Politics

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,

Finally, Brown has withdrawn the whip from Chaytor, Morley and Devine.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

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

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

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

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