Conservative party

Theresa May has announced that the UK Border Agency is to be abolished.  In an unscheduled statement to the House of Commons, she described UKBA as ‘a troubled organisation’ with a ‘closed, secretive and defensive culture’. She said that the agency’s size, lack of transparency, IT systems, policy remit and legal framework ensured that its ‘performance was not good enough’. May declared that the agency will be split in two. One arm will deal with immigration and visa services, while the other tackles enforcement. May will also bring both arms back directly under the control of ministers, reversing the arms-length policy established by Labour in 2008.

David Cameron has just delivered his end of term address to the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers. The Prime Minister made little news apart from going out of his way to praise Maria Hutchings, making clear he had no truck with efforts to blame her for the party’s poor performance in the Eastleigh by-election. He stuck to the same messages that he had when addressing the parliamentary party the other week, one backbencher left complaining ‘we’ve heard it all before.’ But what should cause some concern Number 10 is how few MPs turned up to hear the Prime Minister. The audience was estimated at between 80 and 100, less than a third of the parliamentary party.

I’ve just watched the Boris interview with Eddie Mair and I have to say, these dogs won’t hunt. Mair threw three accusations at Johnson and I think all three of them are dealable with. The first was an allegation that Boris had made up a quote, something that he lost his job at The Times for. Now, I suspect that anything in which Boris can claim the defence that he had only moved something from ‘before Piers Gaveston’s death’ to after it isn’t going to end a political career. Also considering that Boris rose to journalistic prominence after this incident, it is hard to claim that it is disqualifying. The second was about his affair with Petronella Wyatt. Again, I don’t think this is career ending stuff.

It's not just Nick Clegg who is having a good long think about immigration at the moment: David Cameron is as well. He's got a big immigration speech on Monday, which shows how spooked the parties are by UKIP that they feel they need to at least address the topic, even if they insist that they're not adopting Nigel Farage's terms of debate. As he writes his speech, Cameron will probably have in mind the looming problem of how many Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are coming to this country when transitional controls lift at the end of 2013. If he doesn't, he should, because that backbench debate from Mark Pritchard on this issue now has a date: 22 April.

For the opening half of George Osborne’s Budget speech, the Labour front bench was busy waving around copies of the Evening Standard’s front page. This was visibly putting Osborne off; he wouldn’t be human if the fear that another of his Budgets was going to be dashed on the media rocks hadn’t crossed his mind. But by the time he sat down, the storm over the Standard front had died down thanks to a quick and dignified apology from the paper itself. Osborne will also have been pleased by the cheers of his own side as he returned to his seat. For all the speculation got up by the irreconcilables, most Tory backbenchers seemed as pleased as could be expected with a Budget that was delivered against such a grim fiscal backdrop.

MPs are continuing to debate the cross-party deal on press regulation in the Commons at the moment. The debate has been divided between congratulations for the party leaders and their colleagues who hammered out the deal, and wariness from some Tory backbenchers about what the proposals actually mean. David Cameron insisted during the debate that this wasn't statutory underpinning, but Nick Clegg said 'of course' when asked whether it actually was. Some Tory MPs agree with Nick: they believe this does include statutory underpinning.

Reading the Hacked Off memo on how to lobby Tory MPs is to be inducted into a wholly cynical world view. It declares, ‘These people are likely to be people you instinctively distrust, dislike and despair of. If they are what we need to win, however, we must understand their value and not confuse our values with their intentions’. The memo, leaked to the Mail on Sunday, reveals that Hacked Off think that the Tory MPs who support them are likely to be ‘social authoritarians’, those ‘who have suffered at the hands of the press themselves’ or those who ‘simply want to bring David Cameron down’. This memo is also explicit that Hacked Off’s aim is ‘an independent statutory regulator with punitive powers’.

Conservative MPs who have previously supported statutory underpinning of press regulation are meeting on Monday morning to discuss how they will vote. There is a list of 75 Tories who have backed the idea, but I understand that if an agreement isn't reached on Monday between the main parties, there are around 20 MPs who would be minded to vote against the Conservative three-line whip and support Labour's amendments. The Conservative part of the government has just published its Royal Charter, and Labour and the Lib Dems are also tabling more amendments today. Once all the information is available, pro-statute Tory MPs will make up their mind on whether to back their own party, or the others.

Speeches by Theresa May and Liam Fox have produced a surge of interest in what Conservatives stand for. Politics in recent years has become an endeavour by a political class, divided by only superficially different beliefs, to use mass advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion. The emphasis on ‘modernisation’ and detoxification grew out of this narrow, calculating spirit, but it has led the Conservatives away from the ideals that have made this country worthy of allegiance. And yet, readily to hand, there are guiding principles that could stir the heart of many a potential Conservative voter. Many conservatives see themselves as champions of liberty. But what does such a claim imply for the role of government today?

There’s so much to disagree with in Rupert Myers' piece arguing that the Tories should raise the minimum wage that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Raising the minimum wage will be bad for the most vulnerable in the workforce and will lead to less employment. The question of whether it would win support for the Conservative party is another matter. This is really basic economics. Raising the price of labour by dictat will reduce the demand for it, other things given. Or as Paul Krugman put it back in 1998:  'The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.'  It might not necessarily lead to a fall in the actual number of people employed, because firms also have the option of cutting back the hours of workers as well.