Conservative party

Over at ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie has written about a ‘war game’ that Portland PR held yesterday. The idea was to explore the various challenges that would face the next government. Portland had gathered together an impressive group including key Tory advisors, a senior figure from the Blair government, a former US government official, a senior military bod and a fair few hacks including yours truly. The thing that struck me once the exercise was done was just how buffeted by events the Cameron government is going to be. It will inherit a global situation that is as bad as the economic situation, if not worse, and a slew of other underappreciated problems such as the risk of an energy crunch.

So was the "rations" video a gaffe too far?  The news has just come in that Alan Duncan has been demoted from the shadow cabinet, going from shadow leader of the Commons to shadow prisons minister.  Having spoken to various Tory sources, I understand that the decision was made in an "amicable" meeting between Duncan and Cameron – where the former acknowledged he has become a "lightning conductor" for public anger over expenses – and that, apparently, Duncan is "relaxed and relieved" to be working under Dominic Grieve. Some people might be surprised at the timing: many expected Cameron to hold off until next year, so as not to rile any backbenchers who broadly agreed with Duncan on expenses.

Tim Montgomerie reports that a senior source at CCHQ has said that John Bercow will not stand as an official Conservative candidate at the general election, and therefore party members will not be required to vote for him.   So, will they be for or against Bercow? Councillor Netta Glover, the Buckingham Association’s deputy chairman and political officer, told me that the executive committee were “standing firm behind Mr Bercow”, and that Tory party rules stated that “anyone seeking an official nomination against the speaker would be barred by the returning officer” – so de-selection can be discounted.

Looking at the OECD’s latest economic forecast it seems that the UK—unlike the US and the Euro-Zone--will not return to growth by the end of this year. (Although, one can’t help but wonder if Brown will start heralding zero percent growth in the fourth growth). Indeed, the OECD projects that the UK economy will shrink by 4.7 percent over this year as a whole—although the worst appears to be behind us with the rate of shrinkage slowing since the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.   As Kevin Maguire suggests today, Labour’s election strategy is likely to be that Britain is not out of the woods yet and so it is still no time for a novice.

Few Tories will enjoy looking back on 1974, but they may find it useful to study the second Wilson government and its successor, the Callaghan government, when it comes to the question of Europe.  Back then, we had a government coming to power in the midst of a severe economic climate, and which sought to change the pro-European course that its predecessor had set, including by re-negotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU and by appealing to fraternal parties in France and Britain. However, it ultimately ran into blades of domestic discontent and international indifference. The question is: could this end up being the story of a Conservative government from the middle of next year? Sure, there are key differences between then and now.

I’ve just re-read Cameron’s article in the Times and it contains one section that might come back to haunt him, should he become Prime Minister. He writes: ‘Many will be disgusted by the suggestion that ministers in Whitehall encouraged al-Megrahi’s release — and did so for commercial reasons. Diplomacy often involves hard-nosed backroom deals. It would be naive to think otherwise. But there need to be lines you are not prepared to cross; values you will not compromise, whatever deal you broker. I believe even to hint that a convicted terrorist could be used as makeweight for trade is a betrayal of everything that Britain stands for.’  I agree with Cameron.