Conservative party

Although the heat seems to be coming off Lord Ashcroft himself, attention is now rapidly focussing on the Tory leadership.  I mean, it was one thing when William Hague admitted that he didn't know about Ashcroft's tax status until a few months ago – but quite another when it emerges that David Cameron only found out "within the last month".  As I said in my last post, there seems to have been, at the very best, astonishing naivety on the part of the Cameron & Co.  They should have seen these problems coming months ago, and tried to defuse them then – rather than being forced on to the defensive, only weeks before an election. They may yet get off lightly.

The Beeb were reporting it an hour or so ago, but now it's been confirmed: the Electoral Commission has cleared the Tories and Lord Ashcroft of any wrongdoing over £5.1 million worth of donations from his company, Bearwood Corporate Services Limited.  Sure, there are still questions surrounding this whole affair – most of them to do with the Tories' naivety in their handling of it.  But you suspect that this announcement will draw some of the political poison out of proceedings.  Not that that will stop Harriet Harman or her colleagues in the Labour party... UPDATE: Channel 4's Cathy Newman is reporting that David Cameron only knew about Ashcroft's non-dom status "within the last month".

It is a calculation that should fill all of us with an immense sense of dread: there is now a 72.2 percent chance of a hung parliament. Or so says Michael Saunders, Citigroup's chief European economist and the one man in the City everybody listens to when it comes to the interaction between parliamentary politics and the financial markets. His model, which incorporates the standard data about the Westminster first-past-the post system, and into which he has fed all of the latest polls, also suggests that there is just a 6.2 percent chance of strong Tory majority, a 19.1 percent chance of a weak one and 2.5 percent chance of a Labour majority.

When Gordon Brown pulled out of PMQs this week because of Jacob Zuma’s state visit there was much chortling that he didn’t much fancy PMQs. But I suspect that Labour is rather glad that William Hague is up today; no Tory politician is more central to the Ashcroft peerage than Hague, and Hague’s appearance at the despatch box is Labour’s best chance of taking this story into a third day. Hague will have his line that Ashcroft would pay ‘tens of millions a year in tax’ thrown back at him repeatedly. Hague’s trips with Ashcroft to various foreign locales will also get an outing. There is something incredibly frustrating about the Ashcroft fallout.

The various parties involved in the televised leaders' debate have finally come to an agreement on how they will work.  You can read full details here, courtesy of Sky.  But the main points are: i) Topics and locations. The first debate will be hosted by ITV's Alastair Stewart, in Manchester, and will cover domestic affairs.  The second will be Sky's Adam Boulton, in Bristol, and will cover foreign policy.  And the third will be the Beeb's David Dimbleby, in Birmingham, on the economy. ii) Structure. The rather rigid structure of each programme will be as follows: "Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme.

I wrote yesterday that Lord Ashcroft's statement about his tax status should have drawn a "rather neat line under the issue".  Sure, it's hardly ideal that someone with such influence in our politics hasn't been paying UK taxes on much of his wealth (something which could equally be said of Labour donors like Lord Paul and Lakshmi Mittal), and was keeping mysterious about it.  But at least, now, most of the uncertainty surrounding Ashcroft's position has been removed.  And we have his indication that he will become a full UK taxpayer in due course.   But I hadn't counted on the tenacity of Labour, who are trying to spin this story as far as it will go.

A persuasive passage (complete with a spiky, ministerial quote – highlighted) from Rachel Sylvester's column this morning: "There is growing concern among some Shadow Cabinet ministers and strategists about the increasingly aggressive tone Mr Cameron uses against Mr Brown. It is, they believe, no coincidence that the poll gap has narrowed as the Tory leader launches a series of increasingly vitriolic personal attacks on the Prime Minister. Last week, for example, by turning the bully into the victim, Mr Cameron seems to have simply solidified support for Mr Brown. There was a similar backlash to the Conservatives’ misleading 'death tax' poster campaign.

Out of the conference hall, and back on to the campaign trail, it would nice to see the Tories talking about the things which make them ready for government.  In particular, William Hague should make a foreign policy speech setting out what ideas he has, and which would merit him being referred to as the likely “greatest foreign secretary in a generation” by David Cameron. Hague’s past foreign policy speeches have been solid, but unspectacular. He ticks off the likely issues, talks about global trends and looks knowledgeable about the crises that could emerge. But there is no overaching concept, such David Miliband’s idea of Britain as a "global hub". There is no Hague Doctrine.

So, what did the newspapers make of Cameron's Big Speech?  A brisk stroll through this morning's coverage, and you'll come across the whole gamut of responses: from wholehearted enthusiasm in the Sun, to wholehearted scepticism in the Independent.  But the general tone is somewhere in between: the mitigated praise of, say, the Times or the Guardian.  Which is, I think, fair enough.  The speech struck me as effective, perhaps elegant, without ever quite hitting the heights. But the Tories should only be concerned by the media response insofar as it's a conduit for their own message.  What bits of that message have cut through?  Will that message resonate with voters?  And so on.