Politics Archives

Saturday

6 Feb 2010

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

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

David Blackburn

Parris versus Nelson

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 impassioned denunciation of Labour’s record on

David Blackburn

Another very good Friday

Yesterday, Gordon Brown was less Macavity, more the Cheshire cat. Now both he and Blair have helped to bring a modicum of peace to Northern Ireland, and Brown was a ubiquitous, beaming presence on the TV throughout the day – jaunty not jowly. Naturally, Brown’s confidence fell victim to the absurdity that lurks behind him like some familiar. Sky Sports News asked him if he thought John Terry should retain the England captaincy. Brown pondered the question – the arguments for and against and the possibility of his bringing peace to Cobham – before conceding that the decision was entirely Capello’s. It was priceless. To suggest that this latest Hillsborough accord is a final panacea is

James Forsyth

The Tories cannot continue to fight the election on the vague promise of ‘change’

James Forsyth reviews the week in politics Even the Tories accept that they can’t go like this. For a while, David Cameron thought he could maintain his safety-first strategy and leave Labour to tear itself apart. But with the polls returning to hung parliament territory, the high command now accepts that there is a need for a course correction. This is welcome news. Recognising there is a problem is the first step to recovery. The problem is that the Tories are barely hitting 40 per cent in the polls despite the fact that they are running against a tired and discredited government led by a man whom most of the

Fraser Nelson

Is Cameron a Heath or a Thatcher?

Fraser Nelson says that electoral victory is not enough. To be a great Tory prime minister, David Cameron must be bold enough to abandon Labour’s failed agenda entirely and implement his own Winning office is not the same as winning power. To get the keys to No. 10, a politician needs to be skilled in the arts of electoral combat. But to take power, a prime minister needs an agenda. Without one, he is a slave to his predecessors. The last two Tory leaders who took over from Labour promising change fared differently. Ted Heath, in 1970, was forced into a U-turn and lost power after four years. Lady Thatcher

Friday

5 Feb 2010

The Spectator

The week that was… | 5 February 2010

Here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the past week: Fraser Nelson explains why winning is not enough for the Tories, and sees nothing to get excited about in George Osborne’s “new economic model”. James Forsyth reveals how to set up a school, and observes that the Old Lady is becoming more pessimistic. Peter Hoskin thinks that the Tories are muddying their clear, blue water, and identifies the chip on Brown’s shoulder. David Blackburn watches Brown meet his Waterloo, and is disappointed that the Tories are speaking with Lord Stern. Daniel Korski wonders whether or not the Iraq War was in the national interest. Martin Bright reveals

Peter Hoskin

Brown and Blair, together again

Strange that there’s really only one major political point arising from Gordon Brown’s interview in the Standard today. But, then again, maybe that is the point. Like the PM’s interview with the News of the World a few weeks ago, the emphasis is far more on the personal than anything else: his relationship with Sarah Brown, the death of his daughter Jennifer, his upbringing, and so on. We even learn why his handwriting is so bad (“due to the way he was taught to write at school,” apparently). And with a TV appearance alongside Piers Morgan in the schedules, it does seem that Brown is keen to present a more

James Forsyth

More fuel for the anti-politics fire

Obviously, after the news that three Labour MPs and a Tory lord have been charged with various criminal offences over their expenses, there is a limit to what can be said for legal reasons. But it can be noted that because the four charged are from the two main parties, the politcal impact will be more anti-politics than anything else. I suspect the attempt of the the three Labour MPs to claim Parliamentary privilege will exacerbate these feelings. P.S. In case any CoffeeHousers missed the news, Lord Hanningfield has resigned from the Tory front bench and had the party whip suspended.

Peter Hoskin

Four Parliamentarians to be charged over expenses

It’s just been announced which Parliamentarians will face criminal charges over their expense claims. They are: David Chaytor Jim Devine Elliot Morley Lord Hanningfield So, three Labour MPs and one Tory Lord. Expect plenty more public anger – the Legg report has no way near drawn a line under this issue.

Daniel Korski

Post-election Entene Cordiale?

If there is a strategic thought lurking inside the Tories’ grab bag of foreign policy ideas, it seems to be closer cooperation with France, particularly on defence matters. Should William Hague become Foreign Secretary after the election, he might end up working with a new French counterpart, as rumours persist about Bernard Kouchner’s imminent departure (knowing this, he apparently even floated his own name for the Kabul UN job). A new Parisian counterpart for Hague – for example, the current French Agriculture Minister, Bruno Le Marie – could make a new Entente Cordiale easier. But, even then, would the French be up for closer links with the UK? Angela Merkel

Fraser Nelson

In response to CoffeeHousers

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,

Thursday

4 Feb 2010

Fraser Nelson

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

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. By the time you add up all

Peter Hoskin

Legg latest

The Legg report is about 240 pages, if you can manage it. But the message you can take from it is short enough: there’s going to be plenty more public anger with our political class. Guido’s post here should tell you why. But, suffice to say, there are MPs paying back up to £42,458. There are dodgy claims for flagpole accoutrements, luxury furniture and expensive gardeners. And even the report itself cost more than the money than it’s going to recoup. Although I don’t think the parties should be trying to make political capital out of each other’s misdemeanours – beyond, of course, proposing ways to fix the mess –

Peter Hoskin

It’s Legg time

Consider the expenses wound well-and-truly reopened – not that it ever really closed in the first place. Sir Thomas Legg’s report into the matter will today identify around 350 MPs who have to return a total of about £1 million in dubious claims. What’s more, in his introduction to the document, Legg is set to attack MPs in general for “knowingly” encouraging and exploiting a “culture of deference” in the Parliamentary fees office. The papers are calling it “devastating”. But what will it all come to? The worry is that Legg’s report won’t draw a line under the whole stinking affair – but will instead kickstart a new round of

Wednesday

3 Feb 2010

Alex Massie

Small Drama at Holyrood; Not Many Bothered

A reader asks for a comment on the Scottish Budget “debate” at Holyrood. Well, I’m always sometimes happy to oblige: It passed. OK: the Tories and the Greens supported the SNP in return for promises to publish details of government expenditure online and set up an independent budgetary review commission (Tory demands) and bung more money to people wanting to insulate thier lofts (the Greens’ sweetie). But this was a phoney budget and not just because so much depends upon what happens to the block grant handed down from Westminster. Longer-term questions weren’t even addressed, let alone answered. And, ultimately, a budget that dispenses spending but doesn’t raise money isn’t

Peter Hoskin

The chip on Brown’s shoulder

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. So far the Conservative leadership

James Forsyth

Was today a turning point?

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

David Blackburn

Brown meets his Waterloo

Lord Guthrie had it right with his well-directed expletive: Gordon Brown just doesn’t get defence. His record, both as Chancellor and PM, leave him vulnerable to criticism on the subject; but today, Brown has been confronted by a khaki-clad nightmare. After suffering his first reverse at PMQs for months, beaten decisively by a beautifully executed Tory plan, former permanent secretary at the MoD, Sir Kevin Tebbit, informed the Chilcot Inquiry that Brown ‘guillotined’ the defence budget with annual reductions of £1bn. Geoff Hoon’s testimony disclosed the full effects of Brown’s single act of stringency. The timing could not be better for the Tories, who have been intent on self-destruction of

Alex Massie

Better MPs, please…

As we all know Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have spent the last seven years fighting in far-flung parts of the world. Their deployments have hardly been uncontroversial. So you’d think that the release of a new Green Paper on the “way forward” for the armed forces might be a moment of some interest and, indeed, even at this stage of the electoral cycle, some importance. Not so. At least it doesn’t interest our parliamentarians. As Think Defence points out only one in twenty MPs bothered turn up to listen to and debate the Green Paper. I think that’s a grand total of six Labour MPs on the governmentback-benches. I

Alex Massie

The Virtues of Cynicism and the Limits of Obstructionism

Some readers, Andrew, Reihan and a couple of other bloggers all argue, to one degree or another, that this post is depressingly cynical* [typo fixed]. It wasn’t meant to be! I wasn’t meaning to endorse Republican obstructionism, rather I was trying to point out that, viewed from a GOP perspective, a policy of knee-jerk opposition to anything and eveything proposed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress made or makes a certain amount of sense. That’s all! I don’t pretend that this is necessarily good for the country. But in a two party system which also massively favours incumbents at elections time and in which a 53-47% victory is