Conservative party

I have long thought that the secrecy surrounding Lord Ashcroft’s tax affairs is a strategic liability for the Conservative party. The Conservatives should be able to say if their party vice-chairmen is domiciled in this country for tax purposes. Indeed, openness about this point should be a condition of him holding the position. The Observer today has a front page story about Ashcroft’s involvement in William Hague’s trip to the US. But even given my concerns about Ashcroft, I fail to see the evidence produced as particularly worrying. We know that Ashcroft has flown members of the shadow Cabinet around before—David Cameron even took a flight back from the 2007 Rugby World Cup final in Paris on an Ashcroft plane.

In his column, James asks the key question about Tony Blair’s candidature for President of the European Council: what would it do for the Tories and Britain’s foreign policy. William Hague clearly thinks it would be a bad thing and has been lobbying against Blair’s candidacy.   The Shadow Foreign Secretary is letting his anti-EU, anti-Labour views cloud his judgement. Let me explain. If the Tories win, Labour will be in the doldrums, a shadow of its former self. The idea that the party will mount a challenge to a Conservative government by rallying around an EU-focused Tony Blair is unbelievable. Romani Prodi may have jumped from an EU job to the top of Italian politics, but Britain works differently. Peter Mandelson is the exception, Roy Jenkins the rule.

George Osborne’s speech on Monday calling for huge cash bonuses not to be paid this year drew an angry response from those hoping to receive huge cash bonuses – and various City and business pressure groups. A few years ago I would have felt deeply uncomfortable with what Obsorne proposed, but because nearly every bank has drawn heavily on state support over the last year, I think politicians do have a right – even a responsibility – to offer firm guidance to the banks. The FT led the charge against Osborne with both a critical news story, gleefully dissected by Iain Martin, and a harsh leader. Today, the paper follows up with a page two story on a letter Alastair Campbell has sent the paper criticising the shadow Chancellor.

There have been two polls today which are worth mentioning belatedly.  The first is YouGov's voting intention poll for Wales, which Anthony Wells has analysed here and here.  It's not often you see a Welsh voting poll - which is a shame - and the results of this one are striking.  Labour are on 34 percent; the Tories are on 31 percent; Plaid Cymru on 15 percent; Lib Dems on 12 percent.  Overall, that's much better news for the Tories than it is for Labour: the last time the Tories scored 31 percent in Wales was in the 1983 election.

In his column in the Mail, Peter Oborne writes that Cameron’s stance on Afghanistan represents the same mistake made by IDS in his unstinting support for the Iraq war. Oborne fears that neo-conservatism has gripped the Tory leadership. ‘The ‘Neocons’, despite being discredited by the Iraq war, have furtively regained their position at the heart of the Tory party. Almost without exception, Cameron’s senior team are passionate Atlanticists who seem committed to the policy of ‘reinforcement of failure’ in Afghanistan. Both the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and the Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox are ‘Neocons’. As are Cameron’s two most trusted Shadow Cabinet colleagues, Michael Gove and George Osborne.

No one has done more to make the Tories’ new European allies an issue than Jonathan Freedland. He has written about the subject with real passion and, so sources in the Jewish community tell me, played a crucial role in persuading the president of the Board of Deputies to write to David Cameron expressing concern about them.    This week, his column on the subject contained this point: ‘Just this month Oszkar Molnar, an MP from Hungary's main opposition party – on course to form the country's next government – told a TV interviewer that "global capital – Jewish capital, if you like – wants to devour the entire world, especially Hungary". His party leader said there was no need to discipline him because he'd broken no rules.

The mainstream parties’ collective silence on immigration has, undoubtedly, contributed to the BNP’s growing popularity. Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have penned such an argument in today’s Telegraph. David Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party came at the expense of even mentioning immigration. Yesterday’s mind-boggling population projection should curtail the era of uncontrolled immigration: Britain cannot sustain such human and social pressure in the age of austerity. The Tory leadership might view this reality with trepidation. They should not. Limiting immigration would alleviate poverty; it equates exactly with the Tories’ broad one nation philosophy.