Gove was an appropriate choice for the annual lecture in memory of CPS co-founder Joseph. He shares the same cabinet position Joseph held for the lion’s share of his time in office, and holds Margaret Thatcher, Joseph’s CPS co-founder, in the same high regard. Gove is moulded by the same influences upon which Joseph built the CPS; free markets, small states, low tax and self-determination.

Just like Joseph, Gove is trying to move the middle ground with his uncompromising efforts at Conservative policymaking. But in terms of public speaking, he fell straight into it last night. The purpose of the memorial lecture, first given by Maggie herself in 1996, is to recall Joseph’s integrity and dedication, both to conservatism and to public service. Gove began by conforming to this expectation, but it didn’t last long. His eulogy was quickly superseded by an equally flattering representation of his own present day cabinet colleagues.

In a painfully methodical fashion, Gove rattled off odes to Jeremy Hunt and the Department of Health, Ian Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions  - “the welfare system is being reformed not to save money, but to save lives” – Theresa May and the Home Office, before finally singing the praises of Chris Grayling and the Department of Justice.

All of them, he held, embody the same Conservative principles as Joseph and the CPS. “People can achieve amazing things through their work. They rarely achieve anything through dependence on the state,” he said. What was far more revealing than the fairly perfunctory defences of Tory programs however was the cabinet colleagues he elected to leave out of his celebratory report card; Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Ed Davey.

Gove relied on his script far less when he finally got on to his own specialist subject, the Department for Education, providing far more valuable input than what almost felt like a Commons speech up to that point, trotting out stock lines to attacks that were on this occasion invisible.

As he outlined his party’s work on issues such as the pupil premium, Teach First and cutting red tape for social workers, he returned after a significant hiatus to reference Joseph once again. “I know these changes might have commended themselves to Sir Keith had we been blessed enough to still have him around to see them”. The education secretary’s closing remarks on the virtues of increased home building seemed a little tangential, but were at least delivered with some zeal.

When asked about the chances of a Conservative/UKIP coalition come 2015, Gove’s response was initially evasive. “I was told it was always a bad idea to answer hypothetical questions…” A chuckle from the audience opened the door for a more direct continuation in which Gove assured the crowd of his faith that the Conservative Party would win an outright majority at the next election, hence he was “absolutely confident that the situation need not arise.”

The idea of the Conservatives being in coalition with anyone seemed not to sit well with the education secretary, who commented: "I don't think the Conservative Party should form coalitions with anyone", and he also warned of the dangers of reading too much into UKIP’s ascendancy and the Tory slump at the recent local elections. “It’s important that we do not succumb to a council of despair” he insisted.

When quizzed on the direction education reform seems to be taking, away from ‘soft’, more artistic subjects to more rigorous ones, Gove brushed off criticisms that had been levied at him by some in the profession. “There are academics that will attack our reforms because they embody a culture of high standards”, he said, seemingly suggesting that some teachers were on a nefarious mission to promote lax education.

For someone who is normally such a confident, assured speaker, his performance overall seemed a touch wooden and uninspiring. As introductions were made, he sat somewhat awkwardly on the stage, fumbling slightly with his notes. The event apparently didn’t leave one Nigel Lawson, also in attendance, in raptures; a fellow audience member told me he spotted the former chancellor playing a game of chess on his iPad at one point, more concerned with his opponent than his surroundings.

In a sense, it was a missed opportunity for Gove. The lecture would have given him a fine chance to relate the free market, minimal state, individual empowerment agenda Joseph was so fond of to modern education policy, illustrating how the ideas that underpin the CPS have permeated through to Gove’s own thinking in the area. He had the undivided attention of an audience no doubt sympathetic should he have outlined how he planned to continue Joseph’s legacy in the education department even further into the future.

Instead, he ended up spending the vast majority of his time simply defending his fellow frontbenchers, preaching to a Conservative choir that had no doubt heard it all before.  

The idea of the blue collar voter is itself somewhat nebulous. It was variously described throughout the evening as the ‘working class’, the ‘manual labourer’ and the ‘self-made man’. They are not privately educated, they do not have private healthcare, but they are an aspirational bunch nonetheless. Once placed in the C2 socioeconomic group, blue collar workers may now also include those in the D classification too, says Blue Collar Conservatism founder and event chair Clark Vasey.

However you define them, according to the event’s first speaker John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle, “the blue collar section of our society will without a doubt determine the winner of the next election”. They are prominent in marginal seats, and, according to recent research, identify more with Labour than they do Conservatives.

Stevenson gave his solution to this affliction in no uncertain terms: “jobs, jobs, jobs”. Not only should we be safeguarding apprenticeships, says Stevenson, but also the Tory Party should be actively going on the offensive against Labour for failing to represent working people and for leaving the country with high levels of debt.

Personality, social background and diversity, he added, are all integral to garnering support from blue collar workers. Perceptions wise, it seems that the Eton-biased Conservative benches remain unrelatable to the working man, costing the Tories votes and seats as a consequence.

Cue MP for Wirral West and, according to Vasey, “rising star of the Conservative Party,” Esther McVey to ram home this point. To draw the less affluent into the ranks of her party, she said, “it takes the right messenger, as well as the right message”. She holds the floor with a Northern accent that betrays her emotional attachment to the Blue Collar Conservatism project. Unlike many Tories, she feels right at home in blue collar communities, having grown up in one, and draws on her own experience of what attracted the working class in her area to conservatism in the first place.

Sounding an optimistic note, she is adamant that the fiscal responsibility preached by Westminster Conservatives will resonate with manual labourers, as will the Conservatives’ commitment to low taxes.

Hard work and earned social mobility are the cornerstones of philosophies shared by the working poor and by the Conservatives, she said. She refrained from using the word “striver”, but this aspirational catch-all was definitely evoked as she closed by referring to a belief that she feels is shared by both grassroots conservatives and seasoned Tory politicos, that: “You can’t take any more out than you put in”.

It was only a matter of time before Thatcher’s legacy would surface at the event, given the pride of the conservatism on display. This was the main contribution to the debate of the night’s third speaker, television producer and director Martin Durkin. His luminous yellow braces matched the tone of his input: jovial and bombastic. Sporadic shouts of “hear, hear” broke out around the room as he argued that Thatcherism drew in a new breed of blue collar voters to the party, a philosophy modern conservatives need to return to if they are to reengage with the working class. “In terms of winning the support of the working class, Thatcher led the way” he said. “UKIP has had no trouble attracting working class voters because it’s Thatcherite.”

The star performer of the evening, however, was undoubtedly Dr Liam Fox, former defence secretary. His council house roots also positioned him well to speak on why exactly the conservative mission attracts the working class, orating with evident passion until he was, quite literally, a little red in the face.

He reinforced Durkin’s point about Thatcher’s apparent appeal to blue collar workers, adding that this happened in spite of the slightly snobbish image she projected. Nothing turns a working class voter off like the pretence of toffishness in a politician, but, according to Fox, the key difference between Thatcher and modern conservatives is the clarity of the message they deliver. “When we are bored to death of hearing it, some voters will hear it for the first time”.

Amongst the lively floor discussion that followed, featuring Conservative councillors from across London and even a district councillor who had come all the way from Lincolnshire, recently appointed No 10 adviser John Hayes responded to Fox’s concerns. “The trouble with Conservatives,” he lamented, “is that they think they’re too sophisticated to repeat things simply… We need to escape from the notion that this is somehow vulgar”.

There were also some incisive comments made by members of youth political group Conservative Future. I caught up with the group’s newly appointed National Chairman Oliver Cooper after the event to gauge his response. “I wanted to see if there was unity within the party on how we can speak with a single voice and a single mind to win over these working class voters,” he told me. “Historically we’ve always relied on them. We now need to show that the Thatcherite brand of Conservatism actually appeals more to the working class.”

It’s certainly a bold argument to suggest that what the C2 voter really wants is a Thatcherite throwback party. If last night’s panel agreed on one thing, however, it was that this should be the Conservative consensus. Conspicuously absent from the discussion was Cameron’s position as party leader.

In 2015, it is debatable whether or not the Conservative Party can really hit home with the blue collar demographic whilst an old Etonian is at the helm. It’s especially so when the alienating rhetoric of ‘strivers v skivers’ is rampant within the Conservative ranks.

Only one woman sat amongst the top table of 11 yesterday evening as discussions on rebranding the Tory Party took place in front of an almost exclusively white audience in a Westminster meeting room. That lack of diversity may be the biggest obstacle of all in the Blue Collar Conservatism group’s mission to win back the working poor for the Tories.

Peter Tatchell: There’s a worrying lurch to the right already happening. Instead of just explaining and refuting UKIP policies, the big three parties seem intent on remastering their agendas to fit with UKIP’s ideology. Nigel Farage is calling the shots, which means that his party’s bizarre policies are not being exposed in the way they should be. It’s a typical example of politicians abandoning their principles to chase votes.

JC: You were quite critical of Margaret Thatcher and her record on gay rights after her death. Do you feel that aspect of her legacy has been underreported to some extent?

PT: Many of the Margaret Thatcher obituaries and commentaries were somewhat generous. As well as bigoted legislation like Section 28 of course, they also glossed over many of her worst excesses, such as the police state methods used to crush the miners’ strikes, the decimation of local democracy and the strengthening of police powers over the citizen.

JC: How would you assess the current coalition’s record on minority rights then?

PT: The only minority that has gained under the coalition government is LGBT people with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. But I’ve been campaigning for equal marriage since 1992. Personally I share the feminist critique and would not want to get married, yet for me the issue is about overturning homophobic discrimination and at least giving people the choice to make what is in my view the misguided decision to get married.

Alongside this push for marriage rights I’ve simultaneously been championing a whole new legal framework of relationship recognition, rights and responsibilities which I’ve called a civil commitment pact. It seeks to recognise that civil partnerships are not necessarily the best legal framework after all. My civil commitment pact would allow people to nominate any ‘significant other’ in their life as next of kin and beneficiary. The idea is to break down discrimination against single people who currently lose out financially and can’t necessarily choose their preferred next of kin.

JC: As well as minority rights, you’re also an advocate of republicanism. Is that cause as strong as ever or has it been put on the backburner?

Well it did get quite a lot of attention during the Diamond Jubilee. I think monarchy is incompatible with democracy; Britain’s head of state is based on a dynastic system in the same way as North Korea’s. The title passes from parent to child, regardless of merit. Because the role of head of state resides with the all-white Windsor family for the foreseeable future no black or Asian Britain’s can be our head of state, something that borders on de facto racism.

JC: You’ve stood as both a Labour and Green Party candidate in the past. Ever considered getting back in politics proper to try and make changes?

PT: Not really, but I wouldn’t say never. I get a bit frustrated when I’m trying to introduce some quite original ideas and it’s difficult to get them anywhere because people are so obsessed with the moment and not sitting back and looking at the big picture. So right now I’m not too sure how effective I can be as an MP and of course the unfair electoral system would make it very unlikely that I could get elected as a Green Party candidate. I may have quite a lot of support, but not enough to get elected. The Greens are a small, underfunded party and we can’t match the spending made on street campaigning by the bigger parties.

JC: You’re giving a talk entitled ‘Beyond Equality’ at this year’s HowTheLightGetsIn festival. What do you mean by going ‘beyond equality’?

PT: My argument is that equality is important but not sufficient. Equal rights imply parity within the status quo. Yet many of us would argue that the status quo is fundamentally flawed for both majority and minority communities. I therefore argue that we need an agenda of equality plus. I.e. equal rights, but within the framework of social transformation. Who wants to be equal in a fundamentally unjust society? Surely we should aim to change society for the benefit of everyone.

Let me give you an example. The black civil rights movement in the US during the 1950s pitched its whole agenda on the issue of equality. Once black voting rights were secured and segregation ended the civil rights movement went into sharp decline. More than half a century later a minority of the black middle class has made gains, but tens of millions of poorer black people remain locked out of economic empowerment.  Equality did not solve things for many African Americans because formal legal parity doesn’t necessarily mean parity in practice. We’ve had race equality laws in Britain for five decades yet there is still racism, so minority communities can’t afford to assume that equal rights will solve all their problems.

***

HowTheLightGetsIn is the world’s largest philosophy and music festival, which this year features the likes of Michael Howard, David Owen, Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, Philip Collins, Ian Goldin and Shirley Williams.

Peter Tatchell will be participating in four events at this year's festival, including ‘More Than Equal’ with George Galloway, Minette Marrin and Shaun Ley and ‘Limits to Loyalty’ with Simon Heffer, Mary Midgley and Katie Derham.

For more information, see www.howthelightgetsin.org.

Whether intentional or not, what is likely to feature in today’s legislative plan – and what is likely to be omitted – exposes the internal divisions that persist within the coalition. Their rhetoric of harmonious accord jars with disagreement over several of the key bills that are expected to define today’s announcement, and belies the notion that they are in a position to set out a coherent agenda.

First, let’s get to what isn’t likely to feature in the statutory framework outlined later. After the two-month consultation on minimum alcohol unit pricing ended in February, the Queen’s speech would be an appropriate time to announce legislation on the matter. David Cameron has supported the idea in the past, but opposition from a cantankerous Conservative base has almost certainly left the prospects for legislation dead in the water.

Draft ideas for a so-called 'snoopers' charter', as supported by the home secretary Theresa May and others, could also potentially be timetabled for legislation today. The push back this time comes from Nick Clegg; the unremitting insistence that it’s “not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in government” from such a prominent Cabinet member effectively takes the idea of the table - for the time being at least.

Moreover, the Guardian reports that any law mandating that the coalition pays anything more than lip service to its 0.7 per cent GDP aid pledge might be omitted from today’s announcement on account of Tory backbench opposition.

In terms of economic policy, speaking on BBC’s Breakfast yesterday morning Clegg said he was adamant that his party would “stay the course”, thus indicating that even relatively minor changes in economic legislation may not be forthcoming in the next 12 months either. This will surely be met with more dismay than ever by Plan A detractors within the Lib Dems.

Caught between a rock and a hard place where they can’t force a unanimous settlement between the parties on these issues – let alone within their own ranks – Cameron and Clegg will almost certainly default to inaction. One can’t help thinking that if the coalition partners really were as united as they often claimed, they would say so through statute, not just through the lens of a camera.

So what of the statutes that are expected from today’s speech? More internal conflicts have been brought about because the anticipated bills are a bit of a scatter gun ensemble of the left and right, the liberal and conservative. Plans may be set in stone to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to include a greater number of organisations that have public responsibilities, for instance.

But the transparency Liberals crave could be given with one hand only to be taken away with the other, since justice minister Helen Grant hinted in a recent Westminster Hall debate that rejecting FOI requests on cost ground could be made easier through new legislation.

What has been confirmed is that the Queen’s speech will include legislation giving carers the right to ask for financial assistance from councils to look after the elderly and vulnerable. Not that they’ll necessarily get it though; some hard line austerity hawks in cash strapped councils across the country are undoubtedly going to balk at the idea of being inundated with more calls for aid than they can possibly service after Westminster cut their budgets.

This is likely to create even more divisions, this time between local party branches irate at being asked to get even more out of even less, and a central government which remains resolutely allied to Plan A.

So if nothing else, the next twelve months of legislation are set to be just as contentious as the last. The tensions in Westminster, both within and between parties, may run even higher. 

Well, maybe not. The result of the latest ComRes poll conducted interviews in the regions of England set to vote this time round gives the Conservatives a seven percentage point lead over Labour, 31 to 24.

Compare this with national polling that, on average, puts Labour ahead by around 10 points and you begin to see how hard it is to predict the results of today’s contest. Even national averages can seem incongruous when you note that, in April alone, the difference between the highest and lowest measures of individual support was a not insignificant eight per cent for the Conservatives and seven per cent for the Liberal Democrats.

The potential impact of this swing, combined with the variations in the data, makes these elections nigh on impossible to call. Some senior Conservatives have been reported saying they are preparing to turn over some 400 seats, others far less. Similarly, one Labour shadow minister is reportedly anticipating 1,000 seat gains, whereas the more official line stands at something closer to 200.

When you throw UKIP into the mix, it gets even harder to judge which box voters will actually tick today. For a start, they are contesting nearly three times as many seats as they did in 2009, an unprecedented swell, and we still are unsure as to how the excuses made by leader Nigel Farage for the apparent Nazi salute of candidate Alex Wood, and various other embarrassing candidate misdemeanours will impact upon support for his party.

So for all the polls and nuggets of political wisdom, in honesty no one really knows how this one’s going to turn out. That, I suspect, will be the whole fun of it.

It was this that made me want to take part in the Teach First ‘Every Child Can’ campaign.

Teach First trains people with leadership potential to become teachers, focusing on improving educational standards in deprived schools. The charity was established in 2002, and for the past 11 years it has worked towards breaking the link between parental income and educational disadvantage.

As it currently stands, pupils from deprived economic backgrounds have lower levels of attainment than their wealthier counterparts. That a child’s prospects are limited by their parents’ income is grossly unfair, and this educational disadvantage needs to be addressed.

As part of the ‘Every Child Can’ campaign, I taught a literacy lesson to a class of year 3 students at the Samworth Enterprise Academy in my Leicester South constituency. Though I only taught for one hour, that hour was one of the most extraordinary and rewarding episodes I’ve experienced so far as an MP.

Having prepared the lesson beforehand, I was nervous not quite knowing what to expect or how the children would react. Luckily for me, throughout the lesson itself I was supported by a Teach First teacher. She reassured me before the lesson started, and told me the children were worried in case “Mr Ashworth shouted lots”, perhaps they had seen me on the backbenches of the House of Commons. But my apprehension was misplaced as they welcomed me with infectious enthusiasm. 

I also began understand in a direct sense the challenges faced by teachers on a daily basis. In addition to the academic function they serve, schools are often the one source of stability for many children. School is where children can seek solace from unstable home environments affected by broken relationships and financial difficulties.

Many of the children come from parts of the more deprived estates of Leicester. Teachers support these children disadvantaged backgrounds everyday and the experience reinforced how important teachers are as role models to young, vulnerable children.

Our present environment of austerity adds to the uphill challenge that teachers already face. The Child Poverty Action Group has found that there are currently 3.6 million children living in poverty today – 27 per cent of all children in the UK. Current government policies will push a further 300,000 children into poverty by 2015/16. This upward trend is expected to continue, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that around 4.2 million children will be in poverty by 2020.

Teachers in deprived communities are already faced with the challenge of improving educational standards when the odds are quite often stacked against the pupils whom they teach. As cuts bite, their challenge is made even harder. This is why it’s so important that Teach First continues to work in deprived communities, and works towards creating an educational system where parental income, or lack of it, won’t hinder a child’s future prospects.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South

In the treacherous world of Westminster that Tennant navigates throughout the show, its nice to know that he can rely on Total Politics to keep him up to speed.

If you want full access to the same must-read news, interviews, features and opinion, then you can subscribe to Total Politics from just £27 for 12 months. This includes full digital access to our content, sent to your iPad, smartphone or desktop every month. Click here to subscribe.

A court in Strasbourg decided last Monday – by a knife-edge nine-against-eight margin – that Britain can keep its strict rules against political broadcasting. An animal welfare group had challenged current restrictions as an affront to free speech.

If just one of the judges had switched their stance, the effect on the blood pressure of party treasurers would have been catastrophic: where it’s allowed, political TV advertising becomes an insatiable money-eating monster.

Still, fans of political advertisements did at least get some new specimens to examine last week, thanks to this Thursday’s local elections.

First up were the Conservatives:

David Cameron, straight to camera, wearing a serious tie and a serious face, spoke of tough times, hard decisions, difficult challenges.

Then, a question: has income tax gone up or down under this government? Cut to ‘ordinary people’ struggling to answer.

Some say up, some say down, all in that chatty, ordinary way that ordinary people always chat:  ‘Ooo, up, I should think, dear’, ‘I’m not sure’, ‘what’s income tax?’, ‘where am I?’

Naturally – because let’s be honest, if the answer was ‘it’s absolutely skyrocketed’, then the question wouldn’t have been asked – the ordinary people are then informed income tax has actually fallen.

‘Oh that’s nice, dear!’ they reply.

One says: ‘That does surprise me!’

Then, more uppy-downy questions: has the deficit gone up or down? And council tax – up? down?

Again, the masses get in a bit of a muddle before being told they’re actually quids-in, if they only realised it.

‘Well, that does surprise me!’ they always reply.

So what’s the message supposed to be? ‘Vote for us – we’ve ever so slightly offset the spiralling cost of living, although apparently not so much that you’d notice.’

Labour’s ad also has lashings of ordinary people, though here they’re called ‘The Many’:

The Many – who eschew false modesty –talk about how they’re the backbone of Britain, getting up, going to work, looking after their children, driving forklift trucks, etc. ‘We might not be a bunch of fancy bankers driving the economy into a ditch,’ they sniff, ‘but we keep this country running!’

The Many also explain they’ll personally be getting the economy on track again just as soon as someone in government ‘has their back’. (Who could they possibly mean, Ed Miliband, fronting the advert in your serious tie with your serious face on?)

This is a detail-free them-against-us advert. Message: ‘Vote for us – throw off your oppressors and let us dramatically improve your lives in totally unspecified ways!’

The Liberal Democrats’ message, by contrast, is crystal clear on the specifics: ‘Vote for us – we’ll bung you £600!’:

A nice, clear pitch. A weary-looking Nick Clegg, seriously tie-less yet tirelessly serious, simply announces he’s decided to give 24 million people £600 a year.

Handwritten signs are held up saying ‘what would you do with £600 a year?’

Bring on the ordinary people – albeit ordinary people with quite extraordinary ideas of how far £600 will go.

Predictably, no one says they’d blow it on scratch cards and tattoos. Some apparently plan to send their kids to university with it, while young professionals tend to plump for buying a house.

For £600! A house? A dolls’ house maybe. Less bedroom tax at least.

All in all, despite Abu Qatada being able to stick around, we should probably be grateful for the Strasbourg court…

So the question is, is UKIP really months away from having parliamentary representation in the House of Commons, as their leader suggests? And what about the 2015 general election? If they get anywhere near the 15 to 17 per cent they’re polling at the moment they could even hope to gain a plurality of seats and establish themselves as a true parliamentary party in the Commons.

However, my guess is that they won’t actually poll much higher than five per cent and will not gain a single seat in the Commons in 2015 or manage to capture one in a by-election before then. And the reason, in my view, is simple: their economic policy is terrible. And I don’t mean that in a whiny, leftie, banner-waving sort of a way, but terrible in that it will stop them reaching a whole section of the electorate who might plump for them otherwise.

There are other reasons why UKIP will run into problems during the run up to the next general election, such as the lack of party discipline perfectly exemplified by the rather unfortunate Anna-Marie Crampton episode. But controversies come and go and mostly wash over the public these days. Money is what still matters to people.

Let’s quickly look at what UKIP economic policy is exactly. In their 2010 manifesto Nigel and his crew said that if they won a majority in the House of Commons they would eliminate progressive tax codes and replace them with a flat tax of 31 per cent to kick in on all personal income over £11,500. They would get public spending down to pre-1997 levels by eliminating two million jobs in the public sector. One million of these jobs would supposedly be replaced by manufacturing work (they have a vague plan that isn’t fleshed out in the manifesto around “stimulating public and private spending in Britain’s manufacturing base”).

The other million receiving their P45s from the public purse would go on to find jobs in the private sector “created as a result of lower personal taxes and reduced business taxation and regulation”. UKIP have bought into the economics of the far right of the Conservative party, the Tories at their most nakedly neo-liberal. And my thesis is that this is the key thing that holds them back as a more potent electoral force.

For a party that is populist on almost everything, it is odd that they have cleaved to an economic policy that is so electoral poisonous. I’m not suggesting a wholesale move to the left; just having an economic policy that was in line roughly with where the Tories are at the moment would suffice. UKIP would still be the most economically right wing party by far, but not so far to the right as to be fatal to their chances of gaining a seat or two.

UKIP came second in the Eastleigh by-election, polling just shy of 28 per cent. I was there on the ground and was amazed at how much of their vote seemed to be coming from working and lower middle class voters, eurosceptic and socially conservative people, many of whom will have voted Labour at some point in the near past.

But by-elections are more likely to feature protest votes than general elections and this group, I think, will not vote UKIP in sufficient numbers in 2015. Because they will never want 31 per cent flat tax or two million job losses in the public sector, to be replaced by discredited voodoo economics from the 1980’s. In summary, if UKIP moved their economic policy to the left, not too far to the left as I mentioned before, just away from the supply side tosh, they could become a major electoral force and convert those 15 to 17 per cent poll numbers into actual votes on the ground.

Thankfully for all Britons, they won’t. They may get enough Conservative voters to pick them so as to lead to a sort of “accidental” Labour majority by splitting the right vote, but I don’t even think they’ll pull that much off. They’ll almost unquestionably be the largest party in the 2014 European elections. That will most likely be their high water mark.

Nick Tyrone is from the Electoral Reform Society

Her speech refused “tolerance” and “respect” as the ultimate goal to achieve in attitudes towards gay people in the workplace – where 800,000 have witnessed physical homophobic bullying in the past five years and two million have witnessed verbal homophobic bullying – further calling for “the celebration of diversity that makes us strong as a country.”

And shrewdly, Cooper, who is also shadow equalities minister, sharply shot the fox of those with fingers poised over the ‘hypocrite’ button, by admitting early on in her speech our politicians’ need to put their own house in diverse order as well as advising the private sector, and rest of the public sector.

She revealed to a room of almost 600 delegates, many of whom were representatives from big corporate firms, that in the greenroom beforehand, Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill had been challenging her about Parliament’s own record on this conference’s subject.

“We don’t have enough openly lesbian and gay MPs,” she told the hall, “we don’t have enough being selected to run for Parliament. We have a lot of work to do.”

Cooper also admitted that increasing representation in Parliament is a “long journey” and championed Labour’s use of a women’s shortlist to promote more women into Parliament in 1997. Yet she emphasised the importance of “the issue about how you get people into Parliament in the first place, and to get more gay people to come forward and stand as candidates and councillors,” and said the Labour Party is working on this, particularly LGBT Labour.

“It’s [Parliament has] long been an un-family friendly place,” she remarked, “When I was first elected, there was a gun club, but no nursery!”

There was spontaneous applause at her example of the abolition of Section 28 as a big achievement in politics regarding this subject, as it was “so damaging for teenagers” as well as “the impact it had on teachers and fears they felt – not being able to come out or answer pupils’ questions.” She also listed allowing openly LGBT armed forces members and supporting in Parliament the “important piece of legislation that we are debating now on equal marriage.”

Summerskill also had to answer for his own workplace, giving us some statistics on how far Stonewall’s workforce has come in increasing representation:

“We now have almost 55% women staff, up from 30% in 2005, 17% disabled staff, up from 5% in 2005, and 26% heterosexual staff, up from zero… If you’re thinking of employing a member of heterosexual staff in your workplace, they can be very good!”

Cooper’s speech targeted the audience of delegates from big companies by focusing on the “value” a happy and confident workforce can add to a company: “The workforce is one of the most important assets an employer has…[they] need employees who can get on and do the job.

“It’s far more than discrimination, it’s about positive confidence… It’s about who you can recruit and it’s about value in the workplace too.”

A smartly practical conclusion to draw on an emotive subject. Let’s see if Labour brings this business-like approach to the continuing gay marriage debate.

The true figure was a mere 19,000. I’ve since escalated this to the Press Complaints Commission and they are now set to force the paper to print a correction and apology.

While this is welcome, it won’t stop the continual stream of stories that appear in the right wing press. Just this week we had Iain Duncan Smith in the Mail and the Express referring to one million workshy benefit claimants, when in reality, one third have been certified as medically unable to work for the time being (although this may change in the future) and another third are single parents looking after children of school age.

That’s why I’ve decided to call for the Work and Pensions select committee – of which I am a member – to hold an inquiry into this issue.

However persuading the Tories on my committee won’t be easy. The government that they support relies on this practice of misusing statistics to give it political cover. In its attempts to reduce the deficit, cutting welfare is seen as more of a priority than taxing the richest. That’s why in the same month that disabled people are being hit by the Bedroom Tax, 13,000 millionaires are getting a tax cut of over £100,000.

Conservative Central Office have clearly decided that, as the government has failed so spectacularly on the economy, welfare is now their only hope of getting the public back on side. Thus my Select Committee colleagues know that any deviation from the strivers versus scroungers narrative is unlikely to be tolerated.

So getting an inquiry won’t be easy. But I’m determined to try.

And this isn’t for Labour’s political advantage.

It’s for people like my constituent John, who uses a wheelchair. He stands to lose his DLA and specially adapted car, forcing him to give up his job.

It’s for people like my constituent Marjorie, who worked hard all her life, took early retirement in her late 50s, but is now being asked to find an extra £14 per week in rent.

If ministers and the press continue to use misleading figures unchallenged, then when the time comes, the government will be able to make further cuts to benefits, and more people like John and Marjorie will suffer.

But do politicians in Cardiff Bay want a referendum – or the power to raise or lower tax?

In 2011, all four major Welsh parties supported a Yes vote in a further powers referendum that passed comfortably. But this one could be a tougher sell – the question would essentially be ‘can we tax you more if we want to?’ and voters may be leery (as many were in Scotland in 1997).

Glyn Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouthshire and a former AM, wants the power to be devolved without a referendum – a view he admits probably puts him in the minority in his party.

He says: “There are two main issues in politics: how you raise money and how you spend it. The Assembly only has to do one of those at the moment. It’s essentially just a spending agency.”

“Everything that’s popular in Wales, the Welsh government takes the credit for. Everything unpopular, they can blame on the UK government for not giving enough money.”

With tax-varying powers, the buck would stop in the Bay. Would Welsh Labour - which has been in power since devolution began – or any of its rivals welcome that?

They’d be like those Americans who drive towards hurricanes.

Glyn Davies hopes tax-varying powers would put the Welsh government under pressure to lower spending and cut taxes to create a more business-friendly environment.

But he can see it’s just as likely Cardiff Bay politicians would feel pressure to put up taxes to boost spending.

Either way, you can see why Welsh ministers might prefer not to have tax powers at all - opting for less power and less hassle.

Daran Hill, a pro-devolution political consultant based in Cardiff Bay, has been on the winning side of both the previous recent referendums in Wales. He led the Yes campaign in 2011. But even he’s not keen for another one.

He says: “Having been involved in two referendums in fifteen years on Welsh devolution, I'm not actually convinced the public would welcome another one.”

And of course, only a third of voters turned out to welcome the last one.

Daran thinks next year’s Scottish referendum will influence whether Wales votes again. He says: “As nothing will happen until after the next Scottish referendum, I half think it is the outcome of that referendum which will make the prospect on a further referendum in Wales more or less likely."

As the coalition continues its tortuous trek through the minefield of deciding tax policy, Welsh politicians might well conclude it’s safer – and much more fun – to stay watching from the sidelines.

Councils have an important role to play in implementing the ‘bedroom tax’ – they must identify households with spare bedrooms and then collect the extra rent for them.  Opponents have asked councils to re-designate spare rooms as studies or refuse to evict people who can’t meet the higher rents.

Tanya Murat, a member of Southwark Benefit Justice, says: “Councils could overturn the cut by refusing to implement it.

“The bedroom tax doesn’t address the main issue – there’s a massive shortage of homes but the way to solve that would be to build more council homes. That would mean councils standing up to the government.”

Labour’s Michael Meacher MP believes councils – privately or publicly – will be sharing ideas on how to get round the bedroom tax, and says the situation could become explosive.

He says: “Councils can’t overturn it, but I’m sure advice will be passed around on how to avoid it.

“I think this could be the Poll Tax for this administration. I’m sure there will be surprising, amazing, even shocking attempts to avoid it. People may even brick the room up. 

“The Poll Tax didn’t drive you from your home, and it mainly hit the North. This is going to hit everywhere and it could prove exceedingly sticky and very nasty for the government. It only takes a few cause celebres to spark something big.”

Councils have certainly been vocal in their opposition. Last week, Eric Pickles hit out at the “gullible and unquestioning” BBC for giving too much coverage to councillors’ attacks on the new rules.

Upcoming local elections could explain a lot of this. Local authorities are keen for their tenants to understand Westminster – not them – is responsible for rents going up.

But rhetoric aside, the chances of concerted town hall resistance seem slim.

Most local authorities don’t directly control their housing stock any more. Decisions about re-classifying the number of bedrooms often rest with housing associations.

As for refusing to evict tenants who can’t or won’t pay their higher rents – few councils are in a position to subsidise tenants, however sympathetic they might feel.

In Knowsley, Cambridge, Liverpool, Leeds, Lambeth and elsewhere, Labour councillors have waved around spanners – but stopped short of actually tossing them into the machinery. Their party leader carefully avoided promising to axe the ‘bedroom tax’ while campaigning in his brother’s old seat last week.

Councillors may not like the ‘bedroom tax’. They may find ways to sidle around the new rules. But if activists are banking on councils forcing a head-on confrontation with the coalition, they may be disappointed. 

For young people in the Arab world, optimism and hope have turned into ambition and expectation: the G8 needs to take note.

Last week Penn Schoen Berland and Asda’a Burson-Marsteller launched the fifth annual Arab Youth Survey. The findings provide a contrast with the stories we are often shown here in the UK: they reveal an overwhelming sense of optimism amongst the younger generation - the age group who will be the next leaders and architects of the future. Their outlook has shifted: from a general sense of hope to more clearly articulated – and ambitious – expectations of the future.

This newly-empowered generation is now looking for socio-economic change that will improve their day-to-day lives and provide them with greater opportunities than currently exist.  Given the importance of the region in terms of energy and resources, political power and trade, it is crucial that governments understand the attitudes of its young people.

Sectarian and political tensions aside (though never discounted), there is optimism for the future and a strong sense of pride. 87 per cent of young people say they feel more proud to be an Arab since the Arab Spring, and a majority feel the region’s best days are ahead. There have also been personal gains, with over two-thirds saying they are better off than they were a year ago, and an expectation for these improvements to continue over the next five years.  An increasing number also plan to go on to further education or start their own business. These rising expectations are creating impatience at the current rate of economic change and political reform.

This is not to say that anxiety has vanished. Living without fear of terrorism is still more important than having access to the best universities, or reliable healthcare. Similarly, while ‘being able to live in a democratic country’ has dropped in importance since 2011, it is still near the top of the list.

Along with this come concerns that are closer to European worries. The top concern is the rising cost of living in the region. Day-to-day costs of living, worries of getting on the housing ladder, and fewer jobs are important - these are all issues that young people in Europe can relate to, and Western governments know these are not easily-resolved problems.

But negative perceptions of Western countries have not recovered since pre-Arab Spring. And this not about values, because there is an increasing desire among the Arab youth to embrace ‘modern’ (or Western) values and beliefs.

For young people in the region, optimism and hope have turned into expectations and even a sense of entitlement following the Arab Spring. They expect the economy to improve, for their career and entrepreneurial opportunities to increase, and for their countries to be able to compete on the world stage. As part of the biggest demographic in the region (two-thirds of the population is under 30), the G8 cannot underestimate this generation.

Ruth Walker-Grice, Penn Schoen Berland, London

Note: Penn Schoen Berland carried out 3,000 interviews face-to-face amongst respondents aged 18-24 in the Middle East and North Africa. Research was carried out across 15 countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen) between 13^th December 2012 and 14^th January 2013. Full details of the methodology can be found at http://arabyouthsurvey.com.

Yet the UK government continues to insist that fuel suppliers show that at least five per cent of their fuel comes from renewable sources, or risk being forced to pay a substitute amount of money. Baker this morning explained this was because “when the [European] Directive was set, the world seemed to think that bio fuels were completely beneficial with no down-sides. Pressure groups were pressing politicians of all parties to embrace biofuels and then there was a volte face almost overnight to say ‘no, there’s some down sides to these things – we shouldn’t be having them’.”

Indeed, a Greenpeace policy paper from 2001 shows Greenpeace’s initial enthusiasm for the project: “Instead of cutting tax on fuels that wreck the climate, Gordon Brown should use this week’s budget to boost genuine green fuels like biodiesel, hydrogen and green electricity.”

Over ten years later, the same organisation thinks that “bad biofuels damage the environment and put more carbon into the atmosphere. The EU’s renewable energy policies are a major driver of growth for harmful biofuels, which shows no sign of slowing.” 

But it was not only Greenpeace that got carried away with biofuels. On the 11 March 2004, the MP for Lewes and shadow environment secretary told the House of Commons that “Biofuels are good for the environment, and diversifying into them would help protect rural industries and the rural economy. We should encourage that.” Who was that MP? Norman Baker.