Just how do get from his conference speech a few weeks ago to Tuesday’s speech? How can you simultaneously believe, without some major philosophical gymnastics, that ‘it is more government that got us into this mess’ and ‘we need to use the state to remake society.’

Others have had a hack at the factual basis of the speech (Next Left, Channel 4 News, and Left Foot Forward) and on this score it was very dodgy indeed.

However, there is a much more interesting point to make. There is clearly a battle for the soul of the Leader of the Opposition in his private office. On Tuesday, Steve Hilton won. Steve Hilton is the good Cameron, progressive to his core. However, the conference Cameron was Thatcherite to his core. The good Cameron is far more intriguing. I have to say that notion that you can use the state to remake civil society is truly radical. Most social democrats, myself included, would be cautious about pursuing that as a notion. And yet, here you have the leader of the Conservative party making exactly that point.

If he really meant all this as a fundamental attack on poverty, he would have to make arguments about redistribution, asset and wealth transfer, large scale investment and he is not willing to make those arguments. However, in terms of building a more mutualistic, solidaristic, and activist society that takes more reciprocal responsibility- and I regard all that to be absolutely the right thing to seek- his arguments do perhaps have some force.

The real question becomes which David Cameron will emerge from this internal struggle (within the Tory party and within himself)? We can’t say but Osborne-ite masochistic economics might force the answer. That would be a pity.

It has the following elements:

- Members elected on an AV+ basis using the old European constituencies with a regional top up.
- Elections would be every five years and coincide with European elections.
- No member of the new House of Lords can be a member of the government. If they join the Government they would have to resign their seat.
- A minimum age of 40.
- Parties would commit to selecting candidates on the basis of expertise and to reflect the diversity of the UK.

Why make these changes?

“By having a different source of authority – and timing – this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote – and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system.”

Which brings me nicely on to David Cameron’s absolutely barmy intention to introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill (it didn’t really bring me nicely on to this but whatever….) There are two possibilities for the Bill:

- It is meaningless. Therefore it achieves nothing but may simply make the UK look silly. Parliament is already sovereign- we can leave the EU at any time.
- It is meaningful. In which case, we are leaving the European Union. European law supercedes UK law. Any UK law passed which suggests otherwise is incompatible with EU treaties and, therefore, we would have to leave. Potty.

Fraser Nelson writes:

“Mr Cameron’s proposed Sovereignty Bill — declaring the primacy of English law over the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — will also be meaningless unless it includes the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”

Er, that is not meaningless I’m afraid. That would mean that the UK is leaving the EU. Quite meaningful, I would say. I’d be interested to hear whether Fraser Nelson has got confirmation that is what the legislation would contain. If it does, then Cameron is committing to the UK going it alone.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is Kenneth Clarke describing such legislation as: “fundamentally incompatible with EU membership.”

All this lets the eurosceptic genie out of the bottle. He is placing himself in a position of fundamental and ongoing conflict with the EU. Where does that end up? It ends up in only one place: a referendum on leaving the EU as he won’t get his own way. Playing with fire Mr Cameron.

Post script: The BBC adds a bit more colour to the story. Pierre Lallouche is simply saying what others are thinking.

Of course, they are going to keep all this bottled up. There’s an electorate to be hoodwinked and an election to be won don’t you know. Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, tries to ride both horses- loyalty and euroscpeticism. It will work for a few months but will explode in David Cameron’s face should he win next May.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in Paris, Berlin, and Madrid when the first attempt to re-negotiate the Treaties is made. David Cameron may well be prepared for a hostile reaction. I’m sure Margaret Thatcher’s ‘give us our money back’ rhetoric could be resuscitated. He could conveniently forget that two years after Fontainebleau, Mrs Thatcher signed the Single European Act, the biggest single expansion of European power since the Treaty of Rome. Maybe he could be honest and call his rallying cry: ‘give me my party back.’ But he’ll be disappointed. He won’t be met with hostility. He’ll be met with ridicule.

Maybe once they’ve wiped the tears of laughter away, they will decide to get all pragmatic. Sure, you can have those social and employment rights opt outs- things like maternity leave, guaranteed holidays, rights for agency workers (which also protects non-agency worker from having their terms competed away)- but there’s a price. Um, we’ll have that £3billion rebate for a start. You want to reform CAP? Silly boy. I hope you don’t mind Mr Cameron, but we’ve put you with Iceland and Slovenia for the dinner. Don’t worry your table gets jelly and ice cream rather than grown-ups’ puddings. You just love jelly and ice cream, don’t you?

(As an aside, what happens if David Cameron does succeed in a re-negotiation? Would that not be a Treaty change? So would he not be bound to have a referendum in accordance with his own promise? And what if he then lost that referendum? Just a thought….)

Jessica Asato makes the important point that Labour shouldn’t just carp from the side-lines and revel in the Tories repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for no purpose. We should ‘make the case.’ But what is that case?

Well, it’s about national sovereignty actually. The EU, far from being a dilution of national sovereignty, is a reclaiming of national sovereignty. In a world of large regional powers, with open commerce, movement of people, global communications, and large-scale cross-border environmental damage, there is little use in defending formal sovereignty. Instead, you have to find ways of cooperating with like-minded nations to confront these challenges. That is a reclaim of de facto sovereignty- you have a greater say over the future of your people.

What is the consequence of this? We can better manage and grow our economy, fight crime and terrorism, manage our borders, reduce climate change, protect the rights of our workers, influence global affairs and confront the multiplicity of risks that modern nations face.

Is Europe perfect? No, and we have to be clear about that. We have to support the EU but also articulate a strong case for reform. It is woefully undemocratic. What say do we have over the appointment of the new president of the Council? Or the next president of the Commission? Or the Commission itself? We can only influence these appointments through the European Parliament and so there is little public debate. There is a severe deficit of transparency- what actually happens in Council meetings? The continuation of the CAP in its expansive form is a disgrace and completely unjustified.

None of this can change without enjoying a degree of influence. None of these things are costs that outweigh the benefits but nor are they insignificant. But our influence over our own affairs and our global influence (just listen to the noises coming out of Washington) depends on being a strong member of the EU. Any movement towards the periphery away from the core is detrimental to our national interest and our sovereignty.

Ultimately, that is the cost of a Conservative government. David Cameron has already placed himself on the very periphery of the EU- through his rheroric; his clubbing together with a rag-bag of anti-semites, homophobes, and climate change deniers in the European Parliament, sticking two fingers up to President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in the meantime; and with his determination to suck Europe back into an institutional wrangle. That is not in Britain’s self-interest. That is not statesmanship.

*The image is courtesy of the Ministry of Truth.
** It is also worth reading Next Left on this.

The Conservatives were severely hindered by comments made by their business spokesperson, Kenneth Clarke, that:

“My view is that those few wild and open spaces that we have left in Britain should not be used for wind turbines.”

He was quickly put in his place by Greg Clark, the shadow energy and climate change secretary. The Conservatives are keen to portray themselves as being just as committed to renewable energy as Labour. Indeed, their idea that communities that permit new wind turbines can keep the Business Rates from them for six years is positive. But it will not be enough simply to pursue clever ‘nudge-esque’ tinkering.

Greg Clark’s clarification of the Conservative position came after Ed Miliband, never slow to take a new media campaigning opportunity, had dashed off a letter to David Cameron signed by 3000+ (including myself) to seek clarification of the Tory position and insist that they acknowledge the importance of on-shore wind generation.

The problem with the Tories’ position, it would seem, is that they are very deeply divided so, despite good intentions, will not be able to use the full muscle of government to create market conditions that lever in major investment so that the UK meets its renewable energy commitments (15% of electricity generated to be renewable by 2020.) David Cameron’s anti-government rhetoric in his conference speech suggests that ideologically they are quite simply in the wrong place to make a big difference. Can the UK afford to lose four to five years of the next ten in pursuing a laggardly approach to climate change?

The reality is that Greg Clark’s rhetoric and micro-incentives are fine but Kenneth Clarke’s attitude is closer to the Tory mainstream.

A report by SERA (note to self: must remember to join), shows that Tory Councils:

- Only approve 40% of applications for wind turbines.
- Have only approved wind capacity of 44.7MW of electricity from wind power.

It’s all very well imploring us to ‘Vote Blue, Go Green’ but the reality is very different to that it would seem.

The piece looks at particular issues concerning race and alienation. Just to be clear about my overall position:

- As a nation we have made huge strides in eliminating overt racism but in a sense that is the easy bit. If someone describes a black tennis player as a ‘froggy golliwog guy’ then that is clearly unacceptable and it wasn’t four decades ago.
- Like the United States, there is a burgeoning ethnic minority middle class and minorities proliferate our media, culture, and sport. That is progress.
- However, just as in the United States, there is a large proportion of minorities who have been left behind- and that is distinct from immigration. In a sense, this is tied in with wider socio-economic change and the growth of inequality. Thirty years ago the ship of opportunity left the port and those who were left behind were disproportionately minorities.
- That is why when you listen to alienated white, working class communities and the same alienated voices in minority communities you often hear similar voices. Class is a major part of this (see the piece for some observations.)
- However, there are alienating experiences that are significantly down to race. The ‘stop and search’ resentment, job discrimination, etc. There are other types of discrimination too- social class, sexuality, gender- but this does not invalidate the claim that there is a great deal of hidden racial discrimination in the UK.
- Finally, we do not have an honest public discussion about these issues. What do we teach at our schools? Why would we need a Black History Month if history properly reflected the diversity of the British people? Why does so much discrimination persist? Why do our public institutions- particularly the criminal justice system- operate in a way that alienates and condemns so many minority groups?

I’m afraid all these issues are not answered adequately by the retort ‘the white/ working class have it bad too.’ We must seek a more equal, more mobile, less discriminatory society. We must talk more openly about these issues (in a way that the BNP does not.) We have an enormous distance to travel. If we start to talk about these issues in a more open way then many people who are suspicious of each other might find themselves with rather more in common than they think.

Anyway, I discuss my reasons for objecting to the BNP appearing on Question Time in the piece. Mainly, it is because they are a party that seeks to deny human rights to millions so beyond what is the legal requisite, their voice should not be amplified or legitimised. That is what the appearance on Question Time and the precedent it sets will achieve, whatever happens on Thursday night.

If the conversion to electric powered cars is to happen more rapidly and we are to limit use of petrol powered vehicles in the meantime then some road pricing will have to be considered. It could incentivise the move to electric also. Revenues from any road pricing could be used to build the infrastructure of charging points etc. for electric vehicles and could be used to subsidise the purchase of new electric vehicles.

The CCC refused to take this discussion off the table. To quote:

“There is good economic rationale to introduce road pricing and thereby reduce congestion. Evidence in this report suggests that road pricing would result in a significant emissions reduction (e.g. around 6 MtCO2 in 2020) if there were no offsetting reductions in other aspects of transport pricing (i.e. fuel duty, VED.)”

There is an equity issue. There are many people on lower incomes or whom are performing essential tasks who may find themselves hit hard by any introduction of road pricing. This particularly becomes the case if the journeys are unavoidable. Perhaps there is a simple way of deadening the impact (and there must be an impact if there is to be a disincentive) for people in such a position. The reality may be that it is only longer distance journeys, i.e. those over 30 miles or so, that would attract some sort of price.

What cannot happen is that we just bury equity issues when we consider new ways of incentivising lower carbon emitting behaviour. For example, just as we provide opportunity for shared ownership social housing for healthcare workers, we may wish to provide additional grants for the purchase of new electric cars so they could avoid road charges altogether (electric cars would not attract any charges.)

This is a controversial area but one that can not be ducked if the UK is to hit the most ambitious carbon reduction targets possible. There is an environmental necessity for the UK to be a world leader, a moral necessity (we kicked all this off after all…), but also potentially a huge economic gain as we become a world leader in the science of climate change, research, manufacturing, services etc; if we get this right, the UK would become a net exporter of environmental goods and services. Let’s not leave this one to Germany, the US, China, and Japan.

Just returning to the infrastructure point for a moment, it was very pleasing to see that the Mayor of London has included consideration of on-road infrastructure needed to make electric vehicles work in the city in his new London Plan. One in five new parking spaces will need to have an electric power point. Not enough in my view but a good principle to embed in the planning system nonetheless.

***UPDATE***

Boris, I was nice but then you announce eye-popping public transport fare increases. Why? Because you are refusing to take the tough choices on the environment, bowing instead to the Chelsea tractor and big haulage brigade. As Simon Fletcher explains on LabourList:

“It is claimed – though we will have to see – that the higher fares will raise an extra £125million. Yet Boris Johnson’s own actions have cut millions from TfL’s budgets – £50m-£70million a year will go when the western extension is abolished; £50million a year has been lost through the cancellation of the £25 CO2 charge on gas guzzlers; millions are being wasted through the new Routemaster plan, the removal of bendy buses and the ending of the mutually beneficial agreement with Venezuela.”

************

Finally, I’d encourage you to have a quick read of The great BBC global warming swindle piece I posted a few days ago. One to watch….

If you have a blog, Facebook account or Twitter etc then I think this video deserves to be disseminated….

A few weeks ago the Tories did their own historical video on ‘progressive conservatism.’ It was laughable. I can’t even be bothered searching for it again.

‘Against the Odds’ reminded me of this incredible speech to the Labour party a few years back which I had the absolute pleasure to watch. “There are good men and women all over the world. Those good men and women are to be found in the Labour party of Great Britain.”

It wasn’t the Conservative party conference that he attended…

Post script: Note to ‘Against the Odds’ film-maker. Very few people are roused by Manchester United winning the Champions League (quite the opposite)….Liverpool really coming back against the odds in 2005 is genuinely rousing…

He found time to post my weekly column which dealt with the emerging picture of the Tories from their conference in Manchester: irresponsible and damaging to the national interest.

The ‘dust and twigs’ reference is in relation to a David Cameron as ‘tea bag’ analogy that someone outlined to me over the weekend:

As he explained, you don’t know what’s in a tea bag until you dip it in hot water and see what emerges. On the evidence of Sunday morning, Cameron’s tea bag is full of dust and twigs.

The dust just washes away leaving a foul taste behind. It’s the twigs, though, that are the real concern.

More than any Opposition in living memory, this Cameron Conservative party is hell bent on pursuing major policies that are extremely detrimental to the UK’s national interest

And while you are considering the national interest and these Conservatives, I would highly recommend taking a few moments to read Edward McMillan-Scott’s analysis of David Cameron’s new friends. It is fierce and absolutely on the money.

There was my LabourList column on ‘why democratic reformers almost always lose.’ It deals with the angry reaction to the Prime Minister’s announcement on electoral reform in his speech of last Tuesday:

“Pluralists and reformers disagree amongst themselves. It’s in the nature of the endeavour. If they are truly committed to seeing reform actually happen they do so in a respectful manner. They know that compromises may be necessary along the way.

If PR were to be the only viable way forward then if it was a system that improved on first past the post (i.e. AV+) in terms of democratic renewal then that would be acceptable. I hope that if AV proves to be the only viable alternative – which it seems to be – then pluralists and reformers of all types will accept that also.

It doesn’t seem that it will happen that way. And that is why, just as they almost always do, the majoritarians will win.”

Next, I posted on the Progress website about the Conservative party’s new online organisation tool. It is not so much the tool itself that I like- the technology is fairly straightforward and Labour has its own version-ish. But it’s the openness of the Conservative approach that I like- a lot.

Anyone can use their tools and http://www.myconservatives.com/ was launched with a fanfare from their party leader who explained it as an aspect of the new politics. That is why I said that the Tories appear to ‘get it’ on technology. Party culture impacts the likelihood that new media is effective. The Conservative approach could make a difference over time (though not to the next election.)

Finally, I just want to draw attention to a couple of articles.

I’ve written on credit agencies in the past and there have been two recent pieces in the New Yorker that deal with the issue. Firstly, James Surowiecki explains how credit ratings agencies not only fostered the bubble but accelerated the panic in the crash. What’s more, they did so because they have become an institutionalised part of the system as a result of SEC rules.

Secondly, John Cassidy describes the process of rational irrationality- i.e. individuals behaving in rationally risky ways- and the crunch. It was rational for the credit ratings agencies to upgrade junk securities because they would lose business if they did not. As Cassidy states:

“But in a market environment the individual pursuit of self-interest, however rational, can give way to collective disaster. The invisible hand becomes a fist.”

Well put.

Oh, and Graeme Cooke’s take on the Tories’ welfare proposals is worth a read too. He is a former Special Advisor to James Purnell and now heads up the Open Left project at Demos.

Amazingly, the IMF is now also on the case. They worry about the impracticalities of a Tobin Tax. However, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF managing director has tasked his deputy, John Lipsky with looking at the possibility of introducing some sort of insurance levy to build a fund to cope with the fiscal consequences of bank collapse.

While the fund would clearly be used to help developing countries service their debts in the event of a widespread loss of liquidity in the main, would it not be right that such a fund could be used to help others who shoulder a great deal of risk through the size of the international financial markets that locate on their shores? The UK and Ireland are obvious examples.

It will be interesting to see how this discussion develops and how the insurance approach will be less avoidable by financial institutions than the tax approach, also favoured by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

There is still much to do to combat the risks of financial collapse that proposed reforms have not diminished significantly enough. I still fail to see why an EU wide separation of the risky parts of the financial system from the parts that look after our money is not being properly considered. As long as Paris, London, and Frankfurt were in on the act- as they would be if it was an EU directive- it should be doable. And don’t even start me on credit ratings agencies…..