I have felt sorry for “the senior Conservative of the Thatcher era” ever since the Newsnight programme alleged that he  had committed  paedophile crimes, inviting people to trawl the internet to find out more. His friends could not protest his innocence, for fear of naming him when they knew he was innocent.

             The Savile case and the “senior Conservative of the Thatcher era ” case have one thing in common – very poor journalism. If you are going to intervene  in the exposure and apprehension of serious criminals, you need to get your facts right, you need to have evidence with witnesses, and you need to put the accusations to the accused to see what the defence is going to be. Apparently in the Macalpine case the BBC failed to check that the person accused by their one witness was the correct person, failed to find any supporting evidence for the accusations, and failed to ask the accused what he thought of it. Meanwhile, with the Savile case, there was a failure to unearth all the evidence from a multitude of witnesses, and to produce a programme which delivered the weight of evidence now thought to be out there.

             Some  Conservatives feel particularly unhappy about the way this has been treated. Of course the treatment of the wrongly accused is the worst feature, but they are not happy that in a fairly unsuccessful attempt to disguise his name the Conservative party was accused of harbouring a paedophile in the Thatcher era. Some Conservatives will ask why the unnamed person had to be described in this way. Would the BBC have said a senior figure of the Callaghan or Wilson era, if the dates had been different, or were they as often seems the case, out to attack Margaret Thatcher?  Would they have constantly repeated the word Labour, if the senior figure had been from that party, or sufficed themselves with a general word like politician? Why, in the North Wales abuse cases, did the BBC not constantly refer also to Clwyd Council, the  Council responsible for the childrens’   homes? Clwyd was certainly not a Conservative Council. Why did  they not add the Labour party label to a very nasty set of incidents if they thought the fact that it was a national Conservative government mattered? Why didn’t the unpublished Clwyd report into the abuse crisis become a matter of interest, as well as the wide  ranging enquiry ordered and published by Conservative Ministers?

           I like to think that Ministers and senior Councillors of any colour would wish to let the police and prosecuting authorities get to the bottom of any hateful crime, without fear or favour.All decent Conservative and Labour people condemn child abuse as one of the worst crimes. The BBC should be careful about trying to give a party gloss on crime, especially when it gets the accusations wrong.

          It’s time to ask you what you think about the PCC elections so far.  We have a few more days to go before polling day.

            Police Commissioners will soon replace the little known Police Committees of co-opted Councillors. They have a duty to agree budgets, set policing priorities and handle complaints for their local police force. So far it has been a fairly quiet election. More recently the BBC has allowed more election debate on the topics that matter in the world of policing.

          Whether you wanted these new posts or not, they are coming and it makes sense to engage with the candidates and tell them what you want from your police force. The Commissioners will have to decide their own budgets – you may want them to keep that bit of the spending down. They need to work well with the Chief Constable, and of course avoid any interference with police independence when it comes to handling cases, collecting evidence and bringing prosecutions. They can make a difference in ensuring that the police service reflects people’s perceptions and worries about crime, by telling people what is happening in countering it, and ensuring resoruces are deployed where it matters. If you want particular types of crime targetted, or if you want a different style of policing, now is the time to say so.

          I was intrigued to hear the UKIP spokesman say as his number one wish  they wanted more women to be in these top jobs, only to  admit UKIP  has just two women candidates. Do you agree with them about more women in these roles?  I see that UKIP is  fighting 24 out of 41, and as so often leaving some of the most federalist areas of the country like South Wales, Gwent and Cleveland without any UKIP offering.   It would be good to have an update from UKIP supporters who are vocal on this site and regularly use it to urge people to vote UKIP in a way supporters of other parties do not do.  How do  they see their party’s fortunes going from here? Who should a UKIP supporter vote for where there is no UKIP candidate?  Do they expect a “break through” in the PCC elections where they do have candidates?

I will be appearing on Any Questions, Radio 4 at 8pm. Rachel Reeves for Labour and David Steel for the Lib Dems will also be on the panel.

              The west is currently attracted to developing more smart bombs and drones. The west wishes to influence overseas countries that might harbour terrorists, and wishes to root out or kill terrorists that could be a threat to the west.

             The drone has a long history. Germany towards the end of the Second World War unleashed V1 and V2 flying bombs on southern England.  Counter measures included seeking to destroy their launch sites, and trying to shoot them down in mid air. The Germans improved their technology to speed them up and to move to mobile or better hidden launchers.

             More recently digital technology has allowed precision use of these fearsome weapons. Western systems allow operators to programme the flying bomb, guided by satellite navigation, to a specific street address many miles away. The method avoids risk to allied western forces, as the bomb can be delivered with no western manpower needed anywhere near the target, either in a plane or on the ground. It can be fairly specific with the target, though its sucess depends on good intelligence, and on the just the right people being  at the location bombed at the moment of impact.

           The technique has its military disadvantages. There is no-one near the target to see the latest conditions on the ground and to authorise the firing from a suitable position. The enemy can claim the bomb did more damage that it actually did. No-one can be sure who, if anyone, was killed by a flying bomb strike on a building. If you are trying to win over hearts and minds, it is not a friendly way to assist. If you need to influence and assist a country into peace loving and democratic ways, you may need troops  on the ground to train and assist local people in establishing law and order. If you are successful at killing terrorists, you may also be successful at helping them recruit more people to their cause. Successful remote bombardment can help the terrorists win over a local  population against the outsider.

             I have no objections to the west developing smarter bombs and drones. They may be needed. I do think the west needs to reflect carefully on where and how often they should be used.  They may be politically counter productive. They can be morally wrong. The west has to recognise there are limits to how far we should go in enforcing our  counter terrorist policy by authorised murder rather than through inter governmental and legal process.  Our best protection against terrorist attack at home is good intelligence allied to proper control of our borders. Anyone authorising or triggering a smart bomb would be wise to ask for legal cover in our jurisdiction against possible future legal  charges, and will need to remember that the country receiving the bomb may take a different view of its legalities. It is, of course, simpler where a state of war exists. There the issue of authorising the death of people is governed by the rules of engagement.  In some case now smart bombs are sent into countries where no war has been declared.

                   There is a lot to be said for encouraging and supporting high professional standards. They are the complement to demanding high quality from industrial and service companies.  In both cases there are market pressures to lift standards and quality. Competitive forces will tend to raise standards where they matter to customers. It happens naturally in industries and services where it is obvious if quality and standards are not high enough.

                     It is such market forces which have delivered cars which are better made, last longer, have a much wider range of comforts and conveniences, and are more reliable. Modern car makers have to install strong  quality systems, instil  the message of quality in their workorce, and seek to designing poor quality out of their factories. A 2012 car is so much better, with so much better performance and specification, than a 1972 car.

                   In professional services there is now a stronger emphasis on continuous education for those wishing to maintain their practising certificate within their profession. Some see this as a benign process, seeking to emulate the obvious succcess of quality management in business. Others question the value of some of the work done given the cause of maintaining and enhancing professional standards. At its best the programmes of professional improvement are genuinely programmes to raise standards. At worst they can degenerate into box ticking exercises where people have to reproduce the agreed consensus for the sake of the gapfill exam, or into ways of perpetrating a collective error in approach and limiting competitive forces.

                 I would be interested in your experiences and  thoughts on this topic. It goes to heart of how much regulation of the professions and services should be statutory, how much should be undertaken by professional bodies, and how much should be left to consumer choice and the differences of the market?  We also need to consider why the public sector does not have the same robust approach to quality management and improvement of standards as much of the private sector.

          When Mr Cameron sits down this evening with say more than “No” to higher EU spending.  He needs to explain that the UK needs a new relationship with the EU. They may not wish to control their debts and deficits by less EU spending but we do. We do not wish to contribute to a flawed and expensive regional policy, nor to a wasteful and unfriendly agricultural poloicy. We could these for ourselves more cheaply and efficiently.

           Euroland may well need to spend more and transfer more money from rich to poor. The UK has no wish to be part of this, and needs a new relationship. If they ignore this the UK will simply have to veto and veto again.

               President Obama has won sufficient Electoral College votes to remain as President. He now presides over a very divided country, with some bitterly disappointed Republicans. As expected, the popular vote was close, with Mr Obama just edging ahead in crucial swing states. His  healthcare system remains widely loathed in Republican areas. Many Republicans remain concerned about the high levels of state spending and borrowing he has fostered. They are braced for higher taxes as the President eventually gets round to tackling the fiscal cliff. They want tax cuts, not tax rises, and spending cuts, not spending increases.

                In the Uk there will be rejoicing. Mr Obama won the UK polls by a landslide, revealing the lack of understanding  of the US and its self reliant strand of thought on this side of the Atlantic.  There is a European feeling that Mr Obama is more caring, more friendly to the rest of the world than Mr Romney would be. UK liberal thinking forgives Mr Obama for things they would condemn in a Republican President.

                Some have found the Obama Presidency deeply disappointing so far. The failure to  close Guantanamo Bay was a let down after the clear and striking 2008 pledge. The decision to increase the troops in Afghanistan instead of withdrawing earlier has been a bad mistake. The continuation of the drone campaigns poses moral and political issues I wish to explore soon. Mr Obama flirted with European green policies to the joy of many this side of the Atlantic, only to move to shale gas and a drive for energy self sufficiency as the election drew nearer. Even this did not undermine European faith in him, though I thought it was one of his wiser calls.

                Now what matters is how he tries to heal the raw feeelings of disagreement in his country, and how he starts to tackle the debt mountain  and deficit he has created.

          In an interesting  piece on government intervention Matthew Paris brilliantly exposed the dilemma that faces any Conservative individual, and any Conservative government. When should the might of state power be used for the good in economic matters? How far should a government go in freeing the economy  and following the laissez faire doctrine? How much should it seek to mould, speed or improve the market by Ministerial decision?

            Most of us accept there has to be a balance. Much of UK  economic political debate is about striking that balance. As one towards the free market end of the spectrum, I have always accepted the role of government to enforce a strong competition law, to provide a legal framework, to make some planning decisions about where things can be built in our cramped island, and to regulate the basics of the banks intelligently. In a mixed economy where the state controls so much of the money and resources, the state does need to take strong and good action where it is in charge.

          Matthew Paris asks me how I would have responded to the collapse of Rolls Royce, and what I thought about government intervention in Docklands to create Canary Wharf. They are fair questions which may help to illuminate how the balance should be struck.

             I was a keen exponent of Docklands redevelopment as Chief Policy Adviser to Margaret Thatcher. The land of the old docks was largely in public sector hands. Local and national government needed to provide a planning framework to get things moving, and was able to pump prime what become a very successful private sector property investment. As Adviser, and subsequetly as one of the responsible Ministers I was egging it on and helping design the right mix of public sector intervention and private sector led investment. The aim was to turn public liabilities into mixed economy assets.

              I cannot say how I would have responded to the bankruptcy of Rolls Royce, as it was before my time. Without knowing the detail it would be phoney to dream up a response now.  I can give a parallel in perhaps a more important and testing set of cases. When major banks were in financial trouble in 2007-8 I was a keen exponent of keeping the government out of owning the shares. I urged the adoption of controlled administration.

           This  would have used Bank of England temporary support to avoid meltdown of deposits and UK clearing activities, but would have forced the break up of a bank like RBS. Shareholders and bondholders would have taken more of the hit, and the foreign and investment banking arms would have been sold off rapidly to raise funds and cut risks.  This policy is now adopted by the authorities  as the way future banking crises should be handled, but is still not being followed for the one we are living through. It is rarely wise for the state to step in and nationalise the lossses. I think we would be making more rapid economic progress today if we had sorted the damaged banks out at the time of the collapse, instead of letting them carry on as malfunctioning conglomerates propped up by the public sector.

          As we saw yesterday, many Conservative MPs find themselves in disagreement with Coalition policies, because they have not seen them as Conservative friendly policies. Much of the opposition to Lords reform stemmed from principle, and from support for the Conservative party’s former position on the topic. Support for a referendum comes both from personal  conviction  and from the strong support for it from party members and local voters. Opposition to items like HS2 is often fuelled by local constituency pressures.

          There are also personal issues that can influence people to rebel. There is certainly a strong strand of whipping which believes that patronage, the ability of the party and government to offer jobs, can be a useful way of reducing or dissipating dissent. Whilst much of the dispute has been based on a clash of ideas in grand twentieth century manner, some of it can also be explained like eighteenth century Parliaments in terms of grouping of interests.  So why hasn’t patronage  worked this time round?

          The whips would say it is another price of the  Coalition. There are fewer Ministerial jobs for Conservatives, as the Lib Dems took a good slice of them. This, however, is understood by MPs and is not the sole reason there has been so little effective use of patronage. The truth is, the patronage available has been used in a very skewed way, leading to more annoyance by a growing large band of rebels. Badly used patronage can make things worse rather than calm them down. Government has patronage that extends well beyond Ministerial jobs.

          Let’s consider the patronage offered to a very small and unrepresentative group of Conservatives, that very small group of  former Cabinet Ministers who still want the UK to be fully involved with the EU as it changes and becomes more powerful.  Chris Patten was given the Chairmanship of the BBC, Lord Heseltine was asked to prduce a  semi official report on how to grow the economy and given governemnt resources to produce it, and Ken Clarke was made first Lord  Chancellor and subsequently Minister without portfolio.  This use of substantial patronage on such a small group has not only upset various MPs, but has given UKIP coverage to make claims based on these appointments. It has offset some of  the impact of the veto over the Fiscal Treaty and the pledge to repatriate the criminal justice powers, which pleased Eurosceptic Conservatives.

           Let’s also consider the last reshuffle. No MP who had voted against the government  from the new intake was allowed a Ministerial job.As more than half of them had voted against at some point, including many of the most talented with a contribution to make, it was always going to be a decision which increased the rebelliousness of MPs.  If one open  rebellion bans you, why not start to vote on more issues in the way you wish rather than agreeing with the Coalition  whip?

          It would be  bad management to create a large group of people who feel they are outsiders. They have causes enough to pursue, and will do so endlessly if they feel that the management of the party does not like them and has no wish to employ them or to accommodate some of their views. Major parties are coalitions within themselves.  Eurosceptic and anti Lords reform viewpoints are the predominant part of the Conservative coalition in the country, but are not properly represented in the appointments made. It is also the case that too many Ministers are still allowing officials to make appointments in the old mould, as if there had been no change of government. This undermines further the reasonable and permissible patronage a government usually wields.

I will answer this question with a couple of posts. Today I will look at the policy issues behind the disagreements. Tomorrow I will consider the people.

The rebellions all represent a frustration that not enough Conservative policies are being pursued by the government. Conservative MPs point out that the Conservative party won an overall majority in England, so has a mandate to govern in England. This is frustrated  by Coalition and UK votes in the UK Parliament. MPs want English votes for English issues, with Conservative Ministers for English issues as a result.  They also often argue that Lib Dems have too large a say in policy in proportion to the number of seats they hold.

Some Conservative MPs were not happy about the original Coalition agreement, with many regreting the absence of a proper discussion within the Parliamentary party about the terms, and the absence of a vote to approve it. Few Conservatives ever wanted constitutional change. They were happy to let the Lib Dems have a  referendum on AV because they could themselves oppose AV and vote No.  They never bought into the idea of Lords reform, backing their Leader who had always made it clear prior to the election that he did not regard it as a priority and had no particular plan to bring it about.

Most Conservatives are fully signed up to deficit reduction. Most wish more of this to be achieved by controlling public spending. Far from being uneasy about cuts, many of the rebellions come from people wanting some cuts. There are strong groups of Conservatives who wish to see cuts in the EU budget, cuts in the overseas aid budget, cuts in regulation and  bureaucracy, and sensible cuts in welfare. They would like to see cuts in energy subsidies,  and the end of expensive projects like HS2.

There are strong groups against particular policies. HS2 is a very unpopular project, especially with those with constituencies along its route. Windfarms are unpopular with a significant number of MPs, both because of their environmental impact and owing to the high cost energy they sometimes generate. The delays in controlling immigration numbers frustrates some Conservative MPs.  The intervention of both the ECHR and the ECJ in UK affairs often riles Conservatives.

Many Conservative MPs want some flesh on the bones of the new policy of negotiating a new relationship with the EU. They want a referendum on our relationship.  Some are uneasy about the extent of the defence cuts, a department which has been singled out for far more cuts than other departments.

All want a strong private sector led recovery. Some were frustrated by tax increases in the last budget. Many dislike high fuel duties. The free enterprise groupings dislike current Income Tax and CGT levels, and see them as too high  for the recovery.

The most serious worries relate to the EU. In that MPs reflect the mood amongst party activists. Our relationship with the EU dominates much of what the Uk does or is allowed to do, and is at the centre of Conservative wishes for constitutional change.