David cameron

Was the delayed ballot in Thirsk and Malton a referendum on the coalition government?  If so, the result released in the early hours of this morning will greatly reassure David Cameron and Nick Clegg.  The Tory candidate Anne McIntosh won the seat with 52.9 percent of the vote (up from 51.9 percent in 2005), and the Lib Dems came second with 23.3 percent of the vote (up from 18.8 percent).  Labour were pushed way down into third place on 13.5 percent (down from 23.4 percent). So, over three-quarters of the vote for the two coalition parties. I'd be hesitant to draw any firm conclusions from a one-off election, conducted under unusual circumstances.

The newly-elected 1922 Executive is another demonstration of the strength of the right wing of the Conservative party. Paul Goodman notes that of the seven MPs elected to the executive who were are not new to Parliament, six are on the right. The only one who isn’t is Nick Soames, who is a special case. As one member of the ’22 executive said to me earlier today, Soames, because of his immense popularity and standing in the party, transcends his factional labelling. Of the five new MPs elected to the exec, three — Robert Halfon, Charlie Elphicke and Priti Patel — are definitely on the right of the party. On the Today Programme this morning, Cameron signalled a welcome shift in his approach to party management.

The results of the 1922 elections show that Conservative backbenchers are distinctly right-wing and keen to assert independence. In the race for chairman, Graham Brady — the only man to resign under David Cameron’s leadership on an issue of party policy — romped home by 126 votes to 85. This result suggests that Brady would have beaten Richard Ottaway even if Ministers had been allowed to vote. Brady’s margin of victory suggests that the new intake are an independent bunch as it was the worst kept secret in Westminster that Ottaway was the leadership’s preferred candidate. Indeed, one member of the new intake told me that he thought his colleagues had gone for Brady by a two to one margin. Down ticket results were also good for the right.

Great to hear that David Cameron has decided to keep the 1922 committee reinstated. This is a significant, unexpected development – and sign of strength, not weakness. Interestingly, I hear that George Osborne had not been properly consulted about last week's events: ie the way in which MPs were asked to vote into effectively abolishing the 1922 committee of backbenchers and being strongarmed, Blair-style, by the leadership. Cameron had not intended things to turn out as they did and Osborne, in particular, was dismayed.   I always suspected that last week's fracas was a simple misjudgment, easily explained under the chaotic events of coalition.

First, a little bit of history: as recently as last Christmas, I was a member of the Liberal Democrats. I can't remember why I joined them, and I can't remember why I left – which strongly implies that I put very little thought into either – but that's a story for another time. As a member, I was part of a group within the party that wanted to pull it in a more classically liberal direction: a smaller state, lower taxes and greater personal freedom. The idea of a party committed to greater personal freedom, but not greater economic freedom, always struck me as equal parts ridiculous and confused. If the Lib Dems exist to find a balance between liberty and equality, we thought we needed to prove that the correct balance was 100 percent liberty.

You may not have expected anything less, but it's still encouraging to see the new government pay so much attention to Afghanistan. After David Cameron's meeting with Hamid Karzai last week, no less than three ministers have visited the country today: William Hague, Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell. And Whitehall's number-crunchers are busy trying to find extra money for the mission. There's a sense, though, that all the attention actually represents an underlying shift in focus.