David cameron

The Tories’ meddling is undermining the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland

The Times reports that Owen Paterson, the Tories’ Northern Ireland spokesman, will review the process by which the Northern Ireland First Minister is appointed – by creating a Northern Irish executive and official opposition. The prospect of what Paterson describes as a “voluntary coalition”, presumably between the Unionist parties, has the potential to keep Sinn Fein permanently in opposition. Such a coalition jeopardises Cameron’s neutrality if he becomes Prime Minister, a point that Sinn Fein will exploit. The Conservatives seek to move Ulster’s politics away from sectarianism and into the mainstream, concentrating on public services. That is a welcome aim but their means are ill-conceived, stemming from a misunderstanding of

The Cameroons are fleshing out the agenda which may come to define them

If you were going to craft The Most Exciting Speech Ever, then there’s a good chance it wouldn’t contain the phrase “Post-Bureaucratic Age,” and wouldn’t be delivered at the Technology-Entertainment-Design conference.  But – as James Crabtree points out in an great post over at Prospect – there are quite a few reasons to take David Cameron’s speech on post-bureacracy to the, erm, Technology-Entertainment-Design conference, last night, very seriously indeed.  Not least of which is this announcement: “A Conservative government will publish all government contracts worth over £25,000 for goods and services in full, including all performance indicators, break clauses and penalty measures. This will enable the public to root out

A comic tale with serious undertones

The Joanne Cash affair is the kind of story you couldn’t make up. But once you get beyond the comic details there are a few things worth taking seriously. First, CCHQ has not covered itself in glory during this episode. It was aware of the problem but rather than dealing with it, it attempted to massage the situation. If CCHQ had acted decisively, this problem could have been resolved a fortnight ago without all this publicity and damage to the party. CCHQ’s performance hardly fills one with confidence about whether or not it has done the appropriate due diligence on its candidates all around the country.   Second, it is

The Tories’ dirty tactics are dispiriting but effective

This death tax levy is gutter politics at its most visceral and it’s thrilling drama. Brown’s and Cameron’s loathing for each other is pure soap opera, and they’re having a right old slanging match. I agree with Pete, it is dispiriting to see the Tories stoop to misrepresenting policies, the show-stopper in Brown’s repertoire. Together with Cameron’s personal attacks, the Tories have surrendered the high ground, but as Iain Martin notes is anyone really surprised? The Tories have been expecting, righty, Labour to fight a grubby election campaign and have decided to fight Brown’s mob with fire. Personal attacks appeal largely to those whose minds are settled, so I see

PMQs live blog | 10 February 2010

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1200. 1200: And we’re off, bang on time.  First question on Labour’s elderly care plans.  Brown delivers a load of platitudes about how the government is committed to better care.  Even adds that he hopes for cross-party backing. 1201: Cameron now.  He leads on elderly care plans too – and how they will be funded.  With a nod to a letter in today’s Times, he adds that people who will have to implement it thinks its disastrous. 1202: Brown’s on fiesty, if typically disingenous, form.  He says that he “knows how [Cameron] likes personality politics”.  His substantial point, though, is that the Tories supported

Has that Tory poster made Brown’s job easier in PMQs?

Yesterday’s Guardian story about a potential death tax would have been perfect material for Cameron in PMQs. Even after Andy Burnham’s denials, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about it. For instance, would the government say that they will never propose the tax? And, if not, how will they pay for their social care guarantees otherwise? Fired across the dispatch box, these enquiries could have put Brown on the back foot. But now that the Tories have jumped the gun, and released that poster attacking a Labour policy which isn’t actually a Labour policy, they’ve rather limited that line of questioning. If the death tax comes up, all

Cameron attacks tax-happy Brown

A strident interview from David Cameron in today’s Express, in which he touches on everything from inheritance tax to not, never, ever joining the Euro. It’s this passage that jumped out at me, though: “Middle Britain has had a wretched time under Labour. This Government has taxed mortgages, marriages, pensions, petrol and travel and raised national insurance and the top rate of income tax. We cannot keep squeezing hard-working families.” Why so noteworthy? Well, off the top of my head, this is the first time that Cameron has referred to the current system as a “tax on marriage”. In which case, you wonder if the Tories are planning to place

The problem with that David Cameron ad

Labour’s new ad with David Cameron facing both ways highlights what was wrong with the Tories’ opening ad of the year, that one dominated by Cameron’s face. The Tory strategy for the election campaign has to be to try and make it into a referendum on this failed government. But that ad, which emphasised Cameron so strongly, gave Labour an opening to try and turn the election not just into a choice between two parties but into a referendum on David Cameron and Tory policy. Labour’s success in doing this is largely responsible for the Tory wobble. The contrast between Cameron and Brown does work to the Tories’ advantage. But

How should the Tories respond to those Labour guarantees?

If you’re going to take anything away from Andy Burnham’s press conference this morning – apart from his denials about a £20,000 “death duty” – it’s how heavily those Labour “guarantees” are going to feature in the election campaign.  Here we had social care guarantees, cancer treatment guarantees, waiting line guarantees, and even a new website and poster (see above) attacking the Tories for not signing up to the same guarantees.  So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British politics.  “Caring” versus “cruel”, as far

Plenty to encourage the Tories in the Populus poll

Well, the Populus poll isn’t all good news for the Tories. As James pointed out last night, they have shed another point and Labour have regained some ground. But, as both Peter Riddell and Mike Smithson note, the Tories can still secure an outright majority on the basis of these figures. The numbers which lead the Times’s frontpage coverage are more encouraging for Cameron & Co. They show that the public are attuned to the Tories’ broad narrative. 73 percent think society is broken; 82 percent think that now is the time for change; and 64 percent believe Britain is heading in the wrong direction. After 13 years in power,

A day to damage Brown?

Contain yourselves, CoffeeHousers.  I know that we’re all really excited about today’s Parliamentary vote on an alternative vote referendum (it is, after all, something our Prime Minister has described as “a rallying call for a new progressive politics”), but it isn’t a done deal just yet.  That “new politics” might still be put on hold. Indeed, things could get messy for Brown in just a few hours time.  You’d expect him to win the vote, what with Labour’s majority and the creeping sense that Downing St very much wants this to happen.  But even the slightest hint of a Labour rebellion, or of Lib Dem disquiet, and the story could

The Tories think Brown is their most potent weapon

‘We just need to ram Gordon Brown down the electorate’s throat’ one Tory staffer said to me today when talking about how the party could get back on the front foot. The unspoken thought was that the prospect of five more years of Gordon Brown would be enough to send voters into the welcoming arms of David Cameron.    The Tories are frustrated that in the last few weeks this election has gone from being the referendum on the government to almost being a referendum on them and their plans for government. They are determined to turn the focus back onto Brown, hence Cameron’s aggressive attack on Brown this morning.

James Forsyth

A note of caution over Cameron’s welcome attack on lobbyists

The Tories will be happy with their start to the week. David Cameron’s speech this morning has succeeded in highlighting how Labour had not suspended the whip from the three MPs charged by the CPS and drawn one of the Tories’ favourite contrasts, decisive Cameron versus dithering Brown. It was also refreshing to hear Cameron take a tough line on lobbying, proposing to double the waiting period before ministers leaving office and taking private sector jobs to two years. Lobbyists already have far too much influence on our politics. But there are risks to Cameron in this Obama-style play. As one Tory insider said to me just before party conference,

Success for Cameron

Finally, Brown has withdrawn the whip from Chaytor, Morley and Devine. This is a significant victory for Cameron in the latest battle over expenses. Once again, the Tories are streaks ahead on this issue. As Henry Macrory notes, it took Cameron 86 minutes to reach the obvious conclusion that Lord Hanningfield should be suspended; Brown agonised for 4305 minutes. Truly, this is the man who can be trusted to ‘take the tough decisions’ on the economy when needed – my guess is that most of us all will die at a Keatsian age in Dickensian penury. One point that occurs to me is that it’s been clear for some time

Brown’s personality defines the character of his government

David Cameron will re-launch his election campaign with a personal attack on Gordon Brown. Cameron will embark on the straightforward task of proving that the Road Block is not a moderniser – the Prime Minister’s sudden avowed passion for PR is merely a marriage of electoral convenience. Cameron has led the expenses reform debate and will use Brown’s dithering over the latest furore to condemn him as a ‘shameless defender of the old elite’. According to Francis Elliot, Cameron will say: “There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is

The cuts consensus

John Rentoul today puts Trevor Kavanagh and myself in the dock for demanding “massive spending cuts” and concludes that if we “had any power” we would be “about as helpful to Cameron as Sarah Palin was to John McCain” but believes Cameron “will hold to his strategic course”. I mean: massive cuts. How crazy is that? Surely only swivel-eyed maniacs would be planning cuts – real, hard-core ideologues – would plan that when the deficit is a mere 13 percent of GDP. Surely? It struck me, reading this, that John is unaware of the massive cuts which Labour is planning (understandable, as they were in the small print and have still not

What’s needed now is a modern Conservative party with clear, discernible principles

I’d like to do a final round of responses to comments to my Keith Joseph lecture. It’s easy for debates about Conservatism to be caricatured as being for or against Cameron – and my lecture fits into neither category. I’m a big supporter of Cameron’s, but often wish he’d have more faith in himself: I fear he feels he has to make more short-term concessions than he has to – thus blunting his message of ‘change’. For years, any debate about Tory policy is described in the terminology of Tory civil war circa 2002 (which all too many people, from both sides, are still fighting) – ie that you an

Parris versus Nelson

Here’s a question: to be a good angel or a bad angel? We know what Fraser thinks; Matthew Parris differs. Writing in the Times today, he asserts that he would give David Cameron the same advice he offered Margaret Thatcher in 1979: agree a gloriously unspecific manifesto. The details of hard-edged manifestos are ambushed well before polling day; discretion is the better part of valour. In the immediate circumstances of the Tory wobble both arguments are commendable. The Tories have unwound when trying to supply detail to flesh out their broadly radical ideas. Recognising marriage in the tax system has been their foremost blunder. The impassioned denunciation of Labour’s record on