Tories

James understands the dynamics of coalition government rather better than Simon Heffer. This may not surprise you. Mr Heffer complains that by letting Vince Cable survive – albeit in gelded form – while dumping the likes of Lord Young for other more trivial indiscretions, the Prime Minister is guilty of setting double standards. One would be appalled if this were not the case. And the double standard – for such there certainly is since Lib Dems may, indeed must, be opposed to at least some parts of coalition policy – reminds us that this is a Tory government leavened by the Liberal Democrats, not a Liberal Democrat government with added

Tim Montgomerie’s response to Danny Finkelstein’s column is, as was expected, interesting and challenging. For now, however, let’s focus on just one line: Mainstream Conservatism is also more pro-poor because it’s the poorest Britons who suffer most from crime, uncontrolled immigration and the unfair deal that London’s lowest income boroughs get from the Barnet [sic] formula. Emphasis added. One hears this sort of thing quite frequently. Which is fine. But three points: first, over time Barnett is designed to actually reduce differences in spending allocations. It may do so more slowly than some would like but that’s a different argument. Secondly, identifiable government spending in London is almost as high,

Tim Montgomerie tried to define his “Mainstream Conservatism” project again this morning. (My first take on it is here and Pete’s astute view is here). Bear in mind that Tim contrasts liberal conservatism with what he calls “authentic conservatism” and that while he insists upon the importance of breadth (good!) his movement is the one that’s deciding which conservatives are “authentic” and which are not. To take Tim’s points in order: 1. “Co-operation with the Liberal Democrats in government is working well, but far from perfectly.” By “far from perfectly” he means that the coalition agreement isn’t an entirely Tory document (just 80%!). Well, yes, that’s what happens in a

Courtesy of Ian Martin and Steve Hilton Stewart Pearson from The Thick of It. All too plausible: Monday Lock-in with the Weather Guys, our team of digital analysts plotting cultural climate change. Useful prep for the forthcoming Media Policy Refresh. Aiming to roll this out after Christmas, when everyone’s more receptive to notions of shrinkage, frugality, Less Is More etc. Rethinking points already emerging. The Quango is dead. Long live The Hub. Out: “public consultation”. In: “forward niche matrixing”. Goodbye, tropegeist. Hello, Pixelated Society. Quick fruit lunch, then we’re back on the synapse highway. More rethinking points: triangulations, forecasts, aftercasts, podcasts. Now we’re mantra-sifting: Sympathise, Empathise, Synthesise, Synergise. Synergy? Is that

There were moments, I confess, when David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative party conference this afternoon was oddly, disconcertingly reminiscent of George W Bush’s second inauguration speech. Each address was soaring, passionate and heroically optimistic. Bush foresaw a world transformed; at least Cameron’s ambitions are limited to remaking this sceptered isle. If Bush serves as a warning that words are not enough it might also be said that words are still required. There was, as Andrew Neil immediately pointed out, little that was new in the Prime Minister’s address but, frankly, after the child benefit hash that was no bad thing. What we heard, however, was perhaps the most coherent

David, while one should never discount incompetence as the guiding force behind anything the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party proposes in this instance I fancy indifference – rather than self-interest or incompetence – is behind Aunt Annabel’s apparent admission that the party won’t take a view on the Alternative Vote. At present elections in Scotland are run using four different electoral systems: FPTP (Westminster), Additional Member System (Holyrood), Single Transferable Vote (council elections), Party List (European Elections). In other words, there’s precisely nothing sacrosanct about FPTP and, indeed, the case against it has been conceded at both the Holyrood and council level. This being so, what’s the point of pretending

Blimey. Here’s a turn-up for the books: in a bid to avoid being thought Europe’s Most Useless Political Party the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party has done something sensible. They have decided that running an election campaign with the unofficial slogan Vote for Us, We’re Only Interested in Opposition is a dumb idea. Hence, as Scotland on Sunday reports, the party is preparing (albeit and as usual tentatively) to take the bold step of declaring that they will countenance the idea of serving in government at Holyrood. Of course, the Tories would still require an invitation to the dance if they’re to sit in government in Edinburgh and it may

Who would have thought, even a year ago, that the future of the Liberal Democrats would arouse such interest? Perhaps I was too harsh on Nick Clegg’s speech to the party’s conference; certainly Fraser was more impressed by it and the gang at Liberal Vision also seem pleased. Perhaps I was wrong to hope that Clegg would disavow the social democrats in his party in this speech. One should always be wary of criticising politicians simply because they decline to do what you would have them do. Equally, one should not assume that doing what one would want them to do is the path to either political or policy success.

More on Christine O’Donnell’s stunning victory in the Delaware GOP Senate primary in due course but it’s worth pointing out that such a triumph almost certainly could not happen in Britain. Not even in our new primary-friendly Tory party. Because most of the contests called primaries in Britain are really forms of caucus, not proper primaries and even the so-called “open primaries” that have been held by postal ballot are actually only semi-open. In each case voters are offered a choice of candidates who have been approved by Tory HQ. It is not, in other words a truly open process and consequently it’s exceedingly difficult for a grass-roots rebellion to

Sunder Katwala is not convinced by Nick Boles’ suggestion that the coalition should fight the next election on a joint-ticket. He sniffs a Tory ploy: What [Boles] is offering the Liberal Democrats is simply the chance to lash themselves to the mast of the Coalition’s austerity agenda – and to collude in an attempt to keep it going even if the voters don’t want it – with little in return beyond losing their political identity to become a semi-permanent National Liberal wing of a new Tory-dominated alliance. Over at Platform 10, however, David Skelton is open to the notion: The coalition has worked so far because it has caught into

Is William Hague finished? That’s the sub-text to this interesting, even intriguing, Ben Brogan post in which The Telegraph’s man in Cameronland goes so far as to suggst the Prime Minister “should fear for his colleague’s state of mind.” That’s not all: In a series of Commons conversations this morning I was struck by the number of Conservatives who believe Mr Hague’s political career is now over. Where he was previously talked of as an emergency replacement for George Osborne or even David Cameron in a bus scenario, he is now out of the running. No one expects him to serve beyond the Parliament, and many expect him to last

This is a subject that one could – and may! – return to frequently. David Cameron, not unreasonably, seems to have decided that there’s no point to the Scottish Tories at all. This is not a great surprise given that the Scottish Tories have declined to make any meaningful, let alone sensible, case for themselves. According to Hamish Macdonell – a reliable reporter – Cameron has had enough of his enfeebled North Britain platoon. By her own admission, Aunt Annabel Goldie hasn’t spoken to the Prime Minister since the election. And what would they have to talk about anyway? The sorry truth is that the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party

Over at Liberal Conspiracy our old friend Sunny Hundal calls out Tony Blair: It was always obvious that Tony Blair hated the left. His recently published book said nothing new on that front. What’s staggering is how easily he dismisses even close Labour colleagues and ministers. […] What does it say about Tony Blair’s loyalty to the party and the movement? What does it say about his committment to pluralism within the party? What it says is that Tony Blair was interested in winning elections. This is not rocket science. We may not like this aspect of British politics but, at the moment anyway, the public is extremely wary of

A terrific Five Books discussion about conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism with Cato’s Brink Lindsey in which BL quotes a few essential lines from JS Mill: ‘In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies