James Forsyth

It took the Tory party 15 years to recover from the bad blood created by Margaret Thatcher’s forced resignation. So it is, perhaps, unsurprising that five years on, the bitterness from Tony Blair’s being pushed out of office has not yet subsided. Phil Collins, who was a speechwriter to Blair, has today written a scathing piece about Tom Watson, the leader of the so-called curry house coup against Blair. Collins accuses Watson of putting the ‘occupation of internal power’ in the party by his faction above the interests of the Labour party.

The old political establishment in the cities is fighting back against the idea of city mayors. They know that a directly elected mayor threatens their traditional power base. As Jill Sherman reports in The Times today, ‘In Nottingham, the Labour council has put up posters around the city to demonstrate its opposition while the Labour group has sent newsletters to residents saying that a “Tory Extra Mayor” will cost £1 million.’ But it is not just Labour councils who are desperately trying to stop yes votes on May 3rd. Lib Dem-run Bristol City Council is also fiercely against the idea of a directly elected mayor.

The big question in British politics right now is what happens when the voters are dissatisfied with all the three main parties and their leaders. According to a recent opinion poll, David Cameron’s approval rating is now down to minus 27. According to the invaluable Anthony Wells, this is the lowest it has been since Cameron became Tory leader. But the PM’s numbers look positively healthy compared to Miliband's (minus 41) and Clegg's (minus 53). Dissatisfaction with political leaders isn’t the only indicator that people aren’t happy. As I report in the column this week, senior Downing Street aides have been much struck by polling showing that more than 40 per cent of Britons would emigrate if they could.

I counted five issues which the NUT conference suggested that teachers might strike over. But in a conference full of the usual bluster, the most noteworthy threat was not to cooperate with Ofsted inspections. Ever since the new chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw — who was hugely successful as the head of Mossbourne academy — announced that a merely satisfactory grade would no longer be regarded as good enough, the teaching unions have taken agin him. But not cooperating with Oftsed would be unlawful. Anyone who tried to block an inspection would be liable to prosecution and a fine. Another issue exercising the unions is George Osborne’s proposals for regional pay for the public sector.

Bruce Anderson has written a typically trenchant piece today describing the Tory party’s treatment of John Major as ‘the most unworthy, the most shameful, period in Tory history.’ Based on both how close Bruce is to those around David Cameron and my own conversations, I would say that this is a verdict that many in the Tory leadership would agree with. Indeed, the way in which Major was treated by some Tory backbenches has informed — often with calamitous consequences — Cameron’s approach to party management. Take, for instance, Cameron’s effort straight after the election to neuter the 1922 Committee and turn it into the Conservative Parliamentary Party.

One of the media’s vices is to assume that the public are as interested in stories about journalism as journalists are. This always makes me slightly reluctant to write about the Leveson inquiry - more fascinating for my trade than to anybody else. But the Leveson inquiry is about to enter its political phase which, I think, makes it more relevant. Politicians will start appearing before it from towards the end of next month and, as I say in the Mail on Sunday, David Cameron is scheduled to face the inquiry which he created in mid-June. Six other Cabinet ministers are expected to be summoned before the inquiry. For Cameron, this is going to be a tricky moment (think horses, Oxfordshire weekends etc).

George Osborne indicating that he is open to him and other ministers having to publish their tax returns is testament to two things. First, the Tory leadership, who know how crucial a Boris victory in London is to the Cameron project regaining momentum, is keen to keep the pressure on Ken Livingstone over his tax affairs. They have no desire to let a row over whether they’ll publish theirs distract attention from the problems of Labour’s mayoral candidate. As Osborne himself stresses in the Telegraph interview, “The reason we are talking about this now is that this is a smokescreen for Ken Livingstone’s tax affairs. Let’s not take the focus off him.

I suspect that three important consequences will flow from the release today of the London mayoral candidates tax returns. First, voters will see that Boris Johnson’s rage at Ken Livingstone on Tuesday as being thoroughly justified. Second, they’ll see that Ken Livingstone, despite all his left-wing rhetoric, is the only one of the four main candidates to have tried to make his affairs tax efficient. The third consequence is that a precedent has now been set that politicians running for office should publish their tax returns. I’ll be shocked if one of the three party leaders doesn’t try and steal a march at the next election by volunteering to publish their information and challenging the others to do the same.

The most striking thing about tonight’s mayoral hustings on Newsnight was how often Brian Paddick attacked Ken Livingstone. Paddick, who turned in the most assured performance of all the candidates, accused Livingstone of being like a ‘bad 1970s comedian who plays to whatever audience he’s talking to.’ He also, interestingly, sided with Boris Johnson when the discussion turned to the 50p tax rate and then the candidate’s own tax affairs. It is tempting to see Paddick’s performance tonight as testament to how keen the Liberal Democrat top brass are to see Livingstone defeated in London.

The tensions that have been bubbling away in the London mayoral contest spilt out into the open today with Boris Johnson accusing Ken Livingstone of lying about both of their tax affairs. On the facts of the matter, it looks pretty clear that Boris is right: he doesn’t use a company to reduce his tax liability. There are, though, those claiming that accusing Livingstone of being an ‘f***ing liar’ will hurt Boris. But I doubt this; it is hard to imagine Boris as an angry or mean-spirited person. What this exchange does do, though, is raise the stakes for their televised hustings tomorrow night. I expect that Livingstone will try and rile Boris.

The drumbeat of criticism of David Cameron and George Osborne by various Tory MPs, summed up on the front page of today’s Telegraph, has drawn a reaction from those MPs loyal to the leadership. Kris Hopkins, the founder of the 301 group of Tory MPs, complains that the trouble is being whipped up by a ‘small group of disaffected people’ and that ‘the nature of their criticisms shows that this is about their egos not making the country a better place.’ At issue here is who speaks for Tory MPs.

I doubt that, come the election in 2015, many voters will remember the row about putting VAT on pasties or Francis Maude’s advice to fill up a jerry can with petrol. But what will be on their minds is whether the government is competent and, to use that dread phrase, ‘in touch’ with their day to day struggles. It is for this reason that the key question about the last ten days is whether they make David Cameron realise that the civil service machine just doesn’t work anymore and that he needs to change the way he governs. The early indications on this front are encouraging. Those who have been involved in COBRA discussions these past few days have been shocked by how the failings identified during the fuel crisis of 2000 still exist.