follow this link - Conservative Way Forward

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Welcome tothe Autumnedition ofForward!Honorary PresidentThe Rt Hon Baroness Thatcher ofKesteven LG OM FRSHonorary Vice PresidentsChristopher Chope OBE MPThe Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MPThe Rt Hon William Hague MPThe Rt Hon Lord Parkinson of CarnforthThe Rt Hon Lord Tebbit of Chingford CHChairmanSir Gerald Howarth MPChief ExecutiveDonal BlaneyExecutive Director andEditor of Forward!Cllr Paul OsbornManagement BoardMark AllattCharlotte ArgyleDavid BerensPeter BottingConor Burns MPEmma CarrJames Cleverly AMAlex Deane CCJonathan SheppardCllr Greg SmithRussell WaltersSarkis ZeronianConservative Way Forward and CWF are tradingnames of Cherish Freedom, a company incorporatedin England & Wales under company registration no.08355124 and whose registered office is atGriffin Law, 10 Churchill Square, Kings Hill, WestMalling, Kent ME19 4YU. All data is processed inaccordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. (c)2013, Cherish Freedom. All rights reservedWelcome from the Editor of Forward!Welcome to the latest edition of Forward! For this, our Party Conference issue, Idecided to do something slightly different. I asked some of our contributors to writeabout one of our nine principles, outlining their importance and what policies should beintroduced to advance them.These nine principles were written for us by Lady Thatcher and Eric Forth and setout clearly and concisely a coherent set of beliefs. They should, as Lord Tebbit once said“provide us a map and compass with which to steer by”. The mission of ConservativeWay Forward has, since its founding in 1991, been to take these timeless principles anduse them to develop policies to solve the problems of today.This issue aims to provide a principled way of looking at how the Conservative Partycan develop its policies in the run up to the 2015 General Election. I strongly believe it isonly by setting out a clear vision for the future, grounded in core principles, that you canhope to win an overall majority in any election and, more importantly, achieve somethingworthwhile with power.It features articles on Nationhood from Lord Lamont, Security from Sir GeraldHowarth, Democracy from Douglas Carswell and articles from the leading think tankson both sides of the Atlantic.We also have a number of events coming up at Party Conference, the MidnightDrinks Reception on Sunday evening in the Midland Hotel from 11.30pm, where we willbe joined by a number of Cabinet Members and leading MPs, and a debate on Defenceon Tuesday at 5.30 at Exchange 10 in Manchester Central with Philip Hammond, theSecretary of State for Defence.I hope to see as many of you there as possible.Cllr. Paul Osborn is the Executive Director of Conservative Way Forward.Front Cover image and images on page 4 and 8© Crown copyright 2013Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 3

FORWARD! Autumn 2013CWF @ THE PARTYCONFERENCEMIDNIGHT DRINKS RECEPTIONSUNDAY 29TH SEPTEMBER - FROM 11.30PMPETERSFIELD SUITE, MIDLAND HOTELFREE ENTRY FOR CWF ASSOCIATE MEMBERSDEFENCE POLICY FOR THE NEXTGENERAL ELECTIONTUESDAY 1 OCTOBER - 5.30PMMANCHESTER CENTRAL, EXCHANGE 10CHAIRED BY SIR GERALD HOWARTH MP, CWF CHAIRMANRT HON PHILIP HAMMOND MP, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCEPAUL BEAVER, DIRECTOR - BEAVER WESTMINSTER LTDForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 4

FORWARD! Autumn 2013CherishFreedom,Thatcherites!Donal BlaneyThis is my first Party Conferenceas Chief Executive of ConservativeWay Forward.I joined CWF as a fresh-faced 19year-old in 1993 when I attended myfirst Party Conference up in Blackpool(and how I wish the Party wouldreturn to cheaper seaside towns inpreference to Manchester &Birmingham: it would surely help theParty reconnect with its dwindlingmembership).“CWF’s President, Lady Thatcher, was particularly adamantthat CWF should be a forward-looking organization,looking to apply her Nine Principles to tomorrow’schallenges rather than harking back to the past.”Twenty years later, CWF’svisionary founder, Mark Allatt, haspassed on the torch to me and youwill, I hope, understand my pride – notleast because Mark has been (andremains) a close friend after all theseyears. I am privileged to pay tribute toMark and his team for the great resultsthey achieved for the cause since 1991.The new CWF team, ably led bySir Gerald Howarth and Paul Osborn,has hit the ground running, pushing aconstructive Thatcherite agenda andboldly speaking up for the conservativewing of the coalition.CWF has always been at theforefront of debate within theConservative Party since our foundingin 1991. CWF’s President, LadyThatcher, was particularly adamant thatCWF should be a forward-lookingorganisation, looking to apply her NinePrinciples to tomorrow’s challengesrather than harking back to the past.After joining the CWFManagement Executive in 1999 at theend of my tenure as founding NationalChairman of the Party’s then newyouth wing, Conservative Future, Ibegan to spend an increasing amount oftime in the United States. I came acrosstwo groups – the Leadership Instituteand Young America’s Foundation – thatfocused exclusively on developing thetalents of young conservative leaders forthe battles ahead. I decided that weneeded a similar organization in BritainDonal Blaneyand in 2003 I co-founded the YoungBritons’ Foundation.YBF has a simple mission: as a nonpartisan,not-for-profit educational,research and training organization, YBFidentifies, educates, mentors and helpsto place young conservatives in publiclife. Now in its 10th year, YBF hastrained over 3,250 young conservatives.Some are now MPs, councillors andcandidates while others have gone on tosuccessful careers in the City, business,the professions or journalism, fromwhere they are able to support YBF’simportant work.This December, YBF will behosting its 10th Activist TrainingConference at Churchill College,Cambridge – a three-day, two-nightseries of keynote lectures from ministersand prominent politicians, think-tankheads and other leaders of theconservative movement in Britain,interactive skills workshops and, yes,hard partying that will return the 100 orso specially chosen young conservativeleaders to their campuses and localassociations reinvigorated for the fightwith our political opponents.If you wish to attend, or knowsomeone who you think ought to comealong, please do not hesitate to let YBF’sEvents Director, Claire Guyton, know.We would be delighted to welcome youor them to Cambridge – and a privateviewing of the Thatcher and Churchillarchives will cap off a memorable andlife-changing conference weekend.YBF only succeeds in its crucialwork because of the generosity andlong-term vision of its supporters. Thesupport of prominent conservatives isalso vital, which is why we are so proudthat 7 current cabinet ministers, 6former cabinet ministers and a galaxy ofother conservative stars, from Britainand abroad, have spoken at our events.But just as CWF and YBF areforward-looking, as we were encouragedto be by Lady Thatcher, theseorganisations are not enough. That iswhy I am delighted also to be behindthe development of the MargaretThatcher Centre, modeled in part onthe Ronald Reagan Presidential Library& Museum and the Reagan RanchCenter in California and theConservative Party’s former trainingacademy, Swinton College.Led by her close friend, ConorBurns MP, the Margaret ThatcherCentre, whose existence was announcedshortly after Lady Thatcher died inApril and which secured her blessing asa concept back in 2009, will be a placewhere young and old alike will learnabout Margaret Thatcher and her life,values and achievements throughForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 5

FORWARD! Autumn 2013historical exhibits and dynamic educational programmes – aplace dedicated to the lessons of history and vibrant ideas forthe future.The Visitors Gallery will add a unique component to theCentre’s educational programmes as Margaret Thatcher willtruly “come alive” through interpretive displays, interactivesites and video presentations that use the latest in touchscreen,audio and video technology so as to create a trulymemorable visitor experience.It will also offer tours and lectures by those who wereprivileged to work closely with and who best knew LadyThatcher ensuring that her ideas will be shared with futuregenerations of citizens and leaders.The Margaret Thatcher Centre will be a unique, firstclassfacility that will serve as a living monument to MargaretThatcher’s greatness. Through its visitors gallery andeducational programmes, the Centre will ensure thateveryone who visits will leave with an increased knowledge ofMargaret Thatcher and the ideas she championed.Lady Thatcher’s motto was “Cherish Freedom”. Now isthe time to ensure that future generations have anopportunity to know all that Margaret Thatcher did forBritain and the world.This is our opportunity to thank Margaret Thatcher forall that she has done for Britain and the cause of freedomacross the world and to ensure that her life, values andachievements are passed on to future generations and herlegacy is suitably honoured and properly protected.She delivered. Now it’s our turn.Donal Blaney is the Chief Executive of Conservative WayForward, the Young Britons’ Foundation and the Margaret ThatcherCentre.CWF’s Nine Principles"Your nine principles are right: indeed I believe that theyare the common ground of the Conservative Party today."The Rt Hon David Cameron MPDemocracyThe exercise of political power, with the consent of the people - through regular elections on the basis of universalsuffrage and a secret ballot.CapitalismThe most effective system of wealth creation. Free markets are blind to gender, race, class or religion.DeregulationDomestic and global - to maximise freedom of choice and individual responsibility in an improved societyFreedomFor responsible individuals, guaranteed by the rule of law administered by an independent judiciary and minimal stateactivity.CommunityDefined by geography, tradition, inheritance and sense of identity.EnterpriseFostered by a low tax, low inflation economy - with currency exchange rates determined by the free market.NationhoodEach nation must be free to determine its policies to the benefit of its citizens.SecurityThe first duty of the state is to provide external and internal defence of the citizenry.ChoiceFor individuals must be maximised - even if the state accepts responsibility for provision of a safety net.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 6

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Nationhood - Each nationmust be free to determineits policies to the benefit ofits citizens.Lord LamontThe Conservative Party hastraditionally been the party of Queen andCountry, of established institutions and ofthe nation state. It sounds old fashionedbut it’s still true. For Conservatives,patriotism is a virtue. Love of one’scountry does not mean one has todisparage other countries.Today we often hear it said that theday of the nation state is over. But howtrue is it? The United States is definitely asovereign nation state. Even the risingemerging powers of India, China andBrazil are emphatically nation states.While there may be regional trade blocksestablished in South America or Asia, thecountries of those continents are notstruggling to give up the right to governthemselves. Not without reason did MrsThatcher once say “there’s a lot of life leftin the nation state yet”.The nation state and democracy areclosely intertwined. The revolutions of thenineteenth century were the struggles ofdifferent nationalities to achieve selfdetermination.At that time ethnicity wasseen as a key element of the nation state.Today, a nation or a country, is withthe odd exception, like Japan – rarelycomposed of a single ethnic group.Countries may have a leading culture butthe identity of a country is a mixture ofhistory, institutions, traditions and values.Enoch Powell once observed that the life ofa nation, like that of an individual, is livedlargely in the imagination.Vaclav Havel, the late President ofThe Czech Republic, once predicted thatnation states would be become mereadministrative units. By this he meant themobility of people, even on a temporarybasis would make governments little morethan municipalities, providing services forthe local population. This view ignoreshistory and geopolitics.There is a different view ofnationhood between the countries ofcontinental Europe and the UK. Theformer are more prepared to merge theiridentities and institutions into supranationalinstitutions. This profound differencereflects different histories in the twentiethcentury.Scottish Nationalists would say similararguments mean Scotland should have itsown sovereign parliament andindependence from the United Kingdom.Unionists would reply that, after threehundred years together we have forged anew identity, a British identity, which hasbeen benefitted all the countries of theUnited Kingdom.But the question remains, if we canhave a British state, composed of fourcountries, why can we not have a Europeansuperstate, albeit of many more countries?The answer is that there is not a sufficientfeeling of a common identity with Europe.Political issues still vary hugely from oneEuropean country to another. People in theUK want to be able to vote in nationalelections for specific policies or the repeal ofcertain policies. They want to be able tohold a government to account and, ifnecessary, to chuck it out.The biggest threat to the British nationstate is increasing integration in theEuropean Union. The need to shore upthe Euro currency means that more andmore European legislation will be enactedat the initiative of the Eurozone but withconsequences for Britain. The risk is thatthe Eurozone members can outvote Britainand other countries outside the Euro andimpose on us measures harmful to oureconomy.“The nation stateand democracyare closelyintertwined. Therevolutions of thenineteenthcentury were thestruggles ofdifferentnationalities toachieve selfdetermination.”Lord LamontThe present Government deservespraise for the way in which it has sought toprotect Britain from the increasingfederalising tendency in Europe. TheGovernment has put in place provisions fora referendum in the event of any futuresignificant transfer of power from Britain tothe EU.It is the direction of travel that mostworries the public. In 1994, at aConservative Party conference, to howls ofprotest and criticism, I predicted the timemight come when Britain would have tochoose between a federal Europe andwhether it remained in Europe. Today thechoice is almost upon us.David Cameron has seen the dangers,he has said that he will seek to renegotiateBritain’s relationship with Europe and thenput the terms of that renegotiation to an“in-out” referendum. The British peoplewill be required to make a judgementwhether Britain can remain a member ofthe EU and be sufficiently protected fromits federal core. Will the renegotiation buildwalls sufficiently strong to protect Britainfrom the ever increasing centralisation ofthe EU? If people judge the answer to thatis no, then they will vote to leave the EU.The acid test will be, whether afterDavid Cameron’s renegotiation, Britain stillhas the freedom to make its own laws, forits own people, through its own parliament.That should be the aim.Lord Lamont of Lerwick is theVice-President of the Bruges Group and wasChancellor of the Exchequer from 1990-1993.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 7

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Security - The first duty ofthe state is to provideexternal and internaldefence of the citizenry.Sir Gerald Howarth MPWhen I was appointed Minister forInternational Security Strategy at theMinistry of Defence in 2010, the nation’sfinances had been destroyed by GordonBrown who left us with a budget deficit of£156 billion, far worse than the £10 billiondeficit inherited by Margaret Thatcher in1979. At the MoD, this financial disasterwas compounded by a £38 billion blackhole in its budget. I entirely endorsed LiamFox’s sentiment, and one which PhilipHammond continues to share, that thedeficit is itself a threat to our nationalsecurity.Action needed to be taken and theStrategic Defence and Security Review(SDSR) 2010 was a valiant effort, with verylimited time, to plan for Britain’s futuredefence in light of the nation’s desperatefinancial situation. We took the pragmaticdecision that we would not salami slice ourdefence capacity but would remove entirecapabilities if the resources could not befound, hence the retirement of the Harrierfleet and the cancellation of the NimrodMaritime Patrol Aircraft, a capability whichmust be reinstated at the very earliestopportunity.Nearly three years on from the SDSR,the world has changed considerably. TheArab Spring, the conflict in Libya and theongoing situation in Syria have takenanalysts completely by surprise. Thesedevelopments, once again, emphasise theimperative of ensuring our Armed Forcescontinue to receive the very best equipmentand training to face threats which are notfar from our own shores.to the Defence Select Committee). Itpromises to be a fascinating eveningdiscussing issues from SDSR 2015 to thefuture of Trident. Julian Lewis MP haswritten an excellent article on the future ofour nuclear deterrent for this edition ofForward; he rightly ridicules the absurdLiberal Democrats’ “Alternatives” Reviewproposing Britain operate a part-timedeterrent which would, of course, be nodeterrent at all.“I have consistentlyargued, it does notmake sense to cutthe defence budgetwhilst ring-fencingoverseas aid whichthis year increasedby £3.4 billion from2011 to meet thearbitrary figure of0.7% of GrossNational Income. ”Sir Gerald Howarth MPIt is also vital to remember the roleBritain’s defence industry plays in securingour borders and in our economic recoveryprogramme. The industry employs 300,000people nationwide with apprenticeshipschemes from BAE Systems to smallcompanies such as Hale Hamilton whomake the valves for the nuclear submarinesBAE build. These Small and Medium SizedEnterprises (SMEs) are the lifeblood of oureconomic recovery and, as they continue toproduce world leading technology, they notonly ensure our future security but alsothose of our allies across the globe.Through my ministerial duties I have seenfirsthand the Prime Minister’s decisiveleadership and passion for promoting thevery best of “Made in Britain” overseas;needless to say, Gordon Brown wholly failedto support this major answer to thefinancial crisis he helped to create.Diplomacy, now more than ever, playsa crucial role in securing Britain’s interestsoverseas. In Opposition, William Hagueboldly stated that a ConservativeGovernment would be committed to ‘nostrategic shrinkage’ coupled with a desire tohelp shape the world in which we findourselves and not simply to be shaped byevents. The Foreign Secretary is right but itwould be a hollow promise without themilitary might to reinforce it.Despite light at the end of theeconomic tunnel, there is still a significantway to go in tackling the budget deficit.However, as I have consistently argued, itdoes not make sense to cut the defencebudget whilst ring-fencing overseas aidwhich this year increased by £3.4 billionfrom 2011 to meet the arbitrary figure of0.7% of Gross National Income. The PrimeMinister can justifiably claim to have giveninternational leadership: based on apercentage of GDP, we are already theworld’s sixth largest aid contributor, whilstGermany contributes 0.39% of GNI and theUS 0.20%. Instead, at least £2.5 billionallocated to the aid budget this year shouldbe diverted to the MoD which oftenundertakes humanitarian missions.As we look towards the 2015 defencereview, we must revise our thinking in lightof recent events. For example, we mustupgrade our nuclear deterrent, restore ourMaritime Patrol Aircraft, increase the RoyalNavy’s surface fleet from the paltry 19planned and revisit the decision to reducethe regular army to 82,000. Finally, if wecan find £50 billion for a new railway line,we should immediately increase our defenceresearch budget from the current £1.8billion which compares with £5 billion in1985. Such investment will capitalise on ourhigh technology skills base, help generateexports and contribute to stronger defence.There are some major challenges aheadas recent events have shown. However, withthe first green shoots of economic recoveryemerging, it is right we take stock and giveserious consideration to the future ofBritain’s defences. The CWF defence debateSir Gerald Howarth MP is the Memberat the Party Conference this year is entitled:“Defence Policy for the next Generalof Parliament for Aldershot and is theElection” with panellists Philip HammondChairman of Conservative Way Forward.and Paul Beaver (defence analyst and adviserForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 8

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Toothless deterrence andthe Liberal Democrats.Julian Lewis MPSince the United Kingdombecame a nuclear power, successivegovernments have maintained acontinuous strategic deterrent. If theLiberal Democrats have their way,this will end and the country will nolonger be capable of instantretaliation to a nuclear attack. Ourfour-boat ballistic missile submarinefleet will be reduced to three (ormore probably two) making therestoration of a continuous deterrentunlikely (or more probablyimpossible).“For this reason, theLiberals shun thehonesty of the CNDposition. Both duringand after the coldwar years, poll afterpoll showed twothirdsof the Britishpeople supportingthe retention of anuclear deterrent aslong as othercountries possessnuclear weapons”The remaining submarines willgo to sea unarmed, thus providing nodeterrent at all. While they are at sea,all their nuclear warheads will besafely locked up at the Coulport depotashore, ready for redeployment attimes of ‘heightened tension’. In theAlice-in-Wonderland world of LiberalDemocrat strategy, we are expected tobelieve six impossible things not justbefore breakfast but indefinitely:First, that we shall have plenty ofwarning of an impending attack.Secondly, that any submarine inport will not immediately be targeted.Thirdly, that any submarine at seawill have time to return and re-arm.Fourthly, that any returningsubmarine will not be attacked assoon as it reaches Faslane.Fifthly, that the Coulport depotwill not instantly be obliterated withall our nuclear warheads still inside it.Finally, that deploying thedeterrent only in the midst of a crisiswill lessen the danger rather thanincreasing it.None of these assertions isbelievable by anyone who takes thethreat of nuclear aggression seriously.Unfortunately, the Liberal Democratsdo not. In March 2007, they votedtogether with the Labour left againstrenewing the Trident submarine fleet.Thanks to Conservative support, theBlair government nevertheless wonthe vote by 409 votes to 161. If therewere a vote in Parliament now to signthe ‘main gate’ contracts for thesesuccessor submarines, it would also beoverwhelmingly carried.Until 2010, no party ingovernment rejected the view that, aslong as other countries possess nuclearweapons, Britain must retain theability to retaliate if attacked.Fortunately, the Liberals were not inpower during the 1980s, when PaddyAshdown rightly described them, inthe CND magazine Sanity, as ‘theonly British political party that hasalways opposed a British nucleardeterrent’. If the Liberals wereunilateralist at the height of the Sovietthreat, it is hardly surprising that theycontinue to detest the deterrent in thepost-Cold War world.Yet, it is dangerous for them to betoo open about this: under Foot andKinnock, Labour paid a terribleelectoral price for its one-sidednuclear disarmament stance in 1983and 1987. In the Trident renewaldebate in 2007, Gerald Kaufmanmemorably reminded his party thathe dubbed the 1983 Labour manifestoJulian Lewis MP‘the longest suicide note in history’,and that ‘it is one thing to revisit thescene of the crime; it is quite anotherto revisit the scene of the suicide’.For this reason, the Liberals shunthe honesty of the CND position.Both during and after the cold waryears, poll after poll showed two-thirdsof the British people supporting theretention of a nuclear deterrent aslong as other countries possess nuclearweapons, and only one-quarterfavouring unilateral nucleardisarmament. Instead, theyrecommend a policy which flouts allthe rules of deterrence and whichinvites an aggressor to mount adevastating first-strike, before ourimpotent submarines can be reunitedwith their nuclear warheads.How much does this matter, giventhat the Conservative and Labourfront benches are united in support ofrenewing the Trident fleet? Quite alot, actually, as was demonstrated inOctober 2010 when it was suddenlyannounced that, instead of the ‘maingate’ contracts being signed in thisParliament, putting the future of thedeterrent beyond doubt, they wouldbe delayed until after the next generalelection. It has been estimated thatextending the life of the existingForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 9

FORWARD! Autumn 2013submarines, to enable this delay, costthe country £1.4 billion.If the Liberal Democrats holdthe balance of power in 2015, willthey stand by their commitment to atoothless and vulnerable Tridentsuccessor, or will they come out intheir true unilateralist colours –demanding its scrapping altogether aspart of the price of coalition? Whatwould Ed Miliband do, if scrappingthis single weapons system were allthat stood between him and the keysto 10 Downing Street?As for the Conservatives, it is truethat David Cameron has constantlyreiterated his commitment to Tridentand – most importantly – tomaintaining continuous at-seadeterrence. Yet, he too would bevulnerable to Liberal Democratblackmail on the issue, if theoutcome of the election gave themthe choice of coalition with eithermain party.The solution is obvious: the‘main gate’ decision should bebrought forward and the contractsshould be signed irrevocably before2015. If signing them for all foursubmarines now is felt to break thespirit of the 2010 CoalitionAgreement, then sign them just forthe first two or three. After all, eventhe Liberal Democrats now claim towant a 2 or 3-boat Trident fleet.Should we not take them at theirword?Only if their real agenda is toscrap Trident completely, as the priceof a future coalition, can theypossibly object to such a step – it is,after all, in the national interest.Dr Julian Lewis MP is the Member ofParliament for New Forest East and was theConservative Party’s defence spokesman on thenuclear deterrent in 2002–4 and 2005–10.Dr. Julian Lewis MP has written a series of policypapers published by CWFYou can download them at our websitewww.conwayfor.orgForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 10

FORWARD! Autumn 2013“Having worked in my ownfamily business in the BlackCountry I know that thespeed of introduction ofGovernment measures can,no matter how wellintentioned, cause difficultiesfor SMEs.Chris Kelly MPDeregulationDomestic and global - to maximise freedom of choice and individualresponsibility in an improved society.Chris Kelly MPIt's a great pleasure for me to be writing for Forward!having served for many years on CWF's executivecommittee during our opposition years and having metmy political heroine, Lady Thatcher, through her supportof so many CWF events.Despite being a coalition, this Government is takingthe most ambitious action ever proposed by a modernBritish government to slash the burden of regulation andcut red tape in order to boost growth and job creation.The last Labour Government presided over theequivalent of six new working regulations every workingday, or 1,500 a year, crippling small and medium sizedbusinesses like many of those in my Black Countryconstituency of Dudley South. Yet, at the same time,Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls devised atripartite system for the regulation of financial serviceswhich led to reduced regulation and a dramatic increasein the availability and flow of cheap credit in oureconomy. In stark contrast, this Government is the first tocommit to end its term with less regulation on the statutebook than when it came in.The culture that surrounds regulation is beingfundamentally reformed. The Government is reviewingall of the substantive regulations it inherited via the RedTape Challenge (www.cutredtape.org). We want to seeconventional regulation introduced only as a last resort;we will only approve new measures if goals cannot beachieved by self-regulation, co-regulation, informationand education, using economic instruments or in the rareevent that cost-benefit analysis shows that regulation ispreferable to other means.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 11

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Reducing regulation and red tape is a fundamentalpart of making the UK the best place in Europe to start,finance and grow a business. The Government backedStart-up Britain initiative (www.startupbritain.co.uk) andStart-up Loans company (www.startuploans.co.uk) aredoing great work providing advice, guidance, support andloans to new entrepreneurs but, in the past, too manystart-ups have buckled under the weight of red tape andregulation.Tackling red tape means also reducing the existingstock pile of regulation. This Conservative ledGovernment has committed to scrapping – orsubstantially reducing – at least 3,000 of the 6,500regulations being considered; we have already scrappedor improved over 1,750. Furthermore, the Governmenthas opted to consult both the public and businesses toidentify which regulations should be removed orimproved.Another flagship policy that has impressed SMEleaders in my own constituency is our ‘One-in, Two-out’rule. Whitehall estimates suggest that this policy will havesaved businesses £931 million by the end of this year. Toits shame, under Labour the UK plummeted from 4th to89th in the world rankings for the burden of Governmentregulation. Since this Government came to power theUK has risen 17 places to 72nd.Having worked in my own family business in theBlack Country I know that the speed of introduction ofGovernment measures can, no matter how wellintentioned, cause difficulties for SMEs. ThisGovernment has extended the rights of small business byphasing in policies such as automatic pension enrolmentand exempting small businesses from the ban ondisplaying tobacco. SMEs do not need to comply withthese regulations until June 2014 which Whitehallestimates will save £388 million.A Parliament-long review looking at all aspects ofemployment law is part of the Government's plans todeliver growth by breaking down barriers, boostingopportunities and creating the right environment forbusinesses to start up and thrive.One such policy the Government has introduced inits review of employment law is extending the qualifyingperiod for claiming unfair dismissal which has beendoubled from one year to two years. This will improvethe protection for small employers and has beenwelcomed by many small business organisations andChambers of Commerce.Another such measure is the reform of employmenttribunals. This radical package of reforms will deliver anestimated £40 million of savings each year for employers,boosting competitiveness for British firms competing inthe global race.In reducing red tape and regulation we have alsoended the unfair situation whereby the taxpayer footedthe £84 million bill for employment tribunals. Now alltribunal claims are fee paid or require an application forfee remission, rather than hardworking people in placeslike Dudley South footing the bill through their taxes.Of course there is also a significant European angleto the red tape and regulation endured by the privatesector in the UK. Labour allowed a staggering threethousand new regulations from Brussels each yearbetween 1997 and 2010. That is why we have beguntackling EU regulation by holding the EuropeanCommission to account on its commitment to seekexemptions and lighter regimes for SMEs. Examplesalready bringing major benefits for UK businessesinclude exempting up to 1.4 million UK small businessesfrom certain EU accounting rules.A long standing issue for both the electorate andpublic bodies has been Health & Safety regulation. TheGovernment is introducing binding new rules on both theHealth & Safety Executive and on local authorities thatwill exempt hundreds of thousands of businesses fromburdensome Health & Safety inspections. In the future,businesses will only be required to undertake suchinspections if they are operating in high risk areas, suchas construction, or if they have a poor record.In office Labour failed to deliver promises to cut redtape – their Ministers' pledges to improve regulation werenever delivered. For me the evidence clearly shows – andmy regular discussions with Black Country businesspeople confirm – that as a Government we are cuttingred tape and, indeed, reducing the burden of regulation.I am confident that a future majority ConservativeGovernment would continue to tackle these issues,providing vital support to our businesses and enablingBritain to be the 'nation of choice' when it comes todoing business.Chris Kelly MP is Member of Parliament for Dudley South.www.chriskelly.mpForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 12

FORWARD! Autumn 2013“The welfare state of today isa far cry from what itsinventor Beveridgeenvisaged: a system whichwould support people inneed at times when theymost needed it and helpreturn them to selfsufficiency.”Syed Kamall MEPHow weConservatives canroll up our sleevesto help get peopleoff welfare andimprove theirlives.ChoiceFor individuals must be maximised - evenif the state accepts responsibility forprovision of a safety net.Syed Kamall MEPDespite the best efforts of the Coalition, Britain isstill a “broken society”. We have a hard core ofabout a million adults who simply do not know themeaning of work. We still have hundreds ofthousands of people trapped on welfare dependency,some looking for a job but others comfortable andunambitious on their benefits, plus sixteen hours aweek of part time earnings. Up and down thecountry we still have gangs of youths hangingaround on the streets with nothing to do, many frombroken families whose parents were too preoccupiedwith their own survival to be in a position to spendenergy on disciplining their children.The welfare state of today is a far cry from what itsinventor Beveridge envisaged: a system which wouldsupport people in need at times when they mostneeded it and help return them to self sufficiency.Today, the welfare state has become the masterrather than the servant of the poor. Iain DuncanSmith’s reforms, which are the first serious attemptto get rid of poverty traps, cannot come soonenough. But the overhaul of the benefit system willnot be a panacea.The Left has believed for a hundred years that theonly solution to helping the poor is via the state. Inthe 2010 election, Labour canvassers were tellingpeople in social housing they would lose their homesand people employed by the state they would losetheir jobs if the Conservatives won. Gordon Brown’smethod of keeping Labour in power was to create aclient state – and he nearly succeeded.Those of us on the centre-right feel just aspassionately about eradicating poverty, but prefermore practical solutions than the blunt tool ofintervention through state benefits. We need toremind ourselves that, before the welfare state, therewas a rich tradition of helping both those in and outof work to help themselves. There was welfarewithout the state. Trade unions used to run nightschools, cooperative societies were formed andmutuals covered all kinds of risks.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 13

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Are youOne ofUs?JoinCWF atwww.conwayfor.orgRoll back the state, and these kinds oforganisations are likely to return. But not inall cases, so the state has to have a role as aprovider of last resort. The principleshould be that state involvement in welfareis rolled back to the point where it onlyhelps those who cannot help themselves orthose who cannot gain assistance byvoluntary provision. In my experience as amember of the Centre for Social Justice’sadvisory board, I have seen how localvoluntary community organisations canrun some extremely successful projects thattackle social problems, and also how thestate can crowd out the efforts ofvolunteers and community organisers.Many Conservative Party members areinvolved in local community organisationsor Conservative social action projects.Some excellent welfare schemes can befound in the initiatives being undertaken atgrassroots level. Many of our membersbring to this charitable work the skills thatthey have developed in their careers, forexample as current or retired teachers,bankers, accountants, youth workers etc.Some Conservative Associations open theirbuildings to local voluntary organisations,or host their own events for localcommunities.In my constituency of London, I amfortunate to work alongside colleagues whoare proving that voluntary action can bemuch more effective than state-directedsolutions. Take Simon Marcus, theConservative candidate for Hampstead andKilburn, who founded the BoxingAcademy. The Academy combineseducation and mentoring with thediscipline and culture of boxing to reengagethe most difficult-to-reach youngpeople who are in danger of educationalexclusion. Or consider Nick de Bois,Conservative MP for Enfield North, whoorganised a jobs fair to help combatunemployment within his constituency.Conservatives in Streatham are working toset up a local community "Bank ofStreatham", a challenger bank inspired bythe "Bank of Dave" made famous by theChannel Four TV programme.By becoming part of the fabric of localcommunities, we are able to show thatConservatives are compassionate too; it isjust that we don’t believe the state is alwaysthe answer to every problem. Rather thansimply talking about change or hoping thatothers will fill the gap where the state hasbeen rolled back, we can, as Gandhi oncesaid "be the change." There is nothing newin this. Religious and political movementsin Latin America and the Middle East haveenjoyed incredible grassroots support dueto years of offering welfare where the statehas failed.There are lots of ways in whichneighbours, friends, charities andcommunity organisations can help peoplewho, sometimes through no fault of theirown, find themselves falling off the edge ofsociety and need to be helped back.Conservative Associations must first andforemost concentrate on winning elections.But alongside that mission, ConservativeParty members and local associations canget involved to give direct help those inneed.Labour canvassers weretelling people in socialhousing they would losetheir homes and peopleemployed by the statethey would lose their jobsif the Conservatives won.Gordon Brown’s methodof keeping Labour inpower was to create aclient state – and henearly succeeded.I would like to hear from party members ofother examples of Conservatives gettinginvolved in local community projects. Themore we share our experiences and ideas,the more we will inspire each other to makea difference.Syed Kamall MEP is a Member of theEuropean Parliament for London.This article was first published byConservativeHome.com on 16 September 2013.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 14

FORWARD! Autumn 2013DemocracyThe exercise ofpolitical power, withthe consent of thepeople - throughregular elections on thebasis of universalsuffrage and a secretballot.iDemocracy and a NewModel Party.Douglas Carswell MPThe Conservative party is a bit likeHMV, the bankrupt music business. For years,just like HMV, we were market leaders. Wewon 44 per cent of the vote in 1979, 42 percent in 1983 and 44 per cent again in 1987.“My fear is thatwithout change, wemight become akind of Englishversion of Italy’sNorthern League. Arump party confinedto one region of thecountry, neitherable nor willing totry to galvanise thewhole country.”Douglas Carswell MPBut like the old music retailer, we havebeen losing touch with our customer base.HMV sold music the wrong way, via a costlychain of shop outlets. We, too, have been retailing politics the wrong way.We last won a Parliamentary majority over 20 years ago. When wegained office after the 2010 election, we did so having got 36 percent ofthe vote. A pinnacle of success? Thirty-six per cent would have oncebeen regarded as a disastrous trough.The stark truth we must confront is that the Tory party has wastedaway across many parts of the country. In much of Scotland, we are aremote memory. In towns and cities across the north of England, thereare not only no Tory councillors, but there have not been any for overtwenty years. Even more alarming, perhaps, many constituencyassociations in southern England exist more on paper than in practice.A mass membership organisation, with over two million members ageneration ago, has become a shadow of its former self. As late as the1990s, we still had over 400,000 members. We have lost half ourmembers since 2005.Some party strategists fear that we may never be able to win anoutright majority again. Will we, they muse privately, forever have todepend on a coalition with the Liberal Democrats?My fear is that without change, we might become a kind of Englishversion of Italy’s Northern League. A rump party confined to one regionof the country, neither able nor willing to try to galvanise the wholecountry.For all the Cameroon talk of modernisation, when it comes toreforming the party, we have had remarkably little of it. We continue totry to mobilise electoral support by running what are, in effect, a series ofdinning clubs scattered across the south east of England. No wonder wecontinue to fight the long retreat.‘But,’ you interrupt, ‘it was all that Cameroon modernisation talkthat was the problem. If only the party leadership had not focused onwind turbines and hugging hoodies, all would be well.’Really? Party membership was in serious decline long beforeanyone started to pepper the landscape with wind farms. Our share ofthe vote was in sharp decline long before anyone tried to get down withthe hoodies.Modernisation has not been the problem. Our problem rather hasbeen an almost complete absence of serious effort to change the way thatwe run our party and seek to mobilise mass support.The Digital RevolutionWhat is a political party for? First and foremost, to aggregate votesand opinion.In a democracy, where lots of people have a vote, parties ensurethat voters have some sense of what it is that they might be voting for.The existence of parties allows them some idea of how differentrepresentatives might work together once in office.But along comes the internet, and suddenly it is possible toaggregate votes – and ideas – without having an established politicalparty.We have seen this most dramatically with the emergence of the FiveStar Movement in Italy. It came from obscurity to win one in four votesin the recent Italian elections. Of course, the Five Star Movement mightnot last more than a few months. But the forces that allow votes toaggregate online the way the Five Star has are now with us forever.From book selling to music retail, every market that the internettouches it changes. The barriers to entry come tumbling down. Newniche competitors are able to take on established players on equalterms. So too in politics.The brands insurgent movements like Five Star build do notoperate only at the national level. Here in Britain, we are starting to seeinsurgents building successful local brands.it:-As George Galloway, victor of the Bradford West by-election, put“Our media was social media … Twitter, Facebook and YouTube… at the touch of a button, I can speak to thousands of people … Ourelection campaign was built entirely outside the Westminster bubble.”Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 15

FORWARD! Autumn 2013The internet, in short, is made for political insurgency.So we need a new kind of insurgent Conservatism.Insurgent ConservatismThe Conservative party can either harness the newforces that the internet is unleashing. Or it can be defeatedby them. We can continue to sell ourselves politically theway that HMV sold music. Or we can become the politicalequivalent of Spotify.iMembership: In the age of the internet, it has neverbeen easier to build mass membership organisations. YetConservative party membership is falling. We are doingsomething wrong.Today, being a member of the Tory party to oftenmeans paying £25 for the privilege of then being sentinvitations to costly dinners. Not a great retail proposition, isit? So we need to change.There are over a quarter of a million folk living inBritain who describe themselves as conservative on facebookand twitter. Why don’t we adapt our membership structureto get as many of them as possible to join?Why not let anyone – literally anyone – have‘supporter status’ provided they register online giving us justtheir name, email and postcode. Why not let anyonebecome an ‘iMember’ for £1 a year? If they are onlyjoining online, why bill them for the offline overheads?Here is a really radical idea. Why not allow iMembersto vote to determine aspects of party policy, or electmembers of the Party Board?Why not let iMembers and supporters vote online toselect candidate shortlists? Or to facilitate primarycandidate selections?Candidate selection: The Cameroon diagnosis wasspot on. In far too many seats, a diminished membershipwas selecting candidates that appealed to them – notnecessarily those best placed to win over swing voters.A different style: A freshly adopted parliamentarycandidate, I once received some sage advice from mypredecessor, Sir Julian Ridsdale. An Essex MP for 38 years,he gave me his top tip: ‘Go to the places where the peoplegather.’ He might have had in mind the morning markets orbring-and-buy sales. But ‘the places where the peoplegather’ today are on Twitter and Facebook, too. ApplyingSir Julian’s advice in the age of the internet means partiesand 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 tospeak to the voters was via a TV studio, he or she wouldstick to the carefully rehearsed ‘lines to take’, prepared byparty HQ.Try tweeting sound bites, and – unless you are beingironic – you soon look ridiculous.Social media create a ‘long tail’ in communication.Uniformity becomes impossible as candidates have to createauthentic responses to the niche audience they arecommunicating with.The generic party brand and message might beimportant, but not as important as in the days when mediawas broadcast, not social. You will almost necessarily haveto go beyond any generic messages if you want to have anykind of authentic online interaction.Insurgent policy: The internet is a collectiveendeavour, without any central directing authority. If youare going to harness the internet to mobilise theConservative party, you need to appreciate that it will nolonger be possible to have a central directing authoritycontrol the party the way it has in the past.With a broader, looser membership base, the partybase will be less deferential.With open primary selection, candidates will answeroutward to their constituents, not merely inward to thehierarchy and whips.Followus onTwitter@conwayforThe trouble was with the remedy. Drawing up an A-list of candidates did not solve the problem. Party officials inLondon charged with drawing up the A-list might haveensured a broader range of candidates were selected interms of gender, background and heritage. It did little toensure a broader range of candidates in terms of outlookand attitude.The Conservatives need to adopt proper open primarycandidate selection. In the two seats, Totnes and Gosport,where the Conservatives did hold proper open primaries (asopposed to caucuses), they gained not only two remarkableresults on polling day, but two exceptional MPs, SarahWollaston and Caroline Dinenage.Costly to run as postal ballots, open primariescandidate selection could either be ‘piggy backed’ on to preexisting local elections, or alternatively run online. Oncevoters are allowed to register as supporters online, largenumbers of local people could be invited to take part inonline polls to pick candidates.If you select candidates that are well rooted in theirlocal communities, they probably won’t then need to beprepped on how to reach out to the electorate.The party must become insurgent in not only style, butin outlook.To a certain kind of Westminster grandee, that alonewould put them off the idea of change. But maybe that isthe problem. Perhaps the Tory party has been run for toolong as though it belongs to a certain kind of grandee inSW1, the property of those who are a little bit toocomfortable with the way things are.Contemporary Conservatism is too at ease with afailed elite in Whitehall; with central bankers that ran theeconomy into the ground; with Europhile mandarins keento sign us up to more Brussels; with an inept, self-regardingadministrative class that thought it could control the level ofCO2 in the atmosphere, but, it turns out, could not evencontrol our own borders.Insurgent Conservatism means that we would becomethe party of change. From Disraeli, to Thatcher and – yes,even to Cameron – the Tories have been at their greatestnot when they merely seek to conserve things, but whenthey look to overturn the way things are.Douglas Carswell MP is the Member of Parliament for Clacton.This article first appeared in The Spectator on 15 July 2013.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 16

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Think Tank Corner“But conservatives also needto change hearts and mindson regulation as well. Thatmeans re-iterating itssignificant detrimentalimpacts, not just on theeconomy but on civil societyas well.”Ryan BourneDeregulationDomestic and global - to maximise freedom of choice and individualresponsibility in an improved society.Ryan BourneRegulation is a strange beast. We need a certain amountof it, continually talk about the need to cut it back, but seemto accumulate more and more over time. Why? One reasonmight be that the benefits of deregulation are not alwaysimmediately observable. Nor, in an age in which a lack ofregulation is blamed for the financial crisis, is it clear that theconcept of deregulation is a popular vote winner. Sincepoliticians often short-sightedly prefer policies which arepopular, as opposed to those which would in time lead topopular results, this inevitably leads to a regulatory build-up.For this and other reasons then, we have reached a pointin time in which all modern governments oversee“regulatory” states. We usually hear about this in regards toeconomics and the potential benefits deregulation could haveon choice and competition, but in truth the regulatory powerof the state has now extended vastly over our lifestyles, ourenvironment and our civil liberties. This presents a hugeexpansion of power for the executive. AJP Taylor describedhow in 1914 a “law-abiding Englishman could pass throughlife and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond thepost office and the policeman”. Within 100 years, it’s nowdifficult to think of an area of our lives that Governmentdoesn’t touch.Not all regulation is unwarranted, of course.Conservatives have rightly argued for a strong state to protectproperty rights and contracts. There’s sometimes a case forintervention in certain cases of externalities, where socialcosts of an action are higher than the private costs (thoughnot nearly as often as governments assume). And, there’s acase for strong regulators in cases of natural monopoly and acompetition commission to prevent entrenched monopolisticpractices in highly concentrated industries.Yet regulation now goes way beyond this remit. Businessregulation, for example, has been expanded to achieve arange of “social” goals – maternity leave, right to flexibleForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 17

FORWARD! Autumn 2013CommunityDefined by geography,tradition, inheritance andsense of identity.Ruth PorterI love autumn. I always have. I loveit for the traditional reasons.The stillness, as Thomas Hoodwrites about in “Autumn”:I saw old Autumn in the misty mornStand shadowless like silence, listeningAnd the smell, captured by WalterSavage Landor’s “Autumn”:Mild is the parting year, and sweetThe odour of the falling spray“If governmentsbecome too bigthey have theability to rip theheart out of theconnection andbelonging thatbuilds a senseof community.”Ruth PorterBut mostly I love it for how earlynight falls and how the glow fromglaring orange street lights bleeds intothe darkness.Living overseas for several years inNew Zealand where the seasons wereback to front I used to get homesick whensummer faded and autumn never quitearrived. My husband would take me toone of the few parks with deciduous treesfor long walks in a vain attempt to ward itoff, but it never quite worked.I’m back in the UK now and whenthe seasons turn I feel grateful but it alsomakes me question what it means tobelong and why such a seemingly smallthing as the smell, feel and look of aseason could have such a strong grip onme.My devotion to autumn is one of thereasons why I’m a conservative. I’mconvinced that it’s a funny mix of strangeand arbitrary shared experiences andfeelings that lies at the heart of a stableand flourishing country.The kind of place I want to live is aplace where people feel like they belongand it is traditions, no matter how odd,that draw us together and make lifemeaningful.The American policy wonk LarryReed warns:“Government has nothing to giveanybody except what it first takes fromsomebody, and a government that's bigenough to give you everything you want isbig enough to take away everything you'vegot.”This applies of course at a verypractical level to how much a governmentspends and taxes, but it applies beyondthis as well. If governments become toobig they have the ability to rip the heartout of the connection and belonging thatbuilds a sense of community. Sometimesthis can be in concrete ways. I recentlyheard about a small voluntarily localcricket club being pursued by HMRC.Who knows whether they’ll survive thescrutiny of cash-in-hand payments topeople mowing the pitch.But more often it’s the intangibles ofculture which well-intentioned biggovernment can destroy. We see a smallnumber of children who go to schoolwithout being properly fed so we set upbreakfast clubs, or children who’slunchboxes aren’t deemed to be up toscratch on nutrition so they’re replacedwith state run hot lunches. But what doesthis to do a family that sits down togetherin the evening for a hot meal (where nowthe child is too full) or what message doesit send to the mum who carefully packs ahealthy lunch for her daughter every day?The decline of social capital incountries like Britain has been immense.A quick look at recent articles onloneliness turns up stories as diverse as“how shopping makes us lonely”, how“Facebook and the internet can increaseloneliness” and “how half of Britain’s over80s say they are lonely”. It’s termed anepidemic, with those who divorce late inlife as referred to as “the lonelygeneration” and we’re told “socialisolation increases death risk in olderpeople”.Relationships form around functions.We’re driven towards other people not justfor fun, but often by sheer necessity. Thatis the idea at the centre of a belief inlimited government and strongcommunity. On the one hand Socialistsfail to understand that the state crowdsout connection, but on the other hyperindividualisticlibertarians don’t appreciatethat a sense of duty and moral obligationmust lie at the heart of a free society ofcivil society, otherwise we will end upisolated.Conservative Way Forward listsamongst its values Community - definedby geography, tradition, inheritance andsense of identity. When David Camerontalked about the Big Society, I hope this iswhat he means. As consensus in Britainmoves towards understanding that weneed to get public spending under controlin order to have a thriving economy, wemust also remember that if we want tohave a thriving society we need to stopgovernment trampling over the small andwonderful private actions that make lifeworth living.Ruth Porter is Communications Director atthe Institute of Economic Affairs.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 19

FORWARD! Autumn 2013CapitalismThe most effective systemof wealth creation. Freemarkets are blind togender, race, class orreligion.Capitalists are the TrueProgressives.Iain MurrayWe should call it the “Great Fact,”argues the University of Illinois atChicago economist Deidre McCloskey,that the Industrial Revolution that startedin Britain produced a 16-fold expansionin per capita wealth. With that explosionin wealth came longer lifespans, betterhealthcare, and the greatest improvementin human welfare the world has yet seen.This explosion, however, was not causedby government plans or at the behest of achurch. It was the result of a force thathas since become derided by people whoclaim to care about progress – freeenterprise capitalism.Anyone who has read Lord Ridley’slatest masterpiece “The RationalOptimist: How Prosperity Evolves” willknow the story: the voluntary exchange ofideas that has characterized humanitysince its earliest days reached a criticalmass in the early 19th century, enabled bya rare combination of circumstances –“capital, freedom, education, culture, andopportunity” as Ridley puts it – that weremade possible by the existence of freeenterprise capitalism.The benefits were quick to accrue. AsRidley notes, an historian noted as early as1835 that “the wonderful cheapness ofcotton goods [was now benefitting] thebulk of the people…a country wake in thenineteenth century may display as muchfinery as a drawing room in theeighteenth.” It was not long before theincreased wealth of the nation madepossible better health. Life expectancyrose, child mortality fell, medicalinnovation joined industrial innovation inexploding – and all these benefits continueto be felt to this day.Yet none of this would have beenpossible without the rise of capitalism inthe eighteenth century. As McCloskey hasdocumented, that century saw the rise ofwhat she calls “bourgeois ethics andvirtue.” In all previous eras, and in most ofthe rest of the world even during thatcentury, trade and commerce – thevoluntary exchange of goods and ideas –had been regarded as somewhat infra dig.Yet the creation of a bourgeois code ofethics that recognised the value of virtuessuch as hope and courage in theentrepreneur led to recognition of the vitalrole such individuals played.No longer were merchants a despisedclass, often of suspect ethnic origin, guiltyof sins such as avarice. Now it was at theheart and soul of Englishness to engage incommerce, and indeed the soul would belifted by such activities, as fundamentallyvirtuous. Indeed, in the titles ofMcCloskey’s books, “Bourgeois Virtues”led to “Bourgeois Dignity.” And it is thatdignity that provided the uniquecombination of circumstances that Ridleycelebrates.Today, however, despite the massiveand demonstrable benefits the freeenterprise system brought to the westernworld, and stands ready to bring to thevast mass of the rest of humanity,bourgeois dignity is under assault. We sawit most readily in the reaction to thefinancial crisis and the assault on thefinancial system specifically and capitalismas a whole more generally. The languageof sin was deployed – bankers weredescribed as greedy, capitalists as uncaring.Few stood up for capitalism in politics.Fewer still stood up for free enterprise inthe business world. Perhaps this wasinevitable – the creep towards corporatismof the Blair years may have eroded muchof what was left of the feelings ofbourgeois virtue in the business world. It isnot, however, too late to stop the rot.Capitalists need to stand up for whatthey are doing, and to tell the nation howproud they are of what they are doing forit. They need to exemplify in everything“Few stood upfor capitalismin politics.Fewer stillstood up forfree enterprisein thebusinessworld.”Iain Murraythey do the bourgeois virtues: hope,courage, love, faith, prudence, temperance,and justice. They do not need to kowtowto anti-capitalist ideology to do so. Buyingthe friendship of environmental groupswould be as useless as buying indulgencesfor sin in the medieval world. They shouldpoint to the plethora of benefits they bringto Britain – jobs being not the least.Indeed, we may be seeing thebeginnings of a resurgence of bourgeoisdignity. Groups like Matthew Elliott’sBusiness for Britain exemplify the best thatBritish business has to offer – hope in thefuture, courage to stand up to theEuropean behemoth, love of what they do,faith that they are doing the right thing,prudence for their shareholders,temperance in avoiding the excesses of theEurosceptic fringes, and the desire for ajust world where enterprise rather thancronyism is rewarded.Capitalism has a long and proudhistory. It should have just as long andproud a future.Iain Murray is Vice President for Strategy atthe Competitive Enterprise Institute in WashingtonDC.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 20

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Nationhood - Each nationmust be free to determineits policies to the benefit ofits citizens.Rory BroomfieldThe ability to determine thedirection of a nation is critical inincreasing the prosperity of its people.The UK has, over many centuries, beenable to define its own laws and hasallowed its people to hold those policymakersto account for their actions. As aresult, people were able to prosper onback of their own merits. The concept ofnationhood, however, is under attack.Ever since the UK joined what was theEuropean Economic Community - nowthe European Union - it has been putunder the spectre of Brussels leddirectives that dictate policy and do notfit with the UK’s system of governance.“The EU gravy train is awell-known andestablishedphenomenon wherepoliticians succumbnot just to the power,but also the perks. Thecosts of these perksand privileges areborne by the taxpayerand has resulted in asystem where there istaxation but minimalrepresentation.”Rory BroomfieldThe rise in the regulatory power ofBrussels over the United Kingdom hasensured that the ability for the UK’spoliticians to determine the direction ofthe UK has diminished. With the signingof treaties from Maastricht to Lisbon,political power over crucial policies fromhome affairs to foreign relations has beengiven up to the EU.Standing as a super-state that crosses28 states, the EU can now drive forwardpolicies that set the wheels in motion forprojects like High Speed 2, or deliverpolicy programmes that lead to theprivatisation of the Royal Mail; it now hasthe power to formulate joint-policies on 14areas of foreign affairs and represents itsmember states through an ever increasingnumber of embassies around the world.In doing so, the EU makes up themajority of laws in the United Kingdomand, with this ever increasing regulatorybind, has changed the relationshipbetween parliamentarian and constituentin the United Kingdom.As a result, the people of the UnitedKingdom no longer have a direct linkbetween themselves and their policymakers.With the amount of EU quangos,courts and other bodies that have aninfluence over the direction of the UK,the people have lost a link that ensuredthat the state was accountable to them.The diminishing level of accountabilityhas resulted in a people almost powerlessto change the course of their nation. Thisdemocratic deficit has, moreover, resultedin a political elite increasingly unable todetermine the policies that fit the nationalneed.What has risen up in its place is a setof institutions that make rules that benefitthemselves. The EU gravy train is a wellknownand established phenomenonwhere politicians succumb not just to thepower, but also the perks. The costs ofthese perks and privileges are borne by thetaxpayer and has resulted in a systemwhere there is taxation but minimalrepresentation.Indeed, the question has to be asked:is EU membership worth the money? Itcurrently costs the UK taxpayer over £1billion (net) in membership fees along. Asa result, it gets under 10 per cent of theMEPs in the EU Parliament, one seat onthe Council out of 28 and oneCommissioner out of 28 that is appointedfrom the UK but does not represent theUK.Through EU membership the UKalso gets a system of regulation that costsus money. In a recent publicationproduced by The Freedom Associationand The Hampden Trust, ProfessorPatrick Minford estimated that EUregulation alone costs UK businesses atleast the equivalent of £90 billion peryear. This comes on top of other costs,including the membership fee, that raisesthe total amount to over 11% of UKGDP per year and stifles the UK’s abilityto realise the true benefit of itscompetitive advantages that set it apartfrom other countries in the EU.But where is the accountability? TheUK has given up the ability to fullydetermine its trade policy through itsmembership to the Customs Union and,with membership to EU, is under thecontrol of many an EU quango andEuropean courts. Moreover, many ofthese institutions and setups are affectedand influenced by the ever present arrayof lobby interests. These interests rangeacross sectors and pull EU policy makingin a number of different directions. Theresult: the people are not just ruled by aninstitutional setup that is not accountableto them, but have those in thatinstitutional setup ruled by lobby intereststhat are unaccountable to them.To restore the balance the UK needsto break free of this set up an reclaim itsown democratic controls. In order to beable to readdress the UK’s democraticdeficit, the cost that affects their everydaylife and the direction of their nation, thepeople of the UK need to choose a paththat allows itself to reclaim its own policymaking process and bring back a sense ofaccountability and control that has leftthese shores. In doing so, the people ofthe UK would be looking forward andseizing their own destiny once more.Rory Broomfield is Deputy Director of TheFreedom Association.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 21

FORWARD! Autumn 2013FreedomFor responsible individuals,guaranteed by the rule oflaw administered by anindependent judiciary andminimal state activity.Has BritainSurrendered ItsInternational MoralAuthority?Emma CarrWe live in a world where moreinformation is recorded, retained andshared about our daily lives than everbefore. It would be naive to believe thatthis information will not, inevitably, beavailable to governments, not all ofwhom operate within anything we wouldrecognise as the rule of law. I would liketo think that the great majority of peoplebelieve that freedom if a preciouscommodity which should be handed downfrom generation to generation with upmostcare. It is because of this that lawmakersshould tread carefully when introducinglaws that while well-meaning today, maybe used in very different ways in the future.The sheer notion of the internet being the‘world wide web’ means we cannot look atthis issue in isolation and around theworld, millions of people do not know thesame freedom as us.This is a clear case of judge us bywhat we do, not what we say and we are atrisk of Britain’s domestic policies settingthat standard for states around the world.It was little over a year ago that theForeign Secretary, William Hague, pledged£1.5 million to promote “freedom ofexpression online” as a measure to“strengthen and develop” human rightsaround the world. The funding was to befocused towards 28 countries, includingChina, Russia, Libya, Israel and Iran, withthe aim of preventing “the internet beingused as a means of political repression”.These efforts are commendable as thiswork is absolutely vital to the promotion ofhuman rights and cyber security. However,there is a growing concern that ourdomestic policies are directly contradictingthe rhetoric and policies being used by theForeign Office.The revelations over the last fewmonths regarding internet surveillance hashad a deep impact on the debatesurrounding the legality of data mining bygovernments. From the revelations madeby The Guardian and Edward Snowdon,it would appear that the US has no qualmsfrom hoovering up data from the rest ofthe world, even if doing the same to itsown citizens would be illegal. At a time ofinternational tension about how theinternet is policed, several far fromdemocratic states looking to introducetheir own monitoring and global uneaseabout cyber warfare, it seems the US’sactions risk setting a dangerous precedent.Also the UK Government pressuringcompanies to ‘filter internet content’ is acause for concern. It is absolutely right topursue the removal of illegal content fromthe internet, but moving to a system wherelegal content is blocked poses a clear andsignificant risk to freedom of speech. Thetriviality of circumventing the blocks aside,such a policy risks blocking legitimatewebsites and, once again, setting adangerous international precedent. Afterall, who will get to decide what legalcontent is deemed to be unfit for theBritish public to see? If content is illegal,pursue it, remove it and prosecute thosewho are responsible. If content is legal,then having a political, non-judicialprocess to decide what should be blockedis certainly not the right way forward.Also, in light of the recent debateabout Twitter and trolling it is worthnoting the timely statement issued by theUS State Department: “We believe thatwhen public speech is deemed offensive, beit via social media or any other mans, theissue is best addressed through opendialogue and honest debate.” Thosecalling for prosecutions, users to bebanned and active policing of what is andisn’t acceptable to say on social mediashould tread very carefully. The statementwas issued when one Government decided“The sheer notionof the internetbeing the ‘worldwide web’ meanswe cannot look atthis issue inisolation andaround the world,millions of peopledo not know thesame freedom asus.”Emma Carrthat a social networking site dedicated todiscussing the role of religion in thecountry was offensive, and the person whoorganised the site was sentenced to sevenyears in prison and 600 lashes. ThatGovernment was Saudi Arabia and if theWest is to stand up for freedom of speechabroad, we need to remember that thosesame values – however uncomfortable theymay sometimes be – must not be forgottenat home.As Britain seemingly seeks to pursuean agenda of further surveillance andcensorship, exploiting outdated laws andweak oversight, we must be very consciousof the consequences of our actions. Wehave promoted a system of values onlinearound the world that sought to defendprivacy and uphold privacy. Our ForeignSecretary has done more than any of hispredecessors to lead this agenda andpromote freedom online. We have boldychallenged Russia, China and thosenations who have sought to Balkanise theinternet into Government-controlledempires without privacy or the free flow ofinformation that has broken downeconomic and social barriers across theworld. We must lead by example, not riskseeing our own policies copied around theworld to the detriment of millions ofpeople who hope the internet may finallybring them democracy.Emma Carr is Deputy Director of BigBrother Watch and is also on the CWFManagement Board.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 22

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Under Obama, the U.S.Clings to the Carcassof the European Union.Ted Bromund, Ph.D.One of the longest-serving andwisest of all Tory Prime Ministers, LordSalisbury once noted wearily that toomany politicians make the same mistake.As he put it:the commonest error in politics in sticking tothe carcasses of dead policies. When a mast fallsoverboard . . . you cut away the hamperaltogether. It should be the same with policy, butit is not so. We cling to the shred of an old policyafter it has been torn to pieces, and to the shadowof the shred after the rag itself has been tornaway.So it is with the attitude of theUnited States under President Obamatowards the European Union.“The European Union,of course, was neverbased on democracy.It was based on theargument that theSecond World Warwas so horrible thatnations had to bedeprived of the abilityto wage another suchwar, which meantdepriving them of theability to governthemselves.”Ted Bromund, Ph.D.The U.S. has backed Europeanintegration since the late 1940s.Immediately after the Second World War,there was sense in the idea that thenations of Western Europe needed totrade more and fight less. The greatdanger of the day was economic collapseand a slide into pro-Soviet neutralism, oreven the triumph of Communism throughforce of arms. European integration wasone of many policies and institutions theU.S. advanced – along with NATO, freertrade worldwide, the InternationalMonetary Fund, and the World Bank – tostop that from happening.But over time many of thoseinstitutions lost their way. The EuropeanUnion, of course, was never based ondemocracy. It was based on the argumentthat the Second World War was sohorrible that nations had to be deprived ofthe ability to wage another such war,which meant depriving them of the abilityto govern themselves. But at the start ofthe process, the European EconomicCommunity’s impositions on democracywere limited enough that they could bedismissed and denied. In an era wheneven some Americans entertained foolishideas about the potential of worldgovernment, the EU’s early offensesagainst democracy were easily ignored.Today, the reality is different. In therealm of defense, the position is now sodire that most Americans have given upon Europe. The EU is not the only causeof the European retreat from defense, butit both reflects and enables it. Thefounding mentality of the Union – thatpeace is far more important thandemocracy – betrays an attitude that isunfriendly to serious planning for defense,while the EU’s mania for European-levelplanning both subordinates nationalgovernments and allows everyone to cuttheir defense spending even deeper. In theEU, plans for impressive collectiveactivities are invariably a substitute forgenuine national achievement.In the realm of European policy, thesituation is even worse. One argument infavor of the EU in its earlier days was thatit tied Germany to the West, and that ifthis meant some diminishment in thesovereignty of the other nations heldcaptive in the EU, that was a price worthpaying. German leaders from Adenauer toMerkel have made this case, though withever-decreasing plausibility, since withGermany adverse to any dramaticchanges at all, it is hard to see why the EUis needed to tie Germany to anything. Butthere is a more fundamental problem: theEU used to restrain Germany, but asGermany is now the unchallenged centerof the EU, the EU now actually serves toenhance German power. The politicalconsequences of this are incalculable.Regrettably, U.S. policy hasrecognized none of this. It still acts asthough the EU of today is the EU of 30years ago. It has not yet begun to thinkthrough the consequences of the fact thatit is now supporting a completely differentinstitution. The pressure of the U.S. onBritain to stay in the EU – the latestexample coming from the new U.S.Ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun– is thus not only a wrong-headed U.S.interference in British politics. It is alsobased on a failure to recognize that U.S.support for European integration wasalways about U.S. national interests. It wasnever a matter of religious faith, which iswhat the EU has become today for itssupporters in Britain and the U.S. alike.That is a dangerous attitude for theU.S. to take. The EU today is a carcass,the shred of an old policy that once had asolid basis, but is now merely a rag. It istime for Britain to cut loose, and for theUnited States to recognize that a sovereignBritain, able to trade freely around theworld and unshackled by the ever moresupranational EU, would be a betterfriend and a better ally than a Britainslowly and reluctantly submerged in adeeply undemocratic EU will ever be. Itmust be the conservative mission in bothBritain and the United States to make thatrecognition a policy reality on both sidesof the Atlantic.Ted Bromund, Ph.D. is Senior ResearchFellow in Anglo-American Relations at theMargaret Thatcher Center for Freedom inWashington DC.Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 23

Think Tanks in this issueCentre for Policy Studies - www.cps.org.ukCompetitive Enterprise Institute - www.cei.orgThe Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom - www.thatchercenter.orgInstitute of Economic Affairs - www.iea.org.ukThe Freedom Association - www.tfa.netBig Brother Watch - www.bigbrotherwatch.org.ukForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 24

FORWARD! Autumn 2013Conservative Futuremembers areoverwhelmingly againstBritain’s membership of theEU; in favour of reducingforeign aid; against militaryaction in Syria; in supportof reductions inimmigration; are scepticalabout global warming; andare torn on thereintroduction of CapitalPunishment.Mo Metcalf-FisherConservative Future (CF) membersmake up a significant part of theConservative Party’s grassroots, yet up tonow we have very little knowledge aboutwhat our potential future party leadersthink. As part of an on-going projectdesigned to better understand youngConservatives and their beliefs, I recentlyconducted a survey asking a sample of CFmembers for their opinions on a range ofissues. With the help of various MPs and theCF itself, I was able to generate a sample of220 respondents. Due to a lack of resources,the paper survey relies on a sample ofconvenience as opposed to randomization.Although ideally I should like to havecollected more responses, a sample of 220observations does at least provide sufficientevidence for some tentative insights given thescarcity of existing studies.The questions asked covered a varietyof issues. Of the 220 responses collected,163 (75.5%) were male compared to 53(24.5%) females (4 respondents chose tokeep their gender anonymous). Thepreponderance of males over females in thesample is to a great extent a reflection of asimilar preponderance within the CF as awhole. All attempts were made to reach agreater number of females and futurestudies should attempt to obtain a greaterfemale sample. The age range covered is 16-30, with 16-20 years olds making up 34.4%,21-25 year olds 51.8% and 26- 30 year olds13.8%. Of those sampled, 45% considerthemselves Catholic, Anglican or ‘other’Christian denomination, compared to42.2% who consider themselves to beagnostic or atheist. The remaining 12.8%defined as another religion (see full breakdown on link below)With regards to Syria and theintervention proposed by the government ,CF members overwhelmingly supportParliament’s decision to vote against suchaction. 36.2% believe that Britain ‘shouldstay out of all foreign wars’ compared to32.6% who think that ‘the facts on Syria areunclear’. Overall, 19.27% of those askedbelieve Britain should commit to militaryaction.On the issue of Gibraltar, CF membersare against negotiation with the Spanish overthe future of Gibraltar, but do supportpeaceful attempts to resolve the presentdispute via diplomatic means (51.4%). Thiscompares with 43.6% who believe the navyshould be sent to ‘assert Britain’s ownershipof Gibraltar’. Only 1.8% of those sampledbelieve the Government should be open todiscussion with the Spanish over whetherGibraltar should remain a British territory.On foreign aid, CF members do notshare the position of David Cameron andthe government: 45.4% believe the foreignaid bill should be reduced while 24.8%believe aid should be scrapped altogether.20.6% believe that Britain should maintainthe current level of aid, while 8.7% thinkthat it should be increased.On membership of the EU, CFmembers are overwhelmingly Euroscepticwith 61% favouring withdrawal comparedwith 38.4% that favour Britain remaining asa member. On the question of how theywould vote in an in-out referendum ‘heldtomorrow’, 72.5% would vote to leave theEU compared to just 21.6% who would voteto stay in. 0.9% would not vote while 5.0%remain undecided.On attitudes towards global warming,the sample suggests that CF members areless than convinced : 48% are sceptical ofglobal warming ( 30.6% believe that there isnot yet clear evidence of global warmingwhile 18.1% think is a myth), compared to43% who think that the issue is important“On foreign aid, CFmembers do not sharethe position of DavidCameron and thegovernment: 45.4%believe the foreign aidbill should be reducedwhile 24.8% believeaid should bescrapped altogether.20.6% believe thatBritain should maintainthe current level of aid,while 8.7% think that itshould be increased.”Mo Metcalf-Fisher(30.6% think that it is a big issue but thinkmore work needs to be done before we makeradical changes while 13% think radicalsteps need to be taken now)The CF are torn on the reintroductionof Capital Punishment for crimes such asmurder. Some 47.3 % are in favour ofreintroduction (23.9% strongly agree, 23.4%agree) compared to 46.8% who are not (12.4disagree, 34.4% strongly disagree), withthose in favour having a very slightascendancy. At the national level, support forthe death penalty has declined from over70% in the 1970s to 51% in 2010. Theassessment of attitudes to capitalpunishment has tended to be carried outthrough polling only when the issue is highlysalient, meaning that respondents may bereacting to a particularly emotive case thenin the news.With regards to immigration, themembership of CF is broadly in step withdeclared government policy. 65% believethat immigration should be reduced but nothalted, compared to 9.7% who think itshould be ‘halted at once’. 11.1% supportthe current levels of immigration comparedto 10.6% who think ‘further immigrationshould be encouraged’. It is therefore oflittle surprise that, when asked about theHome Office’s illegal immigrant van schemeand the allegations of racism, just over 85%of those surveyed disagreed (52.5% stronglydisagree, 32.7% disagree) that the schemewas racist compared to just 11.6% whobelieved that it was racist.I have also looked at what CF membersthink about other social issues including sexbefore marriage, abortion and gay marriage:Forward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 25

FORWARD! Autumn 2013CF members overwhelmingly think that having sexbefore marriage is acceptable (72%), compared to24.3% overall, who do not believe in sex beforemarriage. 10.1% think that sex should be exclusivelybetween those in wedlock while 14.2% intend not tohave sex until they themselves are married but ‘do notmind what others do’. 3.67% answered 'don't know /none of the above'On abortion, 42.4% define themselves as prochoice,while 21.5% of those asked believe womenshould have the right to choose despite personally beingagainst abortion. 35.6% are pro-life (23.3% againstabortion in most cases, 12.3% against in all cases)On gay marriage, 60% support the decision tolegalise gay marriage compared to 30% who are againstand 7% who have no opinion. The remaining 2.31responded with don't know / none of the above.liberal attitudes towards sex before marriage, abortionand gay marriage. Labour are seen by respondents aspresenting the biggest threat to a Conservative majorityin 2015 whilst views on Conservative Future as anorganisation are decidedly mixed.For a full breakdown of results (including don'tknow / none of the above figures) and relevant graphs,please see Mo’s blogMo Metcalf-Fisher has completed an MA in PublicOpinion and Polling. He has been a member ofConservative Future since 2006. His research interestsinclude the attitudinal drivers behind support for right-wingand minor parties. Mo tweets @mometcalffisherThe final set of questions asked respondents whichparty they believe presents the biggest threat to aConservative majority in 2015. Just over 55% believethat Labour is the biggest threat, as opposed to 32.7%for UKIP, 6% for the Liberal Democrats and 3.2% for‘others’.Last but not least, respondents were asked whatthey thought of Conservative Future. This question wasasked in light of Tim Wigmore’s article which suggestedthat the CF and other youth divisions were comprised of‘young weirdoes’. The results may amuse some, withjust over 21% believing the CF ‘to be full of weirdoes’,compared to 22.5% who believe that the CF is ‘a greatplace to meet likeminded people’. 14% of respondentslike to distance themselves from the organisation while13.8% think that the CF is ‘a great place to meet myfuture wife / husband’.Are you Oneof Us?Join CWF atOverall, CF members appear to be firmly on theright of the party with regards to most issues, but with agreater plurality of views on social affairs. They areoverwhelmingly against Britain’s membership of the EUand most would vote to leave tomorrow if given the www.conwayfor.orgchance. They are strongly against British intervention inSyria and support Gibraltar remaining British.Generally speaking, they favour reductions in foreignaid, are sceptical of global warming claims and wantimmigration reduced. Although torn on thereintroduction of capital punishment, a slight pluralityfavours the death penalty being used in cases such asmurder. On social issues, however, CF members haveForward! The Magazine of Conservative Way Forward 26