Conservative party

Further to James’s post on the Cameron interview, here’s what jumped out at me: 1. ‘Governments have difficult months. This government came together to dig this country out of the huge economic mess that it’s in…’ This is the official No.10 explanation about the last few months; that it’s the problems of the austerity agenda. As James Forsyth says in his political column in the current magazine, there are strongly-held alternative explanations. 2. ‘We’re not just a bunch of accountants dealing with the deficit…’ Cameron kicks off with this, an interesting phrase as it has been used by those criticising his Chancellor’s economic message. Osborne’s critics says he no agenda

The argument in the Cameron circle about what the government needs to do to get back on course has been the story of this week. As I say in the political column, there’s a divide between those who think that this month’s events have been little more than a bit of mid-term blues, and those who worry that they have revealed serious, structural problems that needs addressing if they are not to cripple the government. At a meeting of Conservative Cabinet ministers on Wednesday lunchtime, this divide came clearly into sight. Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory chair, asked for a freer rein to attack the Liberal Democrats, complaining that the Tories

Is it possible to set schools free while demanding a beefed up teaching of our nation’s history? Both are topics close to the heart of the Education Secretary but eventually, he’s going to have to choose one over the other. Top-down orders on the History curriculum will undermine attempts to give schools and teachers more control over what they do. Tristram Hunt threw this curveball in this weeks magazine, where he states it is a example of the classic Tory struggle between liberalism and conservatism: ‘The self-inflicted challenge comes with delivering this national narrative of Britishness. Because at the crux of Gove’s schools revolution is the dismantling of national provision.

What should worry David Cameron about tonight’s meeting of the 1922 Committee on Lords reform was that it was not just the usual suspects who spoke out against it. The two MPs presenting the case against were members who have never defied the whip: Jesse Norman and Nadhim Zahawi. Those present were particularly struck by some polling data that Zahawi, who used to run YouGov, presented. It showed that when asked what issues were a priority for them zero per cent of the electorate mentioned reform of the Lords. Even when prompted, this number only rose to six per cent. But Zahawi’s polling shows that if reform does go ahead,

Chris Grayling gave a speech today that mirrored his response to the recent work experience brouhaha: punchy, practical and broadly persuasive. Except there were some parts that might cause a few jitters, and which are certainly representative of jitters along Downing Street. First, this passage: ‘It’s easy to hire someone from Eastern Europe with five years’ experience and who has had the get-up-and-go to cross a continent in search for work. But those who look closer to home find gems too. Very often the surly young man in a hoodie who turns up looking unwilling to work can turn into an excited and motivated employee.’ And then this: ‘I personally

Next month’s elections to the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers have taken on particular importance in the current circumstances. The fact that a couple of the officer positions are held by Cameron’s harshest critics, and that some MPs broadly supportive of the leadership have decided to take on the ‘wreckers’, means that the results will be seen as a sign of where backbench opinion in the party really is. As I write in the Mail On Sunday today, three of the 2010 intake — Charlie Elphicke, George Hollingbery and Priti Patel — have decided to endorse a joint candidate for secretary of the committee. This candidate will stand seeking a