Conservative party

As David Cameron stays in Brussels for his third European summit as PM, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the EU's approach to the eurozone crisis – put up short-term cash and pray – isn’t convincing anyone.   On Wednesday, Moody’s threatened to downgrade Spanish government bonds another notch, citing the fact that, between them, the country’s government and banks have to raise €290bn next year to keep the party going. And, across the eurozone, banks and governments face daunting refinancing targets in 2011, which begs the questions: at what cost? And what happens if they fail to meet them?

When you talk to MPs about the new expenses’ regime there are a whole variety of grumbles you’ll hear, many of them reasonable. For example, it does seem silly that all MPs buy their own printer ink cartridges rather than the Commons buying a job lot and using bulk ordering to obtain a discount. But one of the things that really bothers them is that IPSA will publish all the refused expenses’ requests in February. Now, I expect that most of you think this is reasonable. But MPs do have a point that the way IPSA logs these things means that any enquiry about what you are or are not allowed to claim comes across as an attempt to claim.  David Cameron is being pulled two ways on expenses. His MPs wanted the system changed—and fast.

David Cameron has this evening told the 1922 Committee that IPSA will have to change by April 1st next year or be changed. He told the ’22 that he understood the ‘pain and difficulty’ caused to colleagues by the new system and denounced the new system as ‘anti-family.’ He said that IPSA would be given until April next year and if it failed to do so it would be reformed. Tonight’s address was an attempt to defuse an issue that has really rankled with Tory MPs, and has for some become a proxy for the leadership’s perceived lack of regard for them. It is, perhaps, a sign of how strained relations are that Tory MPs are tonight complaining about a Conservative party spokesmen briefing out details of the meeting.

A media narrative is rapidly emerging that the Tories are taking advantage of the Liberal Democrats, using them to defend the coalition’s most unpopular polices. On the Today Programme this morning, Justin Webb pressed Paul Burtstow, the Lib Dem health minister, on whose idea it was that he, the Lib Dem, come on the programme to defend the government against the Health Select Committee’s critical report. The implication was clear, that Burstow had been sent on because it was bad news. I think this narrative is a bit shonky. Yes, the Liberal Democrats took the brunt of the criticism over the fees hike but that was because they were breaking an election pledge and because they chose to be out there defending it.

Peter Kellner has an interesting comment piece up on the YouGov site about how we are in the unusual position of having three relatively unpopular party leaders. Nick Clegg’s approval rating is down at minus 29 but that hasn’t helped Ed Miliband who is at minus 15. David Cameron does have a positive rating, but only just. His approval rating is plus one. As Kellner points out, normally when one political leader is unpopular another benefits. But that hasn’t happened this time: a sign of how strong a hold anti-politics has on the public consciousness. This discontent is mirrored by how all three parties are having quite serious debates about what they should be.

By way of an addendum to Fraser's post, it's worth reading Melissa Kite's account of internal Tory strife for the Sunday Telegraph (it doesn't seem to be in the paper, but is available online here). The piece records what sounds like a tumultuous week for the Tory whips, as they struggled to keep a group of disgruntled MPs on side. There are plenty of little insights, of which this is just a selection: 1) The 1922 Committee gets angry. "The ceding of a series of major powers to Europe, the increasing of international aid, the decision to have a referendum on voting reform, the redrawing of constituency boundaries – all had been eating away at Tory backbenchers for months. Worse than that, their concerns had been repeatedly brushed aside by Mr Cameron.

It's not just the students who are waging a political struggle. In yesterday's Times (£), Tim Montgomerie fired up a debate over the future of the Conservative Party that will no doubt simmer through the rest of this Parliament. For those who can't delve behind the paywall, the argument was broadly this: that a tension is emerging between liberal Conservatism and a more traditional Conservatism. On the side of the Liberal Conservatives are those who want to extend the union with Nick Clegg and his party; a group which may well include the Tory leadership. On the other side are those who want the Tories to go it alone after the next election, with a more traditionally Tory policy platform.

When The Speaker called a division, the Labour side roared a passionate No while the coalition benches delivered a rather muted Aye. I did not see a single Lib Dem open their mouth at this point. Instead, they sat on their benches looking emotionally exhausted. Even those Lib Dems who have been proved right in their warning about the party’s position on fees—notably, David Laws and Jeremy Browne—appeared downcast.   In the end, the government won but with a much reduced majority. 21 Lib Dems voted against the coalition, as did six Tories. Simon Hughes abstained despite Ed Miliband’s entreaties to come with him into the no lobby.   This meant that the Lib Dem’s three senior figures split three ways.

The Big Society never really went away as a theme, but it certainly became a less insistent catchphrase after the general election. The Tories were no doubt stung by the ambiguous response their invitation to government, and felt that the early days of coalition government were not an opportune moment to reheat their central election message. Months went by where the words "big" and "society" barely made any contact at all. That changed with David Cameron's conference speech, of course. And, since then, the Big Society has been back, loud and proud. Only this week, Philip Hammond was talking about a "Big Society approach" to dealing with the snow. Nick Clegg has taken to opening "big society classrooms".