A Letter to the Guardian - Part 94

A proper blog with my thoughts on Conservative Party Conference to follow shortly, but first more amusement in this week's Epsom Guardian, where my letter of last week seems to have struck a nerve with Dr. Ted Bailey of Larkspur Way:

I bashed out a vague reply on the train this morning. It will obviously be cut down extensively should I choose to actually send it in, but I thought I would post it here for posterity.

It would take too long to ‘fisk’ Dr. Bailey’s letter (‘Speed and depth of public cuts doom us’) in its entirety, but I do offer these brief points by way of reply.

I do not view my projections for the private sector as unduly optimistic. The private sector created more than 300,000 jobs over the Summer months. The lowering of business rates and cancellation of NI for the first ten employees of any new company point to this pattern continuing.

Dr. Bailey is also wrong to suggest that the UK has seen ‘already savage cuts’ since the election. I know of no Governmental cuts to Sure Start since May. As to the cancellation of the BSF, if he wishes to defend such a bureaucratic monstrosity good luck to him. He will have to explain the merits of a school building scheme where it can often take three years to negotiate the planning process before the first brick is laid on the building itself; a scheme that saw costs rocket from £45 to 55bn due to consultant spend and red tape; and a scheme that was already three years behind schedule in 2009.

The countries he mentions in his letter as currently heading toward ‘double-dip’ recessions make my point for me, in that they are examples of what can go wrong if high spending is not restrained over a prolonged period of time. Interestingly, I was going to use Ireland as an example of a country which successfully managed to heavily reduce its spending whilst increasing economic growth, in the 1980s, but was unable to do so for reasons of space. I welcome the chance to do so now!

A final note. Alistair Darling did not propose a slower cuts programme, merely a smaller reduction over the same time-scale; 40% structural deficit reduction in 4yrs, rather than total reduction as the current Government is planning for. However, with current interest rates on our debt coming in at over £100m per day, I believe cutting our debt completely in this time-frame is no longer an aspiration of an Opposition – it is a necessity of Government.

James Tarbit

Deputy Chair, Political

Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.s. For the record, Conservative Future is the section of the Conservative Party for under-30 year olds. With a membership of approximately 20,000, it is the largest youth political organisation in the UK.

Conservative Future - Regional Control?

London Spin has the scoop on the new Conservative Future Chairman, Ben Howlett's plans to decentralise power to the Regional Chairman of CF.

Creating Regional Chairmen was one of the most logical things that Michael Rock managed during his time at the helm. Mirroring the senior Party in this way ensured a much greater co-ordination between the two groups, and aided in the relationship-building that CF has managed with CCHQ/CRO.

Howlett's plans make a lot of sense. It has always been a Conservative instinct to avoid centralised control wherever possible, and the idea of allowing regional Chairs to get on with things is an attractive one. He will have to ensure, however, that they take up the opportunity he is providing.

As with any voluntary organisation, you get differing levels of activity depending on how much time people can afford to offer. As a result, at times certain regions have felt a bit bereft of direction, with RCs more than a little distant. The lack of opposition at a regional level in many areas during the CF elections is also cause for concern. People always step up to the plate where there is a bit of competition.

Let's hope that the RCs take the chance they have been given, and run with it. Activity and interest levels can only increase further if they do.

CF Elections

For the past four months or so Conservative Future, the 'youth' wing of our Party, have been going through an elections process to decide who will form the new National Executive Committee. Given the Conservatives are now in power, these roles are not unimportant.

Today the ballot closed. The results were as follows:

Chairman - Ben Howlett

Deputy Chairman (Membership) - Clare Hilley

Deputy Chairman (Political) - Alexandra Swann

Appointed Officer - James Deighton

As I voted for all four of them I am delighted that they were successful in their campaigns, however the number of ballots returned for the contest left me staggered.

Take the Chairmanship; Ben Howlett gained 113 votes. Craig Cox, the second-placed candidate, got 60. That's 173 votes. Put more contextually, that's 173 votes out of an alleged CF membership of 20,000.

20,000 members - 173 votes

Let's have a look at another of the positions. James Deighton gained 72 votes. Patrick Sullivan, the second-placed candidate, got 70. Now I voted for James Deighton. If I had switched my vote, that would have meant an instant tie between the two...and they say that the Unions had too much power in the Labour Leadership contest!

That so few people were able to vote in this election is a travesty. Running an election over the University holidays automatically stopped 1,000s of members from voting. Added to that, there were huge issues with missing or incomplete data, with little or no responsibility seemingly being taken by CCHQ. I for one had to push extremely hard for my ballot, with several e-mails and phone calls before it came through last Thursday (the final day of posting to hit today's 12 noon deadline).

I am sure Ben will have many constraints on his time in his new position. One priority, though, must be to address these issues. Promising to run further elections in the Spring will solve the University problem, but a membership without valid membership data is no basis upon which to build a strong campaigning force. Best start updating Merlin...