Conservative party

Wednesday

Fraser Nelson

Niall Ferguson: Britain should call the IMF now

Should David Cameron just call the IMF immediately? Like, on Monday? This argument has been doing the rounds in Tory circles and tomorrow’s Spectator has an important contribution from Niall Ferguson. He advises that Cameron takes a two-pronged approach. Prong one is to ‘axe ruthlessly’ and prong two is to call the IMF. He says: ‘There is a very real danger that [things] could now spiral, Greek style, out of all control if foreign confidence in sterling slumps and long-term interest rates rise. Mr Cameron needs to do two things right away. He must instruct George Osborne to wield the axe ruthlessly with the aim of returning to a balanced

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Cameron Project: Three Views from America

David Frum graciously plays the role of referee in this year’s Massie vs O’Sullivan discussion and delivers what is, I think, a fair judgement. He grants that O’Sullivan is right to warn about the danger that the Cameron Project might seem inauthentic or cynical and that, as David puts it, “the extremity of the crisis” Britain faces has made some of Cameron’s ideas and, more still, his style seem out of touch at times. Nevertheless, he concludes: A conservatism that fuses economic rationality with a concern for social cohesion is for Britain more than an electoral proposition. It is the kind of conservatism a riven and troubled society requires. Like

David Blackburn

The Tories would have to rely on the DUP in the event of a hung parliament

Reg Empey may yet oust the DUP’s William McCrea in South Antrim, but the indications are that the UUP and Tory alliance will not win a seat. The Tories will have to rely on co-operation with the DUP. In truth, competition between three Unionist parties has left the Unionist cause divided. The TUV’s Jim Allister is giving the DUP’s Ian Paisley Jr a close race in North Antrim. Robinson’s DUP will emerge the largest Unionist party in Ulster, but with a point to prove to voters who are keen to protect Northern Ireland’s bloated public sector and generous funding. Conservative he may be, but Robinson is an Ulsterman first and

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

An economic coalition makes political sense

If you believe, as most people probably do, that Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Mervin King of the Bank of England should be listened to, then two conclusion emerge: one, that a new government’s budget-slashing will be far, far worse than anything the main parties have hitherto acknowledged; and that after a parliament of deficit-busting, the party in charge will be severely punished by the voters. It stands to reason, therefore, that it would be better to spread the pain, even if one party has a near-majority or an outright majority. The Tories, even if they move passed the magic number of 326 seats, would do

Peter Hoskin

The campaign money game

Here’s a minor turn-up for the political anoraks’ scrapbooks: donations to Labour outstripped those going to the Tory party in the third week of the campaign. Brown & Co. were handed £1,416,863 against the Tories’ £645,250. Which is no sign of an effective campaign – after all, almost all of Labour’s publicity has been heavily negative. But it is a turnaround from the first week, when the Tories received £1,455,812 to Labour’s £783,159. Another thing to note is the downturn in Lib Dem donations. They jumped up to £120,000 in the second week, but have now sunk back to £64,000.  The Tories, in particular, will be hoping that that represents

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ final onslaught

“Where’s the popcorn?” I thought, as I joined a bunch of journos to watch the Tories’ final broadcast of the election campaign. It was a good nine minutes long, and might as well have been titled The Downfall of New Labour. The opening shots were of Blair and Brown in 97: “a new dawn,” and all that. But Blair’s image soon faded to black-and-white, and we were bombarded with a montage of headlines, quotes and images which highlighted the failures of the Labour years. 10p tax. Falling education standards. MRSA. The misdemeanours of Peter Mandelson. Defence spending. Purnell’s resignation. Gillian Duffy. Even Manish Sood’s comments today. Depending on your disposition,

Peter Hoskin

Osborne backs Crossrail

George Osborne sounds a more confident note than most of his Tory bandmates in interview with the Standard today.  On top of the obligatory Ready for Government noises, he rattles off a list of London marginals which are winnable for the Tories, and adds that an overall majority is “within our grasp”.  Pretty direct stuff for a politician, given all the uncertainty clogging the air in Westminster. To my eyes, though, the most significant passage could be this: “He gave a commitment to keep London’s £16 billion Crossrail scheme, although he confirmed he will look for savings. ‘I think Londoners would expect me to get good value for their money.'”

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The Ulster effect

The electoral map that most of the broadcasters use misses off Northern Ireland entirely. But if the election is as close as people expect, then those 18 seats across the Irish Sea could become vital.   The first thing to note is that Sinn Fein remains committed to its policy of not taking its seats at Westminster. So every Sinn Fein MP elected reduces the number that a party needs to have an effective majority in the Commons. Iris Robinson, expenses and the rise of Traditional Unionist Voice have all rather dented the DUP, the largest party in Northern Ireland at the last election. But it should still send back

Peter Hoskin

Will the tactical voting plea work?

There’s only one question which matters when it comes to Labour’s tactical voting plea: will it work?  You can certainly see Brown & Co’s thinking on this.  This is the election, after all, where the Lib Dems have become a viable option for a lot more people – so they might act as a speed bump for people rushing away from Labour and towards the Tories.  And anything which depresses the Tory vote gives Labour a greater chance of holding the most seats in the House, and of making some kind of post-election pact with Nick Clegg. But as David said earlier, Labour’s osciallating stance towards the Lib Dems –

Monday

Alex Massie

A Response to John O’Sullivan: Cameron is Doing As Well as Thatcher Did in 1979

My thanks to John O’Sullivan for his response to my post on Friday. A post that was so “well hidden” (as he puts it) that it was the top post for four hours and on my blog’s front-page all weekend. I’m grateful too that he sees fit to remind me that the current electoral set-up gives Labour a considerable advantage. I wish someone had pointed that out sooner. Just to re-cap: Mr O’Sulivan thinks that the biggest question of this campaign is why the Tories aren’t winning by more. To which I’d say that actually they are winning but that there are a number of other factors that prevent us

David Blackburn

The Tories will trust in the Irish

The Telegraph reports that a Conservative minority government would rely on an ‘informal understanding’ with Unionist MPs and that David Cameron is preparing the ground for co-operation.  It’s a courageous plan, in the Sir Humphrey sense.  Many journalists argue that Cameron has a duty to preserve the Union. Certainly he does, but his overtures to the Ulster Unionists have been self-defeating. There is an assumption that the Unionist parties are conservative. Besides conserving the Union, they are not. Back in February, I reported that the Tory alliance with Reg Empey was serving only to eviscerate the UUP, as its socialist and social democratic factions revolted against Tory alignment. Sylvia Hermon,

John Osullivan

Why aren’t the Tories doing better?

My apologies for responding so tardily to Alex Massie’s post of Friday, but it was quite well hidden, maybe prudently so. He begins by objecting to my assertion on National Review Online that given the failure and unpopularity of Labour, “the Tories [as the main opposition party] ought to be winning easily and by a landslide.” This is an unfair critique, he argues, because “it’s the failures of the past and that he inherited that make Dave’s task so difficult. If 2005 hadn’t been such a ghastly failure perhaps the Tories wouldn’t need to win an extra 130 seats to win a majority. *In other words, they essentially need a

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron will walk the line

“Don’t fall for it, Dave!” implores the front cover of this week’s The Spectator – together with a leader (precis here) urging him to form a minority government rather than enter any pact with the LibDems. It looks like he will not disappoint us. The Telegraph today discloses that: ‘Even if he fails to secure an outright majority, it is understood Mr Cameron is preparing to “go it alone” and form a minority government. The Tories are confident an informal understanding with unionist MPs from Ulster could secure Mr Cameron a safe passage with his key early Commons battles, including getting a first Queen’s Speech and Budget passed. Last night,

Peter Hoskin

The Tories plan to cut early – but how would their opponents respond?

Oh yes, the Tories are broadcasting more Ready For Government noises this morning.  There’s an article in the Telegraph suggesting that David Cameron would choose a minority government ahead of coalition with the Lib Dems.  And the Guardian reports that a Tory government would set out a bulkload of spendings cuts in the first six months of office, when, as a senior Tory puts it, the “excitement of the general election aftermath” will still be hanging in the air. You can understand the Tory thinking here.  Not only will they find it easier to achieve things during the heat and righteous fury of early government, but they will also need

Peter Hoskin

Nothing but negativity

A telling passage from Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour’s campaign report this morning: “Gordon Brown visited 10 London constituencies [yesterday] eventually leaving a pub in Kilburn by a side door after it was besieged by Tory and Lib Dem activists. He is now running a campaign almost exclusively warning of Tory cuts, and claiming that the party’s first tax cut would be for Britain’s richest millionaires. Brown also described the Tory manifesto as a ‘horror show’, flagging up their plans on inheritance tax, public services and the deficit, adding: ‘I say the Conservative party is not fit for government if it has policies like that.'” As I said a few

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Cameron gets ready for government – but will he manage to avoid “frontline” cuts?

For the past few years, the Tory task has been to look like a government-in-waiting. Now, with the election only a matter of days away, David Cameron has dialled that process up to eleven. In interviews with the Sunday Times and Andrew Marr today, the Tory leader concentrates firmly on the nuts and bolts of government. The content of the Queen’s speech, the depth of Tory cuts, the possibility of coalition – all get name-checked and cross-referenced. There’s much in there to encourage Tory supporters. Indeed, CoffeeHousers have been clamouring for one of Cameron’s proposals: a “Great Repeal Act,” which would “scrap ID cards, home information packs and dozens of

Saturday

Fraser Nelson

Cameron must avoid making deals with the Lib Dems

Even after the Gillian Duffy incident, tonight’s polls either point to a hung parliament or a gossamer Tory majority. So the prospect of a Con-LibDem alliance, being forged next weekend, remains all too real. In the leading article of this week’s Spectator, we urge Cameron to go it alone with a minority government – rather than enter into a pact, of any sort, with the LibDems. If Cameron fails to win a majority, he must form a minority government, do the best he can and then, when the time comes, ask the Queen for a dissolution of Parliament so he can ask the country for a majority. There are five

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Why the Guardian should have backed the Tories

The Guardian missed a trick today. It should have endorsed the Conservatives. As a regular reader of that great newspaper, I can diagnose the ailment: it is confusing intentions with outcomes. It wishes for a more progressive society, greater equality and the betterment of the most vulnerable. But it has not quite worked out that these aims cannot be achieved by a powerful government: and that state-directed attempts at promoting a “progressive” society actually make it less equal, more regressive and end up empowering a bureaucratic elite. The Guardian lets itself down here: it has focused on what is said – not what is done. In doing so, it does

Friday

Alex Massie

More Nonsense from National Review

Earlier today I took issue with John O’Sullivan’s take on this election but do not let it be said that his views are the only odd ones available at National Review. Here’s Dennis Boyles: I’m sure all good Tories wish Cameron well. But one could argue that a Cameron win might be the worst of all outcomes for the Tories. Call it the sorrow of granted wishes, but if he wins, the Conservatives will run on visionless, unimaginative, timid platforms for years. […]As I said, party partisans surely would never wish it — and after this last week, it’s a very unlikely outcome, anyway — but I ask Jack and Andrew, is