Conservative party

Getting the Tories back on track

At the beginning of this week the key figures in the Tory election campaign gathered together in Notting Hill to try and work out what was going wrong with the Tory campaign, why the Tory lead has halved since December. Our cover this week attempts to answer this question. My take is that the problem is largely caused by the structure of the campaign. Successful campaigns tend to have a chief strategist and a campaign manager. The strategist’s job is to work out what the election is about and the campaign manager’s role is to implement that vision and take charge of day to day tactics. The Tory problem is

God stand up for bankers

He’ll have to because nobody else will. As Robert Peston says ‘Poor RBS, poor Britain’ – today’s figures are catastrophic. Peston’s been digging and the news gets worse: ‘But perhaps the most chilling numbers are these: we as taxpayers put in £25.5bn of new equity into this bank last autumn, the second instalment of the £45.5bn we have invested in total; but over the past year, the equity of this bank has increased by less than £16bn to £80bn. So almost £10bn of the £25.5bn we’ve only just put into RBS has already been wiped out by losses. Which, I think, is probably the best measure of the degree to

How British: a tea party

Don’t you think that ‘The Ship Money Movement’ is a more appropriate name for a British anti-tax forum? You know, given the connotations of ‘Tea Party’ in these climes? Titles are instructive, and, as James wrote yesterday, the British right has a growing fascination with its American counterpart. Perhaps I’m over doing it, but it seems a testament to the State’s dominance in post-war Britain that the country’s libertarian tradition, extending back through Burke, Bolingbroke, Locke, Milton and to Hampden himself, is no longer the right’s primary inspiration. Putting my slightly absurd ruminations aside, the coming of the Tea Party Movement to Britain is significant. Dan Hannan will address the

Back with a vengeance | 25 February 2010

All of a sudden, the Big Banks are Big Politics again.  And who’d have it any other way, on the day that the 84 percent taxpayer-owned RBS announced losses for 2009 of £3.6 billion?  And that’s alongside a bonus pool for its staff of £1.3 billion.  Yep – however hard they try, the exorcists of Westminster just can’t shift the ghost of Fred the Shred. In which case, there’ll be plenty about bankers’ pay, and about getting taxpayers what’s owed to them, over the next few days.  And rightly so.  But I often feel that these issues detract from even bigger ones, such as how to ensure that there aren’t

Worse off than you were in 2005

The obsession of British politicians – and political journalists – with American politics is often mocked. But there’s a clarity to American political messages that is often missing in this country. So it is good to see George Osborne borrowing a line from the Reagan playbook, and pointing out that people are now worse off than they were at the last election. The Tories desperately need to shift the focus of the campaign back onto Labour’s failures and this is a start to that process. Osborne is delivering the Mais lecture tonight, one of the prestige dates in the British economic calendar. He’s the first shadow Chancellor to deliver it,

Many BNP voters’ concerns are legitimate and should be recognised as such

Frank Field was characteristically forthright on the Today programme this morning. “I don’t believe, given the strains (on the economy), we will be able to maintain an open door policy without serious unrest on the streets,” he said, and this brings me to a Sunny Hundal article on the media’s approach to the BNP. Hundal is extremely eloquent but his premises are ill-conceived. He aligns the BNP exclusively with racism and immigration, because it follows that a racist is illegitimate and can be consigned to irrelevance. He writes: ‘If you want to vote BNP and think people of different cultures and races are scary, why not just say so? Every

Ashcroft has unleashed hell in the marginals

Alistair Darling’s sudden and poetic ejaculation is sure evidence that the government is a rabble of warring tribes. Against such opponents, the Tories should win, and win big. Daniel Finkelstein is adamant that they still could. He states the obvious: polls are general and do not account for specifics in key marginals. In-built boundary bias created the assumption that Cameron needs an 11 percent swing to win a majority of one. Finkelstein rubbishes that thesis; parties that win by 11 points win landslides: ‘In 1997 Mr Blair’s Labour built a new coalition, winning support across social classes. They therefore won in suburbs and prosperous towns that had always voted Tory

David Miliband would set the people free

What is it about the Blairite passion for abstract nouns? I ask, not out of facetiousness, but because I want to know what they mean by loose terms such as ‘empowerment’. David Miliband joins James Purnell among the progressive left’s thinkers who are reimagining the relationship between state and citizen, and he gave a concept heavy, substance light speech to Demos this afternoon. I’ve read it a couple of times and can’t get my head round it. Peering through the glass darkly, the central concept is attractive: Miliband wants to give more power to the people. Some valid policies season his argument. For instance, the 1 week cancer pledge would

Even the Pakistanis are “Soft” on Torture…

Meanwhile, today’s missive from the Party of Torture is written by Dana Perino and Bill Burck, Press Secretary and Special Counsel to George W Bush respectively.  The Obama administration is working with Pakistani intelligence to interrogate Mullah Baradar, reportedly the Taliban’s number-two man. We’ve been a little underwhelmed by the Left’s reaction to this news. […] The Left’s silence on Mullah Baradar is convenient. Gone are the hysterical cries of torture. Missing in action are the opponents of rendition. One searches in vain for impassioned denunciations of Obama’s outsourcing of interrogations to countries with long histories of torture. What happened to the sputtering self-righteousness of yesteryear, when Bush and Cheney

Fraser Nelson

Some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories

By way of a response to the comments on my post yesterday, here are some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories. The poll lead dropping to six points is indeed a wake-up call, and Cameron probably worked out a while ago that things were going a bit Pete Tong. Indeed (Short the UK), there are signs that he has already started to act. Look at last Monday: three strong election videos, without a politician in sight. The perfect remedy to the Tragedy of Cameron’s Head poster. The policy of allowing management buy-outs of government departments is bold, radical and entirely in keeping with Cameron’s general policy of

James Forsyth

Cameron’s first response to the bullying question

Cameron just got the question on Brown and bullying. His reply was well pitched, right tone of voice and all that. But it contained the suggestion that Sir Phillip Mawer, who polices the ministerial code, should be asked to investigate. This is the last thing No 10 wants, it just wants this to go away. But I suspect Cameron has just given the story a nudge along.

Cameron kicks off the transparency agenda

Here I am, in a cavernous “space” in East London, for a conference on the Post-Bureaucratic Age – or  “See-Through Government,” as Guido more evocatively put it. David Cameron has kicked things off with a speech on the issue, and there’ll be talks and panels throughout the day. It’s like Glastonbury for policy wonks. So how was Cameron? Well, he’s normally at his snappiest and most persuasive when he talks about all this tech stuff – and today was no exception. All the usual lines about “handing power to the people,” and eroding “the dull, stultifying presence of state control,” made an encouraging appearance. And he outlined what this would

How should the Tories respond to the Rawnsley allegations?

As James predicted last night, the ‘Bully boy Brown’ story is now at full steam and will speed on as phone-ins discuss bullying in the workplace. The National Bullying Helpline’s intervention, ethically dubious in view of the charity’s supposed confidentiality, has negated Labour’s damage limitation strategy. Both Peter Mandelson’s line that Brown is a passionate and demanding man and the PR campaign to soften Brown’s image have been blown clear out of the water. Brown has made significant progress recently: David Cameron’s personal ratings have halved since September. That brief resurgence will be reversed as this story rolls. The Sun’s hot-headed frontpage says it all.   Now is the time

Background politics

The Conservatives are at pains to emphasise that ‘it’s not where you’re from but where you’re going that’s important.’ A trite but pertinent phrase: background is neither a pre-requisite nor an impediment to a political career, nor should it be. Upbringing is important when it informs values. Many of the Shadow Cabinet have travelled together from the chapel pews of Eton to the Tory front bench; consequently, the Tories are wary of linking politics to background and experience. On the whole that is sensible, the exception is Michael Gove’s personal history, which is central to his Swedish market based education reforms. Gove may not wish to parade his life before the electorate, but to my mind his

Fraser Nelson

Time for Cameron’s Lazarus act

Two seriously worrying polls for the Conservatives today. One is a Sunday Times/YouGov poll, showing a Labour recovery reducing the Tory lead to six points  well into hung parliament territory and the lowest since December 2008. The other is a PoliticsHome poll in the News of the World, according to which: Cameron’s approval rate has been steadily falling, and Brown’s similtaneously rising – the difference between them has halved, in recent months, from 90 points to 45 points. If the election is a 39-33 split, then the Tories end up with just ten more seats than Labour and are dependent on coalition with the LibDems. A result like this, against

Brown faces the Rawnsley revelations, while the Tories face the polls

The question tonight is: which piece of bad news will make the biggest impact?  The bad news for the Tories, or the bad news for Labour? Let’s take the second one first.  I’m referring, of course, to the first installment in Andrew Rawnsley’s revelations about Gordon Brown.  ConHome have already published some snippets – click here – and they give you plenty of juice for your buck.  Not only are there the expected allegations about Brown hitting his staff (much of which seems to have been covered in the Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago), but Rawsley also reveals that the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, investigated and reprimanded

Balkan business

Catherine Ashton is visiting the Western Balkans this week on her first foreign trip as the EU’s top diplomat. Though she has come in for criticism for not going somewhere more foreign, like the Middle East, her visit to the region is, in fact, timely and should be welcomed. The region has a few hurdles to clear on its journey away from the misery of the past and towards a more stable future. What can Ashton do to help that process along?  Well, her job is best described with historian Richard Neustadt’s moniker “Persuader-in-Chief”. She can cajole member-states, put issues on the EU’s agenda and suggest ideas. That is probably

No surprises – and much Tory-bashing – in Brown’s Big Speech

Move along, now – there’s nothing to see here.  Or rather, reading Gordon Brown’s Big Speech, there’s nothing that you hadn’t already seen in the papers, or that you wouldn’t have expected to see anyway.  The four election themes got a mention.  Labour’s record in government was pushed and promoted to the point of absurdity.  Words like “new”, “fair” and “change” were flung around like so much confetti.  And no election date was given.  No alarms, no surprises. More than anything, Brown set about attacking the Tories on every conceivable level.  He caricatured Cameron & Co. as a party of privilege and wealth, who are more concerned about fox-hunting than