Conservative party

Senior Tories have decided that their new party leader will be confirmed by 2 September, which means that the timetable for the leadership contest will be very short indeed. The decision was taken for a short, sharp battle so that there was as little uncertainty about the government as possible. This means that nominations for the race will close at noon on Thursday, which gives the candidates very little time to get their bids together. Votes will take place every Tuesday and Thursday until the party produces the two candidates that will be taken to the party membership, which means that Conservatives will be voting on who their new Prime Minister is

This morning, Philip Hammond has insisted that those running for the Tory leadership explicitly set out how they intend to leave the EU. The Foreign Secretary told Robert Peston that he wanted to know how they would manage the trade-off between single market access and free movement. Hammond himself appears to favour a version of the Norwegian model; in the single market and accepting free movement. Now, I think we can take this as meaning that Hammond won’t back Boris Johnson. Hammond accused Boris and other Leavers of making ‘contradictory promises’ in the referendum campaign. Though, it is worth remembering that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were both explicit that

Tacitus argued that, after 68, ‘the secret of imperial rule was revealed: an emperor could be made somewhere other than Rome’. It has taken metropolitan observers some time to wake up to the fact the same is true in Britain today. A star can be born far from London. The difference, however, is that not all roads lead to Westminster. It takes time for change to work its way through the system so perhaps it is not surprising that it is only now that we are seeing the fruits of devolution. In their different – very different – ways Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson have each demonstrated that devolution works. It has,

MPs from all parties have gathered in the Commons to pay tribute to murdered Labour MP Jo Cox. Parliament was recalled today following the terrible events last Thursday. The Speaker John Bercow opened the moving session by saying politicians were gathered in ‘heartbreaking sadness’. He went on to say: ‘An attack like this strikes not only at an individual, but at our freedom. That is why we assemble here, both to honour Jo and to redouble our dedication to democracy.’ Jeremy Corbyn then delivered his tribute to Jo Cox: David Cameron followed Corbyn in paying tribute to Jo Cox. The Prime Minister said it was important at this time to

The murder of Jo Cox was a moment that leaves you numb; an MP paying the ultimate price for the open society we live in. For the fact that our representatives live and work among us. Despite this tragedy, democracy must go on. By this time next week, the EU referendum will be over. The country will have made up its mind. Whether it is Leave or Remain, the UK will need a period of stability. This means David Cameron staying on as Prime Minister and, as I reveal in The Sun today, plans are already well advanced to ensure that this happens. Boris Johnson has signed a letter saying

There are few moments in politics when parties put aside their differences to come together. Yesterday’s tragic events in Birstall has brought about one such occasion. After the terrible killing of Labour MP Jo Cox, the Conservatives have said they will not be contesting the by-election held in Batley and Spen. In a statement, the Conservative party said: ‘Following the tragic killing of Labour MP Jo Cox, the Conservative Party has decided not to contest the forthcoming by-election as a mark of respect to a much-loved and respected politician’ The Prime Minister, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow have also appear

One consequence of David Cameron’s refusal to take part in any ‘Blue on Blue’ debates is that he and Michael Gove are appearing several days apart on BBC Question Time. Tonight, it was Gove’s turn to face the studio audience. In reply to the first question, Gove made clear that—in the event of Britain voting to leave—he wouldn’t support the so-called ‘punishment Budget’ that George Osborne set out today. Gove said that the Remain campaign were ‘turning it up to 11’ on the scare stories as polling day approached. Though, interestingly, he studiously avoided any personal criticism of Osborne. With the polls tightening the Remainers are getting more passionate, and

Campaigns only last for a few weeks, but politicians can be defined by what they say during those campaigns. Ed Miliband will never live down the #EdStone, Zac Goldsmith will always be stained by his murkier attacks on Sadiq Khan – and I suspect David Cameron will never manage to shake off the threat he made to pensioners today. At times, it can seem as if he’s got confused and has set out to attack his own reputation, rather than that of his opponents. Those who watched George Osborne grilled by Andrew Neil last week will know the issue: the Remain campaign has decided to pretend that pensioners will be worse off after Brexit.

The takeaway point from last night’s EU referendum showdown was the extent of the personal attacks on Boris. The former Mayor of London came under repeated fire during the debate – with his Tory colleague Amber Rudd leading the charge. But did she go too far? And is there a chance the intention of targeting Boris could end up backfiring? Here’s what the papers had to say: Anyone reading The Sun‘s coverage of the debate will probably end up feeling sorry for Boris. The article tells how Boris ‘suffered relentless abuse’ over his apparent ambitions to be the next PM. It also goes on to say Rudd ‘reeled off Government

This EU referendum is a particularly difficult contest to poll and after the general election we all should be wary of treating them as gospel. But there’s no getting away from the fact that the mood in Westminster—and on the two campaigns—is heavily influenced by the polls. The recent good numbers for Leave have put a string in its step. They have also ensured that Vote Leave’s focus on immigration in the last few days isn’t seen as the last roll of the dice but as an attempt to focus on one of its strongest areas. Interestingly, influential figures on the Remain side privately accept that the referendum appears to

Danny Dorling is one of the warmest and most intelligent left wing intellectuals of our day; an egalitarian, who proposes radical and practical solutions. He is a worthy target, in other words. Oxford University’s professor of Geography has also produced  an essay entitled: ‘Why Corbyn’s moral clarity could propel him to Number 10.’ It is the most cowardly exposition of the left’s great illusion that I have read. More to the point, virtually every supporter of the new Labour leadership will believe it. He makes two claims: Corbyn and the far left are moral; and they can win power. Allow me to take them in reverse order. The assertion that

If only Dr Éoin Clarke could learn from his mistakes. Earlier this month Clarke was left red-faced after his prediction of a shadow cabinet reshuffle failed to materialise. Not to be put off, the clip art-loving Labour activist — who has a PhD in Irish feminism — has been promising a ‘nuclear’ revelation regarding the Tory expenses row for some days now. After Michael Crick’s Channel 4 investigation led to the party admitting that it failed to declare £38,000 of general election expenses, Clarke told his followers that ‘massive revelations’ were on their way. Tweeting his followers on Sunday, Clarke said that a Tory election fraud story would ‘break very soon’ and cause the scandal to go ‘nuclear’. Massive story

In a speech to Policy Exchange today, Steve Hilton—David Cameron’s former senior adviser—will make the case that ‘any intellectual rigorous examination makes it impossible for a Tory moderniser to support staying in the EU’. He argues that Tory modernisation was about trusting people, and that the EU does not; that modernisation was about localism, and that the EU is inherently centralising; and that the EU helps the rich and not the rest. I think there’s much to be said for Hilton’s analysis. (Though, of course, it should be recognised that there are Tory modernisers on both sides of the argument.) But where Hilton is surely right is that the EU