Conservative party

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

Why I remain unconvinced about the Tories’ tax break for married couples

Ok, Fraser – I’m not going to let this tax ‘n’ marriage debate rumble on interminably, but I do want the final word!  First, I appreciate your response – it makes a very strong case, but one which fails to convince me.  Why?  Well, largely because I agreed with most of it already.  As I said in my original post, IDS and others have unearthed plenty of statistics which show just how important marriage is to the functioning of society, and to the lives of people within it.  This evidence, much of which you raise, is important and shouldn’t be ignored.   But there are still reasons – beyond those

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Why marriage should be recognised in the tax system

Cameron has been fairly bold in entering the debate on marriage, because we don’t like do that debate in Britain. Not really – it’s private, and we Brits don’t like debating private things. Anything which helps marriage can easily be paraphrased as “deploying fiscal incentives to force something which should largely be a private decision”. And not by the left, but by our very own Pete Hoskin in the below post. Now, we are a heterodox bunch of baristas here at CoffeeHouse and we do disagree – so here is why I think Pete is wrong. I’d like to have a go offering some of the “convincing answers” he’s looking

Peter Hoskin

Love and marriage?

Ok, I must admit I’m quite wary of Tory plans to encourage marriage via a £20-a-week tax break for married couples.  Not because I don’t think marriage is a positive social force.  I do.  And Iain Duncan Smith’s usually excellent Centre for Social Justice – who are pushing the tax break proposal, along with other, more convincing, ideas, in their recent Every Family Matters report – has unearthed enough statistics over the years to prove that it is.  But there’s something crude and debasing about deploying fiscal incentives to force something which should largely be a private decision, based on sappier motives such as love, between two people.  And, as

Tuesday

James Forsyth

The tide turns on public spending

If further proof were needed that the public’s attitude to public spending has changed it comes in the latest Guardian / ICM poll. It finds that 64 percent of voters think that spending should be being reduced now as opposed to 28 percent who want it increased: the electorate is on the other side of Brown’s favourite dividing line. Even among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters, a majority favour cuts. Amongst those who favour cuts, the Tories have a significant advantage. 46 percent of those who support cuts think Labour would cut too little with 21 percent saying it would cut too much. With the Tories, 30 percent worry they

Peter Hoskin

Coulson in the clear?

It’s worth following Andrew Sparrow’s typically excellent live blog of the Commons culture committee’s first public hearing into the recent NotW “phone-hacking” claims.  So far, the biggest revelation has come courtesy of Nick Davies – the Guardian journalist behind the story last week – and it’s one which will please the Tories: “Davies says he has the names of 27 journalists from the NoW and four from the Sun who used a private investigator to get information. Some of the requests were legal, like electoral register searches. But many were not. Davies says he does not want to name the names. “I’m a reporter, not a police officer.” But there

Monday

Peter Hoskin

A burden for future governments

If you haven’t already, it’s well worth reading Robert Peston’s analysis of the first annual report from UKFI, the government’s banking wing.  There are plenty of fascinating titbits in there, but this passage on how long it will take the government to sell its shares in Lloyds and RBS rather jumped out at me: “As the annual report makes clear, flogging perhaps £100bn of stock in Lloyds and RBS – which is what the holdings may easily be worth in a couple of year – can’t be done overnight. That’s just too big a mouthful for investors to swallow quickly. How can I be certain? Well in the entire history

Peter Hoskin

What did Mitchell mean?

Andrew Mitchell is doing the media rounds to discuss the Tories’ new policy paper on international development, and he seemed to let slip with a major claim on defence spending to the BBC earlier.  Here’s how the indispensable PoliticsHome reports it: “Mr Mitchell said that it was not a question of choosing between the budgets for defence and international development, adding that the two departments would work much more closely under a Conservative government. ‘I don’t think that defence will face cuts, but it’s not a question of either or, you have to do both,” he said. ‘The development effort in Afghanistan which hasn’t always gone well and so to

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

A framework for shelving tax cuts

So, the News of the World claims that the Tories are planning to shelve some of their tax-cutting proposals – including the inheritance tax cut and tax breaks for married couples – to help combat the fiscal crisis.  Guido suspects that the news came direct from the Blackberry of Andy Coulson, but the Tories have told Tim Montgomerie to “treat the story with a ton of salt”. Either way, I do – like Tim – have some sympathy for the idea that commitments will have to be sidelined to overcome Brown’s debt mountain.  The longer those terrible deficits remain, the more future generations will be burdened by the Dear Leader’s

Friday

Andrew Webster

Whom do you trust more?

So, a ComRes poll for the Daily Politics has Cameron leading Brown on the issue of which party leader would be more honest about spending cuts. It echoes a poll that we conducted a few days ago; the results of which we figured we’d share with CoffeeHousers, before our work experience at the Speccie comes to an end. Basically, we hit the streets of London (avoiding Westminster and all the party hacks), and asked around 350 people: “Who do you trust more, Gordon Brown or David Cameron?” Sure, it may not be as scientific as a YouGov or ComRes poll, but the results are still striking. Cameron polled a comfortable

Peter Hoskin

Lansley takes one step forward and two steps back on spending

Although Andrew Lansley’s “10 percent” gaffe may have worked out alright in the end, I can’t help but think he’s pushing his luck with his latest comments: Andrew Lansley has called on the Government to come clean about their spending plans after it was revealed that the NHS has been asked to plan for efficiency savings of £15-20 billion against its 2010-11 budget. The Department of Health has refused to confirm whether these savings will be available for reinvestment in the NHS – if they are not, it will equate to a real terms annual cut to the NHS budget of 2.3 per cent. Andrew, the Shadow Health Secretary, said,

Peter Hoskin

No change on the Coulson front

After the news that there won’t be a new police investigation last night, the second thing the Tories feared most hasn’t happened either: neither the Guardian nor any other outlet has anything to further implicate Andy Coulson in the phone-hacking scandal this morning.  Indeed, the Guardian’s main story concerns how a private investigator working for the NotW collected phone messages from Sir Alex Ferguson and Alan Shearer, among others.  That deepens the media controversy, but hardly fuels the political controversy which was trying to burst into flames yesterday. I should stress – as I did in a comment yesterday – that I think phone-hacking is a disgraceful practice.  But the

Thursday

James Forsyth

The old gray lady on Cameron

Christopher Caldwell’s New York Times Magazine profile of David Cameron has finally been published; Caldwell first interviewed Cameron for it last year. I expect the Tories will see it as an important non-electoral milestone for them, a sign that the American establishment expects Cameron to be the next Prime Minister. The piece is, as you would expect with a Caldwell article, well written and, as it is written for an audience that knows little about Cameron, offers a good overview of the project. Caldwell proposes that there are two types of modernizers. “There are really two strands of modernizers in the Tory party. There are the green-friendly, diversity-oriented, welfare-state-defending ones

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Media wars

David Cameron finds himself caught up in a war between two media tribes following the revelations  about the phone hacking at the News of the World during Andy Coulson’s editorship. On the one side, there’s The Guardian—whose scoop it was—and the BBC; for the BBC this episode is a chance to both make an ideological point against tabloid journalism and the Murdoch press as well as gain some revenge for the fun that The Sun and The Times had with the BBC’s expenses. On the other is News International with other newspapers that have used similar methods looking nervously on from the sidelines. I suspect that Andy Coulson’s position is

Peter Hoskin

Labour prime their anti-Coulson strategy

Some useful insights from PR Week’s David Singleton, who reveals that Labour are planning a concerted effort to paint Andy Coulson as a “sleazeball” ahead of – and perhaps during – the next election campaign.  Here’s a snippet: “One senior Labour source in regular contact with Gordon Brown’s inner circle told PRWeek: ‘Cameron wants to present himself as the man who’s going to clean up politics. That’s going to be difficult if the public think his right-hand man is a complete sleazeball.’   Another Labour insider said that senior party figures had been thrashing out a strategy to target Coulson since the news emerged yesterday. The source said the aim

Peter Hoskin

A headache for Cameron and Coulson

So David Cameron has said that Andy Coulson’s job isn’t endangered by the News of the World wire-tapping allegations in this morning’s Guardian, and you can see where the Tory leader is coming from.  After all, there are very few – if any – new revelations about Coulson in the Guardian piece.  We already knew that the Tory communications chief resigned the editorship of the NotW after a phone-hacking scandal involving the royal editor Clive Goodman.  And we already knew that he claimed no knowledge of the hacking but, as editor, he took responsibility for it.  No evidence has yet emerged that Coulson was more implicated than he’s letting on. 

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The Tories must be prepared to launch a reverse march through the institutions

Sir Hugh Orde, the new president of ACPO, has predictably come out against elected police chiefs. Andrew Sparrow  has the key extract from his speech: “If people seriously think some form of elected individual is better placed to oversee policing than the current structure, then I am very interested in the detail of how that is going to work – and happy to have that debate. Every professional bone in my body tells me it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability and add nothing but confusion. I note that our partners here in the [Association of Police Authorities] are

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Defence review: your say

So, a Defence Review has been set in motion even though the Government has for a long time said they would hold off from ordering such a study. But with the operational pressure growing, the financial situation dire, and clamour from the likes of George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown for a security rethink, the Government has been left with little choice. Kick-starting the review process also has the advantage of robbing Liam Fox, should he become Defence Secretary, of a “Bank of England moment” – i.e. a quick, early governmental decision that delivers some new momentum for Team Cameron. And Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth needed to do something to stem

Peter Hoskin

Nick Clegg: out of love with the Tories?

The thing that jumps out from Nick Clegg’s speech on families today is how aggressively – if, ultimately, unconvincingly – it sets about attacking the Tories.  Yes, he also criticises Labour – but the attack on the Tories comes first and is more bitter in tone.  Here’s a snippet: “David Cameron’s social policy is focused almost obsessively on marriage, cajoling people to conform to a single view of what a happy couple should look like. The Conservatives want marriage incentives in the tax system. And they may adopt Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals to put in place more legal roadblocks to divorce. This is both bizarre and patronising. Do they really

Peter Hoskin

To freeze or not to freeze?

The question of whether or not to freeze public sector pay has had a fair bit of airtime over the past few days.  In his interview at the weekend, Alistair Darling seemed to take a hard-line on the issue – and most outlets wrote it up as him not ruling out a freeze.  But, via today’s Times, “sources close to [Darling]” say that he won’t re-open wage deals to introduce a freeze.  While, for his part, David Cameron is also claiming that a Tory government wouldn’t order a freeze of public sector pay.  The politics of the situation is plain: neither side wants to seem especially tough on public sector