Conservative party

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The Tory grassroots deliver their verdict on Alan Duncan

The Tory grassroots have spoken, and they want Alan Duncan out.  Here are the main results from a poll which has just been published over at ConservativeHome: "A ConservativeHome.com poll of 1,622 Tory members carried out today finds 65% want Alan Duncan to resign and 55% think he should be sacked. A massive 91% think he should be moved from his current job where he has a role in deciding Conservative policy on MPs’ expenses and allowances. 61% are dissatisfied with Alan Duncan's performance. 31% are satisfied.  This makes him the least popular member of the shadow cabinet. 38% agreed that 'Alan Duncan was telling the truth - the antagonism toward MPs has gone too far.'  52% disagreed.

Peter Hoskin

Mandy: Brown would “relish” televised debates with Cameron

So Mandy's brought up the idea of a public debate between Brown and Cameron again, claiming – in interview with Sky (see footage above) – that the PM would "relish" the opportunity to "take the fight to the Conservatives".  If you remember, the last time Mandy mentioned it, Downing St quickly moved to dampen all the speculation - the rumour was that Brown was going to challenge* Cameron to a series of debates in his conference speech, and was irritated at the PoD for giving the game away so early.  But now that Mandy has made the same point again – indeed, even more forcefully this time – I reckon it near confirms that Brown's challenge will come soon enough. * The word "challenge" is used in the loosest possible sense here.

James Forsyth

The real origins of the Mandelson Osborne feud and why Mandelson wants to keep it going

One of the great misapprehensions about the Mandelson-Osborne feud is that Osborne was the instigator of it. The Independent in its piece on the relationship between the two says: “When, a couple of months later in October, Peter Mandelson was offered a peerage and brought back into the Cabinet as Business Secretary, Osborne began briefing journalists to the effect that Lord Mandelson, then a European commissioner, had spent his holiday dripping "pure poison" about Gordon Brown.” But my understanding is that Osborne gave the briefing in the summer. Osborne called Daniel Finkelstein, a former colleague of his from Tory central office who was at the time comment editor of The Times, straight after dinner to pass on what Mandelson had said.

James Forsyth

Alan Duncan is a very lucky man

Guido has just blogged that he was offered the video of Alan Duncan complaining that MPs live on rations and are treated like sh-ts back in June. If Guido had run it then, Duncan would have been in far bigger trouble and might well have ended up being sacked. The expenses story was still much rawer then, the whole press corps would have been in full pursuit and Cameron would have had to answer questions about whether Duncan could stay or not in every interview he did. Duncan’s comments, though, again call into question his judgement.

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

Duncan’s rations: now with added video

Further to my post earlier, Sky have now produced an embeddable copy of Don't Panic's Alan Duncan video. The offending remarks come around 04:30 in: I know I said before that I'm inclined to believe Duncan's excuse - that the comments were made in jest - but the more I watch the clip, the less convinced I am. Intentional hyperbole - perhaps. A joke - hmm. Either way, it's a stark error of judgement on the shadow leader's part.

James Forsyth

Does Mandelson remember that Blair thought cross-dressing was a good idea?<br />

Peter Mandelson has been getting very cross, and rather personal, about George Osborne’s ‘political cross dressing”. But during the Blair era, it was New Labour politicians who were keen on cross dressing. Indeed, on his farewell tour Tony Blair went out of his way to declare it as something that was here to stay: "Most confusingly for modern politicians, many of the policy prescriptions cross traditional left-right lines. Basic values, attitudes to the positive role of government, social objectives - these still divide among familiar party lines, but on policy cross-dressing is rampant and a feature of modern politics that will stay. "The era of tribal political leadership is over.

Peter Hoskin

Something the Tories could do without…

...Alan Duncan saying on video that MPs are treated "like sh*t", and that they're forced to live on "rations".  He's just apologised, saying that the remarks were meant in jest.  And I'm inclined to believe him: he was, after all, in conversation with the political pranksters over at Don't Panic (although he didn't know he was being filmed).  But, either way, it's easy work for his opponents to take these things out of context.  And many will argue that the expenses fiasco isn't a laughing matter in the first place.

Tuesday

James Forsyth

The press’ obsession with the Tories, Rachel Whetstone and Google is immature 

Nearly all the papers have run articles on Rachel Whetstone today. These pieces concentrate on the fact that she’s the partner of Steve Hilton, Cameron’s chief strategist, and that the Tories mention Google quite often. Frankly, this strikes me as a nothing story. The Tories are mentioning Google so much because it is the kind of modern, successful brand that they want to be associated with, not because Whetsone, who was Michael Howard’s political secretary and who used to be close for Cameron, works there. Also, considering how Google has become shorthand for so much of the technological change going on around us, it would be rather hard for a politician to talk about how the internet can change the way public services are delivered without ever mentioning the company.

David Blackburn

Another Conservative MP won’t be standing at the next election.

Michael Ancram is standing down at the next election on grounds of ill-health, you can read his resignation statement here. Former leadership candidate Ancram was embroiled in the expenses scandal, claiming £98.58 on swimming pool repairs and more than £4,250 in one year on cleaning and maintaining his second home. According to the Telegraph, he is understood to have been unhappy with David Cameron’s handling of the expenses scandal. William Hague paid tribute to Ancram's work as Conservative Party chairman through what were the Tories' "darkest times in opposition.

Peter Hoskin

Gove stirs up trouble for Balls

I gave it a passing mention in my last post, but it's worth highlighting Michael Gove's mischievous comment piece in the the Guardian today.  Why "mischievous"?  Well, because its purpose seems to be to rile Ed Balls and mobilise his internal opponents: 'In a series of not so subtle signals to the grassroots, Ed has been emphasising, whenever the opportunity arises, that he is the socialist candidate for anyone in the party who wants to move away from the sullied compromises of Blair era. In a recent interview he explained that the battle for the leadership would be a struggle between David Miliband and himself - setting up the contest as a choice between the clearest heir to Blair and the key opponent of Blairism.

Peter Hoskin

Osborne makes progress

It's a big day for George Osborne.  The Shadow Chancellor is using his new platform at Demos — the think-tank which is credited with much of the brainwork behind the initial New Labour project, but which is now turning to the Tories as well as to the Purnellite wing of the Labour party — to deliver a speech on progressive politics.  I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the snippets which have been published in the papers make it seem like a significant moment in Project Cameron: when the Tories extrapolate their attacks on Brown's fiscal legacy further, and perhaps more resonantly, than they have done before.  Here's a key passage, to give you the idea:   “...

Monday

James Forsyth

If the Tories are serious about being ready to govern from day one, they should be examining whether or not Vat needs to be raised

The Tory response to the story that they plan to raise Vat to 20 percent after the next election, worried me. The Tory line is that there are no plans to do this and that there have been no high-level discussions about it. But, frankly, there should have been. Not because increasing Vat is necessarily the right thing to do, but because the Tories should be exploring what can be done to get this country out of the huge fiscal hole that Brown has dug it into. I find it less than encouraging that less than a year out from an election, the opposition hasn’t even — or so it claims — discussed whether pushing Vat up to 20 percent might be necessary: if you haven’t examined something, you can’t know whether or not it is a sensible thing to do.

Peter Hoskin

Now the Tories foresee a “zero percent rise” of a different sort

When Brown comes to weigh up his prime ministerial legacy, maybe he'll be satisfied that - if nothing else - he seems to have enshrined the idea of a "zero percent rise" in political discourse.  Here's a passage from the Times article today on how the Tories plan to freeze the pay of local government workers:       "Conservative town hall employers told The Times that 'a zero rise' for workers next year would be the 'maximum' that Tory councils would support." More seriously, the Times article indicates a toughening of the Tories' stance towards the unions, and perhaps even over public spending cuts more generally (although Andrew Lansley does rather undermine that point).

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Can Cameron afford Lansley?

Is Andrew Lansley using his untouchable status* to bounce David Cameron into a three-year budget settlement? On the Marr sofa (or the Sophie Raworth sofa as it was today), he announced that the Tories are planning "real term increases to the NHS year on year." Well, David Cameron has only said he would protect health from cuts - but he has not specified how long for. It could be as little as one year. In my political column for this week's magazine I recommend Cameron keeps uses this to wriggle out of what is now an unaffordable promise. He should freeze NHS spending for a year, then take a scalpel to it. When Lansley first gaffed about how protecting health cuts would mean 10 percent cuts, there was a key part to this overlooked at the time.

James Forsyth

20 percent Vat is likely whoever wins the next election

I must admit that I thought that both the government and the Tories were committed to raising Vat to 20 percent after the next election. My recollection was that Vat rising to 20 percent was part of the PBR package that saw Vat temporarily cut to 15 percent and that the Tories had not opposed this part of the package. But having checked up, I see that this was not what was announced but merely what the Treasury was advocating internally. The Tories might be denying the story that they will raise Vat to 20 percent but I would be very surprised if they did not end up doing so. Vat is an easy tax to collect and hard to avoid so as the Tories look for an instant way to show the markets they are serious about dealing with the national debt, Vat is the obvious tax to increase.

Saturday

Daniel Korski

How Cameron should structure his national security team

Reports that the Tories are thinking about appointing a Minister for Afghanistan raise the broader question of how they should structure their national security team. Though the Tories bang on about their idea of setting up a National Security Council, there has been precious little detail given  of how it would work, how it would be different than the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and who would staff it. The National Security Council should be led by a minister, sitting in either the Commons or the Lords, who would also act as the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, supported by a National Security Director, from the ranks of the Civil Service.

Friday

Fraser Nelson

Why Georgia matters

When David Cameron flew to Georgia last year, it was perhaps the clearest and most welcome statement of foreign policy made by the party since he became leader. Liam Fox’s piece on conservativehome today pays tribute to this, and gives us a welcome reminder of the stakes. The Russian threat is growing: there are 10,000 troops there and settlements will soon start. The best the West can do is show solidarity, and there is no clearer sign than going there. As Cameron did. Like Israel in the Middle East, Georgia is a light of democratic freedom in an area with plenty of unlit candles. There is something totemic about its independence, something the Conservatives can express clear and unequivocal support for.

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

Why I remain unconvinced about the Tories’ tax break for married couples

Ok, Fraser - I'm not going to let this tax 'n' marriage debate rumble on interminably, but I do want the final word!  First, I appreciate your response - it makes a very strong case, but one which fails to convince me.  Why?  Well, largely because I agreed with most of it already.  As I said in my original post, IDS and others have unearthed plenty of statistics which show just how important marriage is to the functioning of society, and to the lives of people within it.  This evidence, much of which you raise, is important and shouldn't be ignored.   But there are still reasons - beyond those set out by Philip Collins today - for being wary of, specifically, tax-breaks for married couples.  For starters, what's to be gained from them?

Fraser Nelson

Why marriage should be recognised in the tax system

Cameron has been fairly bold in entering the debate on marriage, because we don't like do that debate in Britain. Not really - it's private, and we Brits don't like debating private things. Anything which helps marriage can easily be paraphrased as "deploying fiscal incentives to force something which should largely be a private decision". And not by the left, but by our very own Pete Hoskin in the below post. Now, we are a heterodox bunch of baristas here at CoffeeHouse and we do disagree - so here is why I think Pete is wrong. I'd like to have a go offering some of the "convincing answers" he's looking for. Right now, millions of couples are better off apart under the perverted incentives of the welfare state. The Tories would remove this anomaly.

Peter Hoskin

Love and marriage?

Ok, I must admit I'm quite wary of Tory plans to encourage marriage via a £20-a-week tax break for married couples.  Not because I don't think marriage is a positive social force.  I do.  And Iain Duncan Smith's usually excellent Centre for Social Justice - who are pushing the tax break proposal, along with other, more convincing, ideas, in their recent Every Family Matters report - has unearthed enough statistics over the years to prove that it is.  But there's something crude and debasing about deploying fiscal incentives to force something which should largely be a private decision, based on sappier motives such as love, between two people.