Politics

It’s not just David Cameron who is unhappy with the way the Tory manifesto is looking at the moment. James reported at the weekend that the Prime Minister had demanded a re-write, and I have picked up some considerable dissatisfaction in the party at the way the document is being put together. Some departments feel as though they and their advisers have been shut out by the team working on the manifesto. Other lower-ranking ministers with extremely good, detailed ideas for their own policy areas have submitted ideas that have been rejected out of hand, which has left them rather grumpy. This is partly a result of the desire to

There is a subtle ideological shift going on in the Tory party. At the top of the party, there is an increasing appetite for a modern form of industrial strategy. As George Osborne argues in an interview in the current Spectator, ‘The Conservative party is at its strongest when it’s not the party that says there is no role for government and the state should just get out of the way… That is not a strand of Conservative thinking that, by itself, is enough. You need to have a bit of the Michael Heseltine: “I’m going to take the Docklands and build a financial centre here and build an airport here.”

I understand that David Cameron has ordered a re-write of the Tory manifesto. Jo Johnson and the Number 10 policy unit, which he heads, had written and submitted a first draft of the manifesto to Cameron. But word has come back that Cameron feels that the tone is not right. As I say in my Mail on Sunday column, he wants a less wonky document. He thinks the document needs a crisper, more political style. The Tory aide Richard Parr has been charged with re-writing it. Parr learned his political trade under Andrew Mitchell and is regarded as having sharp instincts. Cameron is also a fan of his writing. But

I wish I could get worked up about the televised election debates (or lack thereof). I can understand that it’s a very important to the broadcasters, who don’t mind reducing the campaign to three US-style standoffs. But if they don’t go ahead, is it really an outrage? Is our democracy really the poorer for it? When broadcasters are angry, they have a platform to vent – which is why the furore is been given disproportional coverage. But without the debates, the election will go on in the way that every election before 2010 went on. And I rather welcome that. The TV debates do make good entertainment but they do rather take over the campaign – and put the whole