for all of us and our jobs in making the recession harder than it needs to be.

Now, debt is not always a "bad thing". It has its place. It is also entirely understandable that big business interests will hate any change in this area as it would put a stop to mass tax avoidance and stamp out much tax haven planning.Yet it is not right it should be tax preferred over equity financing as it is. As we can see from the effects of the recession, it would be better and fairer to enable a more level playing field between equity investment and debt, attractive to reduce the country's debt mountain at all levels and desirable to have lower, simpler business taxes.

Leading on from Tim's post, some politicians and candidates may be delighted by the attention he refers to, a few may even be swayed, yet most by far will think of who they serve. Like the person on £350 a week (the average wage in Dover & Deal) who struggles to pay the TV tax, frankly prefers Sky or Cable anyway, and would benefit from a more widely based and exciting media market.

And that must surely be the key question here for everyone in public life. Forget the nice dinner, the free DVD and the posh race course enclosure, the key question is does the BBC stand in the way of a more interesting media future for Britain and her people? It's much more than just a matter of questionable programming, excessive pay and the entertainment of MPs and candidates.  It's the mixing of public sector and profit making operations that enables the BBC to compete in the media market in unfair ways, including brand stretching. In any other walk of economic life that would be a state aid. Anyone who has been to the USA, and seen the vast ocean of choice, will see what I mean and understand how it could be.

Media is changing fast now, there is a great convergence between platforms going on and nothing - not even the BBC - can be allowed to slow this media revolution or damage Britain's chance to be at the forefront of it.

You really have to hand it to Hazel Blears, don't you? They say no-one who crosses the Chipmunk ever lives to tell the tale and I can't help thinking they are right. It looks like she's really done it for Gordon Brown. We all thought he was sort of the living dead - increasingly grey, finished, but somehow he wouldn't quite finally go. The timing could not be more damaging and if I had to place a bet, I reckon this could finally tip it for Brown to go after Thursday and pave the way for an October election. What do Centre Right readers think?

Blears' resignation statement must be one of the most damning ever. Incredibly well drafted, with meaning built in at all levels, just about every line of it is critical of Brown in some way. A quick review:

"Today I have told the prime minister that I am resigning from the Government. [And I cannot tell you just how relieved I am]

"My politics has always been rooted in the belief that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things, given the right support and encouragement. [Gordon is horrible and undermined me all the time]

"The role of a progressive Government should be to pass power to the people [He's a complete control freak, isn't he?]. I've never sought high office for the sake of it, or for what I can gain, but for what I can achieve for the people I represent and serve [He just clings onto power for the sake of it, he has no purpose or direction, has forgotten what he's for. He is just in it for himself].

"In this next phase of my political life I am redoubling my efforts to speak up for the people of Salford as their Member of Parliament. I am returning to the grassroots (where I began), to political activism, to the cut and thrust of political debate. [I am so relieved to be out of this wretched Government and to be able to focus on the things that matter to me - including getting revenge on Gordon Brown]

"Most of all I want to help the Labour Party to reconnect with the British people, to remind them that our values are their values, that their hopes and dreams are ours too. [We have to dump Gordon and start over right away.  No-one knows what we stand for anymore. We've really got our work cut out, haven't we? I want to be part of the Labour renewal.]

"I am glad to be going home to the people who matter the most to me: the people of Salford. [As far away from Gordon as I can get . . . Salford will do]

"Finally, there's an important set of elections tomorrow. My message is simple: get out and vote Labour. [I still believe in the Labour Party and I am loyal to the cause.]

As things rapidly move forward on the expenses saga, where do readers think it's all going to end up? I'd be really interested to know what people think. This is probably a very premature discussion, but here are some thoughts:

• David Cameron has marked himself out as being in touch with the public mood and as having the strength to run the country through the tough years that lie ahead.  It's astonishing to see how he is basically firing Conservative MPs while Brown sits on his hands. Note the "marketing man" jibes have dried up as he pretty much leads the country through the crisis as though he were already PM;
• A lot of MPs still don't "get it". Especially on the Labour side. The public want to see a lot of reform of our politics. Yet on the issue of the next Speaker, many Labour MPs say they support John Bercow MP because they think it will annoy the Conservative Party. John has many qualities that could make him a great Speaker, but his case being made on such a petty basis shows how far out of step with the public mood many Parliamentarians still are. They need to wake up and smell the coffee. This area is still developing rapidly and in unpredictable ways;
• While there is massive public rage, the public increasingly don't want simply to tear down the ramparts. There is a mood for changing the way we do things in a positive way. It's spreading beyond Parliamentary reform. On the doorstep people rage about powerlessness, quangos and the general lack of accountability (in the past they'd yawn about these subjects!). The mood seems to be swinging in favour of localism and democratic accountability.  That's a major opportunity for the Conservative Party;
• People are not just angry about MPs expenses.  This too is spreading into concern about the size and wastefulness of public spending across the board in the middle of a recession. Again, there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to put the case for tougher action on wasteful public spending.  On what Government should and should not do. There is also the potential for radical reforms like publishing all public sector receipts, spending and so on online. It would certainly make public sector spenders think very carefully about spending if it could be seen and they could be asked about it by the public.
• Voters are angry, turnout could indeed be low, but people seem a lot more interested in politics than they have been for a long time. Everything has been thrown up in the air in what could turn out to be a form of political revolution as Alan Duncan MP has suggested. There is certainly a greater opportunity to reshape things than has existed since 1979, probably since WWII.

All in all, the worst recession in 60 years, the deepest political crisis for maybe 100 years . . . both at once. This is a very interesting time to be alive! We might find ourselves bouncing our grandchildren on our knees in years to come saying "Did I tell you about 2009..."

. . . Just make it up! The latest Labour party political broadcast is a good example of the genre.

Not likely to be taken notice of now, given that expenses are dominating everything. Yet perhaps a pointer to more desperate and dirty campaigning to come?

As the expenses saga goes on, the public anger continues to increase. It's not just the person who applies to the social fund and gets a bed but is denied a mattress who looks askance at what has been going on.

Volunteer party activists I speak to are incandescent with rage.  They give their time for free.  Because they believe in what our country can be. The elderly lady who stuffs envelopes, the man who works long hours yet still finds time to help deliver some leaflets, the retired ex army guy who is the backbone of the canvassing operation and the full time mum who telephones through hundreds of numbers from home. Let's not forget too the presentational skills professional who charges vastly reduced rates so Conservative speakers present their best front. They are universal in the anger they feel at what has been going on. They tell me time and again they don't give up their time for nothing to witness the sort of things we have seen.

It doesn't look like sorry will now be good enough. David Cameron has some difficult decisions to make in the days ahead. In making those decisions, I am certain that he will have the strong support of the voluntary party and can start the process of restoring trust and confidence in our gravely battered public life.

Compare these these two statements.  First, in today's Telegraph:

"Thirteen members of the cabinet have been under pressure to apologise over their expenses claims exposed by the Telegraph last week.  However, no-one has yet said sorry, insisting that their claims complied with Commons rules"

And today Alan Duncan's comments when questioned about the Telegraph reports:

"I understand why people are angry and they should be. Every MP has to apologise for what has arisen over time."

While David Cameron is saying MPs need to put their hands up and admit the system is not right. And it's good to see that Cheryl Gillan is repaying the dog food, which is clearly the right thing to do.

They say that when things go wrong it's not that they've gone wrong that matters, it's how you deal with it. No-one comes out of this matter looking good. What's gone on is clearly appalling. Yet today the Conservative leadership is dealing with the matter of the expenses in the right way. There is no moaning about being within the rules, there is no "Labour are worse than us" (even though they clearly are). Sorry is what the public want to hear - sorry is the best word. Once again the Conservative leadership has shown itself to be sure footed in highly unstable territory . . . and increasingly fit for Government.

So now we know.  It's not just the Housing Minister with his houses or the Home Secretary with her homewares and multi media entertainment options.  The expenses fiasco goes right to the top. 

And more than that, veteran back benchers who should know better - especially people like Sir Stuart Bell MP - attack not the wrongdoing that is before them, but the press and anyone else who whistle blows. Chequebook journalism? At least the Telegraph wrote a cheque with it's own money and not ours.  Statements from the Prime Minister that the system is "wrong" and "needs to change" just add insult to injury. Sorry is when you repay the cash, and they're not planning to do that, are they? 

The entire Parliamentary Labour Party seems to have forgotten what it is for.  They seem more interested in how far they can stick their hands in the till than fixing the country. They come across rotten to the core, unfit for public office.

Three cheers for David Cameron in his strong rebuttal of the Times' unfair attack about us being a party of sad, shuffling men in suits. With more women in the Shadow Cabinet than the Labour Cabinet and with us set to treble female MPs to near 60 if we win the General Election we have much to shout about on how much the Conservative Party has changed.

It's disappointing that the debate about women in politics always seems to be about numbers, not quality.  Now numbers do matter. But we can see from the Labour benches that is not always the whole story.  We know from Margaret Thatcher's amazing leadership of our country that quality matters too. 

It is striking just how much talent there is across the board in today's Conservative Party. In particular, I have long been inspired by the great quality we will have in female MPs should the Conservatives form a Government after the next election. The more so after attending the Spring Forum at the weekend. David Cameron's aspiration for one third female ministers is clearly achievable. And the country - not just Times jounalists - are in for a shock at just how much they will shake up our national life for the better. Bring it on! 

Opinion polls leads of nearly 20%, possible Conservative majorities of 170, journalists are only interested in what the Conservatives have to say... well it's all in the bag isn't it?  Er . . . not quite. As every marginal seat candidate will tell you, history teaches that poll leads tend to tighten towards elections, we should take nothing for granted and we must not be complacent. Above all we must avoid the smug triumphalism that cost Labour in 1992.

We are entering a potentially dangerous time. The media are looking at the Conservative plans in detail now. It could be tempting for some to get over confident, get carried away and say daft things.  Things that would be seized on by our opponents. It could be tempting for campaigners to work less hard as they think we've won already. And we have an important set of elections coming up - low turnout elections where door knocking and getting out the vote will make a big difference and ensure our momentum continues.

I don't want to sound like Cassandra or a party pooper but we do need to keep our feet rooted firmly on the ground and beware triumphalism!

Today's Lords report on sharing the TV Tax with other broadcasters is a good idea.  But aren't the Lords' recommendations a bit timid? The proposals appear to concern only a small amount of the TV Tax and only after 2012. So the BBC is free to use the TV Tax money we are forced to hand over, under threat of criminal prosecution, to splash money on glamorous buildings in Manchester, putting local papers, local radio and good magazines out of business with predatory tactics and harming competitors in regional telly.

Hasn't this all gone on for long enough? As an instinctive tax cutter, I'd love to scrap the TV Tax as it is totally unjust, falling hardest on the elderly and the poor.  We don't have an internet tax, so why should we have a TV Tax? This quirk of history really ought to be axed in the interest of fairness.

Yet if there is a lack of will or conviction to axe the TV Tax, should it not at least be reformed? Would it not be fairer for the TV Tax money to go to channels according to who actually watches them? I'd be really interested to know if readers think that Virgin Media, ITV, Sky and other TV companies should get a slice of this money according to their viewers? Or should the TV Tax be used to help fund regional radio and regional TV in some way - or indeed are there other reforms that could be undertaken?

If you are a benefits cheat, why should you feel any shame when the employment minister acts as he does? If you are a peddler of filth or a fraudster, why should you feel any shame when the Home Secretary, who is meant to uphold the criminal law, acts as she does? Doesn't it just sap your confidence when the likes of Stuart Bell MP seek to root out the whistle blower while being silent on the blatant behaviour of his ministerial Parliamentary colleagues?

The maintenance of respect for our national leaders is important. The appalling behaviour of so many Labour Parliamentarians - particularly these two ministers - eats away at our social fabric. It eats away at the respect, civility, honesty and decency that we collectively try to build in our society.

Parliamentarians should set an example. But how to turn it all around? If it were down to you, would you strip these ministers of office? What other steps would you take to restore trust in our political system?

The Chinese have floated the idea, the Russians are keen, the Americans indicate they might ("yes, but no") support it and the IMF could run it... a new global currency. Is this idea just barmy talk, geopolitical posturing or could it actually happen?

In my post here yesterday on the worries about the Government being able to continue its binge borrowing, much of the comment discussion was on this idea. My first reaction was "What a loony idea, that'll never happen!" but then the Americans suddenly seem to have helped it run.

What do people think?