Tories

Because I spent the weekend moving house and being depressed by events in Cardiff I did not attend the Scottish Conservative's spring conference in Edinburgh. A dereliction of journalistic duty, perhaps, but also, well, life takes over sometimes. In truth, I didn't worry about missing the conference. Attending these things can be dangerous. Like journalism, politics attracts a grim number of copper-bottomed, ocean-going shits but also, like journalism again, a greater number of decent, public-spirited, optimistic folk than you might imagine. Most politicians, most of the time, are in the game for most of the right reasons. Speaking to these people has its uses but, also, its dangers. Before you know it you end up liking them.

Hopi Sen is not alone. There are many people in this country supremely indifferent to the whole and vexatious question of whether or not there should be a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the European Union. Yes, yes, they will tell pollsters that if they must they suppose they might fancy having a referendum some day. But they don't really care. They mumble about a referendum because that seems the done thing to do and because when a pollster asks you if you'd like to have a say on something it sounds better to say Yes than No thanks, I really can't be bothered. And sure, if pressed, they might grumble and chunter about the European Union too and say that it seems to be an unnecessarily invasive institution - or set of institutions, treaties and agreements.

Boris being Boris, he has managed to rule something out without actually ruling anything out at all. As Isabel noted this morning, the Mayor of London has said he will not stand for Parliament before 2015, and will remain in City Hall as promised until 2016. Which is not the same as ruling out standing in the 2015 election. The latest Boris v Osborne twists have allowed speculation about a post-Cameron age to rise to the surface again, and having spoken to Tory MPs over the last few weeks, it is obvious that said speculation is never far from their lips. 2015 is still a white-knuckle fight, but that’s not to say plans are not afoot were it all to go very wrong for the PM.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_27_February_2014_v4.mp3" title="James Forsyth and Isabel Hardman on why the two party political system is dying" startat=1207] Listen [/audioplayer]Two things will make the next general election campaign quite unlike any previous election in this country. The first is that we now have four-party politics right across Britain. In Scotland and Wales, the nationalist parties have been a political force for a generation. But the big change is in England, where Ukip is emerging as a fourth force. Second, the campaign will be haunted by the spectre of another hung parliament. The question of what happens if no party wins an overall majority will be asked time and time again by an impatient media.

You will recall that, according to the greatest account of England's history, every time the English thought they had solved the Irish Question, the Irish changed the Question.  Something similar afflicts David Cameron's grapplings with the Scottish Question. The poor man is damned if he does and equally damned if he doesn't. The other week he was lambasted for his effrontery in giving a speech about Scotland in, of all places, London. Today he is lambasted for bringing his cabinet to Aberdeen. How dare he lecture us from afar; how dare he venture north like some touring proconsul! The optics, as the pros say, are not very good for the Prime Minister. The cabinet very rarely comes to Scotland. Drawing attention to that fact may not help Mr Cameron's cause.

So the Constituent Spring continues. Thirsk and Malton Conservatives have just announced that they have voted to not re-adopt their MP Anne McIntosh. The party has announced that selection for a candidate will open shortly, but McIntosh has vowed to fight on. She said: ‘I’d like to thank all those who supported me throughout, from both Vale of York and Thirsk and Malton. ‘It is my intention to stand for Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency at the next General Election. ‘Meanwhile I remain committed to the Conservative Party locally and nationally and shall continue with my constituency and parliamentary duties with my customary passion.

Chuckle not, it exists. Wealthy Nation, a new grouplet formed by the eminent historian Michael Fry, is making the case that Scotland can be an admirably prosperous little country after independence provided, that is, she casts off the soft-left Caledonian consensus that remains wearily orthodox thinking north of the Tweed and Solway. Fry, whose new history of Scotland from Waterloo to Mons I commend to you without reservation, set out his case in The Scotsman earlier this month. If Scotland is to be free, she must be rich and she will not be rich unless her politics moves to the right.

George Osborne’s decision to back an above inflation increase in the national minimum wage is his most politically significant decision since his decision to cut the 50p rate. It also makes that decision far less harmful politically. Reducing the top rate of tax might have been the right thing to do economically but it hurt the Tories politically. It enabled Labour to claim that this was a government for the rich and that the recovery was only benefitting the few. By contrast, this decision allows the Tories to emphasise that, in Osborne’s phrase, this is ‘a recovery for all.’ There will be those on the dry right who don’t like this policy. They’ll argue that it’ll cost jobs.

Straight after David Cameron’s speech last January committing himself to renegotiation and a referendum, I asked one Tory minister what he made of it. He chuckled and said that Cameron must be planning to stand down after the next election. The point behind this joke was that renegotiation and the referendum itself would expose every Tory division on Europe there is. Once the renegotiation was under way, he argued, it would no longer be possible to gloss over the fact that Cameron means something different by renegotiation than much of his party. William Hague’s reaction to the Bernard Jenkin letter, which has been doing the rounds of Tory backbenchers since before Christmas, has begun to expose these divisions.

A mischievous question, I know, but one prompted by Janan Ganesh's latest Financial Times column. It is eight years since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party and three and a half since he became Prime Minister. He may only have 18 months left in either post. We know - or think we know - a lot about Cameron. He is what he seems to be. Decent fellow, capable in a crisis, unruffled. A better-than-average product of his class and background. Thought he should be Prime Minister because he reckoned he'd "be good at it". And yet the thought nags: what is he for? What is Cameron's ministry about? As Ganesh says, the Prime Minister lacks a project. The economy is George Osborne's infant, education belongs to Michael Gove.

At the beginning of the autumn, strategists from all three parties assumed that the theme of the season would be Labour’s poll lead narrowing as the economic recovery picked up pace. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, Labour’s lead has remained and its own poll numbers have actually ticked up. This is, largely, thanks to Ed Miliband’s reframing of the political debate about the economy, making it about living standards But the autumn statement showed that when the political conversation is focused on the broader economy, the Tories have the better of it. Thursday has weakened Ed Balls, strengthened George Osborne and begun to move the political debate off Labour’s turf of living standards and back onto the Tory question of economic competence.

Hats-off to James Kirkup for noticing that Goldman Sachs have suggested they would "drastically" cut their UK workforce (and operations) should Britain decide to leave the European Union. That is the view of Michael Sherwood, the fellow responsible for running Goldman's european operations. I am sure eurosceptics will dismiss this as the usual scaremongering just as Scottish nationalists dismiss warnings that some businesses (RBS?) might shift their operations south in the event Scotland votes for independence next year. This is but one of the many ways in which the european and Scottish questions overlap or dovetail with one another. Perhaps it is only scaremongering! But what if it isn't?

This is not as obviously a Question to Which the Answer is No as it may initially seem. The Mayor of London is, in fact, well-placed to play a significant part in the campaign to persuade Scots their interests still lie within the United Kingdom. In the first place, as the titular leader of europe's greatest city he has no obvious or immediate dog in the fight. Neither Boris's reputation nor his future will be dented by a Scottish vote for independence. His Prime Ministerial plans - for we all still assume he has such plans - will not suffer if Alex Salmond wins next year's referendum. They might even benefit from such a result, not least because David Cameron's reputation - and legacy - will be crippled by a Yes vote.