David cameron

The Tories think Brown is their most potent weapon

From our UK edition

‘We just need to ram Gordon Brown down the electorate’s throat’ one Tory staffer said to me today when talking about how the party could get back on the front foot. The unspoken thought was that the prospect of five more years of Gordon Brown would be enough to send voters into the welcoming arms of David Cameron.    The Tories are frustrated that in the last few weeks this election has gone from being the referendum on the government to almost being a referendum on them and their plans for government. They are determined to turn the focus back onto Brown, hence Cameron’s aggressive attack on Brown this morning.   PS The Populus poll for The Times tomorrow has the Tories on 40 and Labour on 30, a narrowing of the Tory lead from their last poll.

A note of caution over Cameron’s welcome attack on lobbyists

From our UK edition

The Tories will be happy with their start to the week. David Cameron’s speech this morning has succeeded in highlighting how Labour had not suspended the whip from the three MPs charged by the CPS and drawn one of the Tories’ favourite contrasts, decisive Cameron versus dithering Brown. It was also refreshing to hear Cameron take a tough line on lobbying, proposing to double the waiting period before ministers leaving office and taking private sector jobs to two years. Lobbyists already have far too much influence on our politics. But there are risks to Cameron in this Obama-style play. As one Tory insider said to me just before party conference, ‘we’ve very vulnerable on the lobbying front.

Success for Cameron

From our UK edition

Finally, Brown has withdrawn the whip from Chaytor, Morley and Devine. This is a significant victory for Cameron in the latest battle over expenses. Once again, the Tories are streaks ahead on this issue. As Henry Macrory notes, it took Cameron 86 minutes to reach the obvious conclusion that Lord Hanningfield should be suspended; Brown agonised for 4305 minutes. Truly, this is the man who can be trusted to ‘take the tough decisions’ on the economy when needed – my guess is that most of us all will die at a Keatsian age in Dickensian penury. One point that occurs to me is that it's been clear for some time that Chaytor et al were personae non grata. Why therefore has Chaytor been used as a government plant at PMQs twice this year?

Brown’s personality defines the character of his government

From our UK edition

David Cameron will re-launch his election campaign with a personal attack on Gordon Brown. Cameron will embark on the straightforward task of proving that the Road Block is not a moderniser – the Prime Minister’s sudden avowed passion for PR is merely a marriage of electoral convenience. Cameron has led the expenses reform debate and will use Brown’s dithering over the latest furore to condemn him as a ‘shameless defender of the old elite’. According to Francis Elliot, Cameron will say: “There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is the institution: he made it.

The cuts consensus

From our UK edition

John Rentoul today puts Trevor Kavanagh and myself in the dock for demanding "massive spending cuts" and concludes that if we "had any power" we would be "about as helpful to Cameron as Sarah Palin was to John McCain" but believes Cameron "will hold to his strategic course". I mean: massive cuts. How crazy is that? Surely only swivel-eyed maniacs would be planning cuts - real, hard-core ideologues - would plan that when the deficit is a mere 13 percent of GDP. Surely? It struck me, reading this, that John is unaware of the massive cuts which Labour is planning (understandable, as they were in the small print and have still not been picked up by Fleet St).

What’s needed now is a modern Conservative party with clear, discernible principles

From our UK edition

I'd like to do a final round of responses to comments to my Keith Joseph lecture. It’s easy for debates about Conservatism to be caricatured as being for or against Cameron – and my lecture fits into neither category. I’m a big supporter of Cameron’s, but often wish he’d have more faith in himself: I fear he feels he has to make more short-term concessions than he has to – thus blunting his message of ‘change’. For years, any debate about Tory policy is described in the terminology of Tory civil war circa 2002 (which all too many people, from both sides, are still fighting) – ie that you an ‘Thatcherite or a ‘moderniser’. But now, in 2010, there can surely be a truce. Both sides had their points at the time.

Parris versus Nelson

From our UK edition

Here’s a question: to be a good angel or a bad angel? We know what Fraser thinks; Matthew Parris differs. Writing in the Times today, he asserts that he would give David Cameron the same advice he offered Margaret Thatcher in 1979: agree a gloriously unspecific manifesto. The details of hard-edged manifestos are ambushed well before polling day; discretion is the better part of valour. In the immediate circumstances of the Tory wobble both arguments are commendable. The Tories have unwound when trying to supply detail to flesh out their broadly radical ideas. Recognising marriage in the tax system has been their foremost blunder.

The Tories need to push the fiscal case for public service reform

From our UK edition

Andrew Haldenby's article in the Telegraph this morning got me thinking: when was the last time the Tories really pushed the fiscal case for public service reform; that the government can indeed deliver better services while spending less money? By my count, you'd have to go back around six months to George Osborne's speech on progressive politics at Demos. There, the shadow chancellor said this kind of thing: "Indeed, I would argue that our commitment to fiscal responsibility in the face of mounting national debt is not at odds with progressive politics, but fundamentally aligned to it - as politicians on the left from Bill Clinton to former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien once understood.

In response to CoffeeHousers

From our UK edition

CoffeeHousers have left some characteristically forthright and thoughtful comments on the blog about my Keith Joseph lecture, and I thought I’d answer them in a post.   Tiberius says that I don’t mention voters very much – I talk only about ideas. The voters have been taught Labour ideas: isn’t this something the Tories have to deal with? First, I firmly believe that the public are open to persuasion, open to new ideas having seen the collapse of Labour’s ideas. But, in my lecture (full text here), I do mention voters quite a lot. As Keith Joseph put it, it is folly to seek the ‘middle ground’ between political parties, and Conservatives should seek the ‘common ground’ which they share with the punters.

Why winning isn’t enough – and a response to The Fink

From our UK edition

I delivered the Keith Joseph lecture last night, entitled Winning Is Not Enough. My point: that the Tories have adopted so many Labour policies out of tactical considerations that they are in danger of getting to office only to find they have signed up to continuing Gordon Brown’s agenda. The problem is not so much Gordon Brown himself, but his misunderstanding of government and politics: it’s his ideas that are so dangerous. If those ideas survive with a blue rosette, they are no less dangerous. And if a Tory government adopts these ideas then that’s not change. It’s more of the same.

The chip on Brown’s shoulder

From our UK edition

So the former roadblock is now a born-again reformer – and, like most born-again types, he wants everyone to know about it.  Writing in today's Guardian, Gordon Brown sells his proposal for a referendum on the alternative vote system as "a rallying call for a new progressive politics."  And, from there, he gallops through written constitutions, Lords reform and digital democracy.  Watch him go.   Amid it all, though, I couldn't help noticing that the PM repeats a key mistake from last year: "I am inviting the leaders of all parties to engage positively in these debates and back our constitutional reform and governance bill.

Was today a turning point?

From our UK edition

I suspect that when we look back at this year, we might conclude that today's PMQs was a turning point. David Cameron has had a poor January but today he was back on form, winning - as Lloyd Evans says - PMQs for the first time this year. Perhaps more significantly, there was real noise from the Tory backbenches, which have been noticeably quiet in recent weeks. It was as if the party was pulling back together after a relatively trying period. It was also significant that Cameron stayed on the offensive throughout; he didn't get drawn into conducting the debate on Labour's terms despite Brown's best efforts. Gone was the defensiveness that got him into trouble over recognising marriage in the tax system and the extent of the cuts 2010-11.

Cameron blitzkriegs back into the game

From our UK edition

Dave bounced back today. After a couple of lost months he showed up at PMQs and gave a thoroughly convincing display. Shrewd tactics, sound principles, headline-friendly quotes and some decent gags. The Chilcot Inquiry is proving a handy prosecution witness in the case against Brown. Cameron quoted a fistful of top generals who believe the former chancellor was a serial under-funder of the military. Brown’s response was a classic example of bluster and confusion. Good arguments arrive singly. Bad arguments enter in rowdy swarms. He gave five different replies to the main charge: the 2002 defence review had been the best in 20 years; fourteen billion pounds has been spent on Iraq: the rising defence budget would rise even further; the Tory manifesto in 2005 promised a £1.

The Tories must be bold and exploit every tiny opening toward victory

From our UK edition

Voltaire praised the English for their boldness: “how I like the people who say what they think”. The slow and steady contraction of the polls continues, and Rachel Sylvester is convinced that the Tories must embrace risk and revoke ‘health-and-safety politics’. She writes: ‘Increasingly, his pronouncements seem designed to grab a headline rather than challenge the status quo — it’s bash-a-burglar, prison ships and PC-gone-mad, instead of hug-a-hoody, husky sleighs and general wellbeing. He drips out minor policy announcements on broadband and planning laws, while failing to confront a more important issue and force his biggest donor, Lord Ashcroft, to say whether he pays tax in this country.

The Tories are muddying their clear, blue water

From our UK edition

Front page of the Independent: "Vote of no confidence in Tory economic policies".  As headlines go, it's one of the worst the Tories have had for a while - even if, as Anthony Wells and Mike Smithson point out, it's kinda misleading.  Truth is, the Indy's ComRes poll finds that 82 percent of people want "Mr Cameron to be clearer about what he would do on the economy".  And 24 percent think the Tories would have ended the recession sooner, against 69 percent who don't.  They're hardly positive findings for CCHQ, but, by themselves, they don't quite add up that that two-line scarehead.

Mandelson is spinning to his heart’s content

From our UK edition

Peter Mandelson was doing his full Alan Rickman impression at Labour’s press conference this morning. His aim was to imply that every time Labour put the Tories under pressure they wobble. As so often since his return to British politics, Mandelson delivered lines that were so memorable that they were bound to make it into copy. He said that the Tories “would strangle the recovery at birth”, that David Cameron was “bobbing around like a cork in water”, and that George Osborne was the Tories’ “weakest link”. As I type, Mandleson’s sound bites are being replayed yet again on News 24. Now, these lines aren’t going to cut through to the British public.

Cameron has shifted the spending debate to Labour’s home ground – but the Tories still have an aggregate lead

From our UK edition

So, is David Cameron's shift in emphasis on spending cuts a u-turn, a clarification, or something else?  Well, when it comes to existing Tory policy, it doesn't actually change much.  We were always rather taking it on trust that Cameron & Co. would cut spending by much more than Labour this year.  The cuts they've announced so far aren't really that much deeper – and most folk in Tory circles were waiting for George Osborne's potential Emergency Budget to see whether that would change.  So, when Cameron says that his party wouldn't introduce "swingeing cuts" this year, the position is still remarkably similar: we still need more details to judge the true extent – not the publicised extent – of any Tory cuts.

Clarification or u-turn?

From our UK edition

Smarting from the savaging he received in Mo, Peter Mandelson characterised David Cameron’s "no swingeing cuts” comment as a u-turn, and compared Cameron and Osborne to Laurel and Hardy. This is a bit rich considering the government’s obvious confusion over the timing and extent of cuts, and that the immortal line “That’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into” should be the Tories’ campaign slogan. Cameron’s comments are a clarification, not a u-turn. As Jim Pickard notes, Tory policy has to respond to last week’s withered growth figures.

Stimulating social mobility will take decades

From our UK edition

Another pallid dawn brings more statistics proving that Britain is riven by inequality – ‘from the cradle to the grave’, concludes the Hills report. Unless the offspring of professionals pursue a peculiar urge to be writers or enter Holy Orders, they will bequeath ever greater advantages to their children. For those in converse circumstances, Larkin’s line about inherited misery comes to mind, albeit in a slightly different context. 50 years of unparalleled prosperity, and social mobility has stagnated. Before the wailing and navel gazing begins, it must be asserted that the continued aspirations of the privileged and the fulfilment of their opportunities are not to blame.

Of course the Conservatives are Unionists, but why keep it a secret?

From our UK edition

Over at Three Line Whip, Ben Brogan takes me to task for criticising the Owen Paterson’s attendance at the Marquess of Salisbury’s shindig. ‘But it seems a stretch to lambast Mr Cameron for doing his job as a unionist politician, which should be to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner as the result of the failure of Unionism in Northern Ireland to get its electoral act together.’ The Conservatives are a Unionist party so there is no objection to their attending, especially as the Unionist cause is so disorganised. My objection was to its secrecy. Iris Robinson will tell you that there is no such thing as secrecy in Northern Irish politics.