Conservative party

Thursday

James Forsyth

A new approach to party management

The newly-elected 1922 Executive is another demonstration of the strength of the right wing of the Conservative party. Paul Goodman notes that of the seven MPs elected to the executive who were are not new to Parliament, six are on the right. The only one who isn’t is Nick Soames, who is a special case. As one member of the ’22 executive said to me earlier today, Soames, because of his immense popularity and standing in the party, transcends his factional labelling. Of the five new MPs elected to the exec, three — Robert Halfon, Charlie Elphicke and Priti Patel — are definitely on the right of the party. On

Peter Hoskin

The IDS agenda could help to end the benefits trap

Yesterday, it was Michael Gove’s schools agenda. Today, it’s the other main reason to get behind the coalition: IDS’s plans for fixing the welfare system. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a speech outlining them this morning. You can read it here, and I’d certainly encourage you to do so. There are plenty of welcome ideas in there, but none more so than IDS’s emphasis on removing disincentives to work from the tax and benefit system. We at Coffee House have banged on about his “dynamic” approach, developed at the Centre for Social Justice, for some time now – and with due cause. You can set

Peter Young

To increase capital gains revenues cut rates, don’t increase them

To address the deficit, George Osborne will probably have to raise taxes. This is a grim truth to which most people are reconciled. But raising taxes and raising revenue are two different things. If the Chancellor is serious about closing that deficit, then he would doubtless be interested in the idea that a Capital Gains Tax raise from 18 per cent to 50 per cent might be a chimera tax. That is to say, one which raises no money at all. Worse, in fact, the odds are that tax revenues will fall and the deficit will be made worse by this tax rise. The international evidence is absolutely clear. As

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s public debate with his backbenchers

So, did Cameron say anything particularly noteworthy during his interview on the Today programme?  In truth, not really.  Most of the answers were of the “let’s wait and see what in the Budget” variety.  The ratio of spending cuts to tax rises: wait and see.  Plans for hiking capital gains tax: wait and see, and so on.   The only answers that weren’t determined by the Budget seemed to be his racing tips for the sports bulletin.  You can hear them here. But that isn’t to say the interview wasn’t revealing.  For much of it, Cameron was quizzed about the objections that David Davis and John Redwood have raised to the

Wednesday

Fraser Nelson

Gove must guard against the vested interests

Polly Toynbee was on ‘mute’ on Sky News in my office, the remote wasn’t working, which is frustrating because I’d love to hear how someone mounts a passionate defence of why local government should have monopoly control of state schools. Very few things in politics are indefensible, but a system which doles out sink schools to sink estates is one of them. When Michael Gove was a journalist, he described comprehensive education as the greatest betrayal of the working class. And now, as Education Secretary, he is outlining a system that will give the poor the same choice of schools that the rich have. Who on earth could be against

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The Tory right asserts itself

The results of the 1922 elections show that Conservative backbenchers are distinctly right-wing and keen to assert independence. In the race for chairman, Graham Brady — the only man to resign under David Cameron’s leadership on an issue of party policy — romped home by 126 votes to 85. This result suggests that Brady would have beaten Richard Ottaway even if Ministers had been allowed to vote. Brady’s margin of victory suggests that the new intake are an independent bunch as it was the worst kept secret in Westminster that Ottaway was the leadership’s preferred candidate. Indeed, one member of the new intake told me that he thought his colleagues

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Tactical considerations over the timing of the AV referendum

A referendum on AV was the concession that Nick Clegg felt he needed to get a coalition deal with the Tories past his party. But the referendum poses obvious dangers to the coalition, just imagine the sight of Nick Clegg and the leader of the Labour party sharing a platform to denounce the Tories’ ‘reactionary’ opposition to electoral reform.   The Guardian this morning reports that the Lib Dems are pushing for this referendum to take place in May 2011 at the same time as the Scottish and Welsh elections. There is, as the article notes, a huge benefit to the Lib Dems in getting this referendum in early before

Daniel Korski

German lessons

Angela Merkel’s fall from favour is something David Cameron ought to bear in mind as he looks for lessons to guide his term in office. The German chancellor could do no wrong when she was first elected. A new “Iron Lady”, she was seen as a giant among pygmees. Tony Blair was leaving the scene, Nicolas Sarkozy had yet to be elected, the newspapers swooned, the voters applauded. Mrs Merkel was respected in the US and Europe. She made her unwieldy coalition with the Social Democrats work, almost singlehandedly picked the NATO secretary-general and ruled over EU meetings. Now, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barrosso is (rightly) calling her “naïve”

Peter Hoskin

Gove’s school reforms get off the ground

The arduous process of reforming our country’s education system begins today.  After two school reform bills were announced in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, Michael Gove is writing to all English primary and secondary schools inviting them to cut loose from local authority control and become academies.  This is but stage one of the reform process: changing the system that’s already in place.  The really radical part will come after the summer recess, with the government’s plans for pupil premiums and the like. There is already much opposition to the agenda: the teachers’ union NASUWT, for instance, is laughably claiming that the drive for more academies would “disenfranchise democratically-elected local councils” (good

Tuesday

James Forsyth

Laughs, politics and sincerity

The opening of the Queen’s speech debate is, traditionally, a light-hearted affair. Peter Lilley opened up with a rather witty speech. He compared the Liberal Democrats to the bastards of the Major Cabinet, it is better to have them inside the Cabinet pissing out than outside the Cabinet pissing in. He went on to warn the new Prime Minister that the appropriate response to John Major and Gordon Brown’s microphone troubles is not to turn your microphone off but to keep ‘your receiver switched on to hear legitimate concerns.’ David Cameron would be well advised to heed this tactfully-expressed advice. Lilley ended with a heart-felt plea to bring the troops

Peter Hoskin

The debate begins in lively fashion

The initial exchanges of the Queen’s Speech Debate have just come to a close – and, I must say, it was all rather jolly.  Harriet Harman came prepared with gag after gag about the Tories’ “marriage” to the Liberal Democrats, while David Cameron had a few about Harman’s actual marriage to Jack Dromey.  There was much laughter, good-natured jeering and cat-calling.  So – business as usual. Underneath it all, though, there was a substantive clash between the two sides.  In a spritely performance, Harman wisely avoided an “investments vs cuts” style attack, instead charging the coalition with not having a mandate for many of its political reforms.  Whereas Cameron accused

Peter Hoskin

What Harriet Harman can do for us all

Today’s the day, I suspect, when it will really hit home with Labour that they are now in Opposition.  Attacking a government’s legislative agenda isn’t something they’ve had to do for 13 years.  And while you could say that the Brown machine acted as an opposition in government – geared to destroy its rivals – this is different terrain, with different priorities.  It will fall to Harriet Harman to lead the charge from 1430 onwards. The FT’s Jim Pickard has some sensible advice for Labour’s stand-in leader.  But the crucial point is this: “It will be tempting to slam ‘Cameron and Clegg’ for ‘taking £6bn out of the economy’ and

Peter Hoskin

The Queen’s Speech: full text

Via PoliticsHome: HER MAJESTY’S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TUESDAY 25 MAY 2010 MY LORDS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS My Government’s legislative programme will be based upon the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility. The first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth. Action will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the structural budget deficit.  A new Office for Budget Responsibility will provide confidence in the management of the public finances. The tax and benefits system will be made fairer and simpler.  Changes to National Insurance will safeguard jobs and support the economy.  People will be supported into work with

Peter Hoskin

A day of pomp and positivity

The sun is filtering through the garden at 22 Old Queen Street, and a brass band is marching around St James’s Park: we’re getting the light and the pomp in equal measures for today’s Queen’s Speech.  As for the actual policy, well, we largely know what it’s all about.  There will be proposals for scrapping ID cards, strengthening civil liberties, reforming schools, making the police more accountable, and more.  The emphasis from the government is on handing power back to the people. The question is whether the coalition can make today’s positives balance out the age of austerity.  The stock market today provides a gloomy reminder that their biggest challenge

Peter Hoskin

The media helps the coalition’s fiscal cause

This feels like a watershed moment: a national newspaper devoting its cover to an image of the country’s “debt mountain,” with a small shaded-off area showing how little of it is covered by yesterday’s cuts.  The paper in question is today’s Independent.  And while the cover may not perfectly depict what’s going on with our public finances – yesterday’s cuts will reduce the government’s annual overspend, not the overall debt burden which will keep rising for years to come – it is still a powerful reminder of Brown’s toxic legacy. In some respects, the coalition might not appreciate this kind of focus: after all, politicians don’t much like mentioning the

Monday

Fraser Nelson

A show of Cameron’s adaptability

Great to hear that David Cameron has decided to keep the 1922 committee reinstated. This is a significant, unexpected development – and sign of strength, not weakness. Interestingly, I hear that George Osborne had not been properly consulted about last week’s events: ie the way in which MPs were asked to vote into effectively abolishing the 1922 committee of backbenchers and being strongarmed, Blair-style, by the leadership. Cameron had not intended things to turn out as they did and Osborne, in particular, was dismayed.   I always suspected that last week’s fracas was a simple misjudgment, easily explained under the chaotic events of coalition. Cameron is, I fear, being poorly

Peter Hoskin

Ministers won’t be able to vote in 1922 elections

So it turns out that John Redwood’s uncertainty was well-placed. According to Jonathan Isaby over at ConservativeHome, the Tory chief whip has decreed that ministers won’t be able to vote in 1922 Committee elections after all. They will only be able to attend meetings, which, as Jonathan says, “no-one ever really had a complaint about.” All this comes on the back of confusion about what last week’s ballot even meant, making a curious situation even curiouser.  But, whatever the reasons behind it, the outcome will be seen as a climbdown by David Cameron – and perhaps the first real dent to his authority since coming to power. Meanwhile, the 118

Peter Hoskin

Coalition cuts: the IFS’s verdict is in

So, the number-crunchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have worked their magic and delivered their verdict on today’s spending cuts.  You can find their summary here, although the standout line is that the £5 billion in reduced borrowing implied by today’s cuts is “less than a tenth of the fiscal repair job that Alistair Darling’s March 2010 Budget forecast suggested will be needed over the next few years”.  In terms of capturing just how much remains to to be done, it’s a sobering remark.  But it’s worth remembering that a Labour government wouldn’t have made these extra £6 billion of cuts this year.  So, by the same thinking, they