Conservative party

How striking that, as another Parliamentary term draws to a close, all the talk is of some sort of union between the Tories and the Lib Dems.  There was Mark Field’s blog post about an electoral pact, yesterday, of course.  But now Rachel Sylvester follows it up with an article in the Times outlining a possible “metrosexual merger” between the two parties.  And Paul Goodman has a piece in the Telegraph suggesting that such a merger may well be in the offing. In many repsects, all this chatter is testament to the early success of the coalition.  What we have seen over the past few months has, on the whole,

Well, Mark Field has certainly got Westminster talking with his suggestion that the Lib Dems and Conservatives might not oppose each other in marginal seats come 2015. It’s the kind of idea that has been sloshing around for a few weeks now, but having it relayed through a Tory MP’s blog post gives it a little extra punch. And so plenty of questions abound. What would this mean under AV? Who would do better out of it? Is it sensible for both parties to effectively make the next election a referendum on the coalition? etc. etc. But one question doesn’t seem to be getting enough airtime: what would this mean

Alistair Darling was one of the ministers to emerge from the Brown years with his reputation enhanced. His honesty about the state of the economy, beginning with that extraordinarily stark interview about the coming collapse, contrasted with what is politely described as Brown’s eternal optimism. Darling also deserves commendation for fighting Brown and Balls’ shameless politicking, and for winning. However, Darling lost the battle over raising VAT hike. Darling told Andrew Marr this morning: ‘There’s a choice really, you can put up VAT or you can put up an income-related tax which is what the National Insurance is… “The advantage of VAT is it brings in a lot of money.

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share

Crispin Blunt has been unceremoniously slapped down by No 10 for saying that the ban on parties in prisons will be lifted. The Coalition is following a liberal line on criminal justice but it has no desire to pick a fight on the question of whether prisoners should be allowed to party in jail. A look at The Sun and The Mail this morning show why Downing Street dumped on Blunt so fast. The Mail followed up yesterday’s critical coverage of the Coalition with a devastating front-page assault on Blunt and his arguments. The Sun, which has been extremely supportive of the Coalition, also went for Blunt. Its leader denounced

The indispensible Anthony Wells has news of the latest You Gov poll. Voting intentions are by the way at this stage of the parliament, but the Tory lead holds at 7 points on 42 percent. Of far more interest is the narrowing gap of those in favour of the alternative vote. As Anthony notes: ‘Up until now it has shown a pretty consistent lead for AV of around about 10 points, in last night’s figures referendum voting intention had narrowed to AV 39%, FPTP 38%. Very, very early days of course and there is no reason to think polling this far out has any predictive power, but the initial lead

Given that the Labour leadership campaign is so dull, we should thank Chuka Umunna for cheering us up with his comedy economic analysis. Now on the Treasury Select Committee, he has regaled us with an ‘Open letter to George Osborne’ where he makes many entertaining points. It’s worth looking at, because it sums up a few errors swirling around the Labour benches.   1)   During our exchange, you insisted your budget was “progressive”… you stood by your decision to apply a 10 percent cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on JSA for more than 12 months. Osborne has to use words like “progressive” to assuage the

We’ve reached the Mandelson overload zone, but he makes one vital observation in an interview with Matthew Norman: ‘We drove them (the Tories) further and further to the Right, and Cameron is driving us ever more to the Left. You only win general elections from the centre and we’re sleepwalking into a trap. We need to wake up. There’s still a little time for a leader to emerge from the pack.’ The Labour leadership election was always going to be determined by the left wing of the party and the unions. The assumption was that David Miliband would campaign from the right, but even he favours a permanent 50 percent

Nick Clegg is a liberal, and just in case you’d forgotten that fact he gave a speech today in which the word features some 64 times.  As it was made at the think-tank Demos, it’s a touch more wonkish than his recent efforts on cutting back the state – but still worth a read for those who want a general sense of how the coalition sees itself. The main purpose of the speech is, I suspect, political.  It says, to any of Clegg’s sceptical colleagues, that the government’s agenda is liberal, liberal, liberal all the way.  From cutting state spending to Michael Gove’s schools reforms, the goal is to “disperse

All of a sudden, the coalition partners can’t get enough of their backbenchers.  Last night, it was David Cameron meeting the 1922 Committee to reassure them about their mutual relationship.  And, today, Nick Clegg is going on an “away day” with that half of his party which isn’t in government, all to explain his close affair with the Tories.  Presumably, flowers and chocolates will be involved. The Clegg meeting, in particular, is worth dwelling on – and Sam Coates and Greg Hurst do just that in an insightful article for this morning’s Times.  For those who can’t travel beyond the paywall, here’s the line which stands out: “Lib Dem MPs

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

Tim Montgomerie reports that the 1922 Committee is to launch its own inquiry into the Tories’ election campaign. This, as I understand it, is in addition to the party’s official inquiry, and therefore suggests that the backbenches want to assert their independence by criticising Steve Hilton and George Osborne’s strategy. After May’s ruptures between Cameron and the backbenches there is a chance that this story could snowball. There is a sense that some of the ’22 haven’t yet buried the hatchet. And the feeling’s mutual. Some Cameroons and modernisers are disdainful – ‘self-indulgent farts’ was how one put it. But the ’22 must assert itself and I welcome this review.