Tories to get access to the civil service

Benedict Brogan is quite pleased with himself following this morning's Downing Street press conference.

He asked the PM whether he would be implementing Tony Blair's plans to give top Tories access to the higher echelons of the civil service.

Barely two hours later and the fax machine in Mr Cameron's office has whirred out a letter from the Prime Minister confirming that yes indeed, those meetings can go ahead as agreed by Tony Blair in 2006. So from January 1st, Conservative front benchers will be free to open talks with senior officials about implementing the Conservative manifesto in 2010, assuming it ever comes to that.

The new Tories,not Tories at all?

The economist has nailed its political colours to the wall in its latest issue.

Writing on the revival of the party under David Cameron,it says

The strain of Conservatism that Mr Cameron embodies has thus become unfamiliar. It is pragmatic, incremental, willing to adapt to win and keep office. This is the flexible Conservatism of Benjamin Disraeli, a 19th-century prime minister, combining his awareness of the needs and votes of the lower classes with the gradualism of Edmund Burke, who articulated Tory alarm at the French Revolution. It is a Conservatism that is sceptical of state power and favours market solutions, sound money and patriotism—but all in moderation.

The whole essay is worth a read,and argues that perhaps Cameron is not a Tory after all

He understood that the Tories were still hobbled by a reputation, acquired (fairly or otherwise) in office, as callous, bigoted and sleazy. This was so poisonous and persistent that, in “blind tastings”, voters who liked Conservative policies withdrew their approval when they learnt the ideas were Tory ones. Mr Cameron embarked on a strategic campaign to detoxify the party brand; thus his much-ridiculed but calculated stunts, such as a husky-powered visit to a melting glacier to advertise his environmentalism, his call (though he never put it quite like this) for people to “hug a hoodie”, or a trip to Rwanda that unfortunately coincided with flooding in his Oxfordshire constituency. He ditched his party’s hostile views on gay rights and promoted ethnic-minority activists.

Mugabe wants the Tories back in Power

Jason Brown over at Political Wire claims that Robert Mugabe is backing David Cameron.

Sam Akaki, a journalist for the government’s mouthpiece, the Harare Herald, claims that the British government has engineered Zimbabwe’s descent into chaos:

and quotes him saying that

Just as the US has maintained an economic blockade against, and repeatedly violated Cuba’s territorial independence, the Labour government has misused its influence in the UN, European Union, G8, Commonwealth, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to ensure Zimbabwe’s economic collapse.

adding that

since coming to power in 1977

)surely a typo),

the Labour government has single-mindedly pursued an aggressive Africa policy aimed at running down President Mugabe, ignoring African views and the dire humanitarian consequences.

Only with the Conservative Party in power in the UK can that country hope to salvage its rapidly deteriorating relationship with Zimbabwe and Africa.
Isn’t it now plainly clear that the British relationship with Zimbabwe in particular and Africa in general will not improve until the Conservative Party takes over in the United Kingdom?

Somehow I cannot see Mr Cameron rushing to the party

Now the Tories must become transparent

The revelations that the Tory shadow cabinet is in effect being funded by big business is no real suprise.
Unlike the rules for the Cabinet where no conflict of interest is allowed,the rules don't apply to the shadow team.

However surely with David Cameron harping on about transparent politics,would it not be prudent to have declared these interests.

I agree with Guido who says

It turns out that the Tory frontbench is awash with covert cash from vested interests. Mortgage brokers funding the office of the Housing Shadow is pertinent. Cameron gave a high ground speech promising transparency and openness only two months ago. Well get on with it. If this is the finest democracy that money can buy, we want to know at least who is doing the paying. No more shadowy cash, if public money is paying we want receipts for every last single penny.

Matthew Parris spculates in the Times

Worth reading Matthew Parris in the Times this morning on why the Tories should prepare for government.

Office could take the Tories by surprise much sooner than they think, catapulting them into power with a dangerously fat majority and a dangerously thin manifesto

and Matthew is adamant that

Mr Brown's fate was sealed by last autumn, when the Prime Minister missed his chance for a personal mandate from the British people.

Mr Brown's Government will be capable of carrying on. Two more years of public and private disintegration may prove impossible to maintain.

and

Are the Tories planning a shadow cabinet clear out?

Over at Conservative Home there is a discussion going on about possible Shadow cabinet reshuffles.The Mail's Ben Brogan appears to have started the debate by saying that only seven of the members are safe,George Osborne, William Hague, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Michael Gove, Andrew Lansley and Patrick McLoughlin.

However Conservative home doesn't agree,claiming that 18 are in fact safe.In fact it would be better to list those that aren't

Peter Ainsworth, Cheryl Gillan, Theresa May, Andrew Mitchell, David Mundell, Eric Pickles, David Willetts and Theresa Villiers.

Interestingly though as Chris Paul points out the first comment has other ideas

At the risk of becoming very boring, I do think that DC would be wrong to retain George Osborne as shadow chancellor. I agree he deserves a top job and is a very good politician but the economy is too important a portfolio to leave in the hands of someone who (as far as I know) has neither the relevant experience nor training for it.

says David Belchamber,

John Redwood also gets a fair amount of mention.

Let's wait and see

The tax cut wars continue

Much is being made of Francis Maude's interviw in the Telegraph this morning.Once again the Tories are under the taxation spotlight.

"The idea that offering tax cuts is an instant route to electoral success is utter rubbish, If the voters think we are taking risks with economic stability and the public services that will be very bad for us."

And adds

The Tories need to reassure the voters that the NHS and schools would be safe with them. "There's almost certainly a lot of waste and we will address that... People want to see the money they spend as taxpayers delivering a better health service

Not what the old guard will want to here but Iain Dale takes further

The debate now needs to be shifted onto the unsustainable levels of public spending. This is not a subject on which the Conservatives need to be defensive. The 1979 election was won in part because people realised the government was spending more than it could afford, and Margaret Thatcher promised to do something about it

Less charitable is Donald Blarney who says of Maude

he repeats the falsehood that the last two elections were lost simply because the Tories promised tax cuts and therefore the electoral calculation is simple: promising tax cuts = inevitable electoral defeat. Putting aside the fact that Maude missed out mentioning the tax cuts promised in 1997 (which are also blamed on the party's landslide defeat that year too), the very notion that a promise of tax cuts per se renders the Tories unelectable is the most arrant piece of dishonest nonsense.

No tax cuts but let's promote the family-verdict on the Tories Spring Conference

As the Tory spring conference comes to an end in the North East,Philip Hammond, the shadow Treasury chief secretary is inteviewed by the Sunday Telegraph and rules out any wholesale tax cuts in a next Tory Administration.

"When the money's piled up in the pot, then you give it away in tax cuts. It only makes sense to look at this over an economic cycle. You can't look at it in a single year, or even necessarily in a four-year parliament

His comments re affirm pledges made by both David Cameron and George Osbourne over the weekend and again in an inteview with William Hague on this morning's Andrew Marr programme.

Iain Martin is a little to say the least disappointed pointing out

It took Britain just six years to win the Second World War. The lack of ambition on this subject is breathtaking.
There will be many a Tory activist, and more than a few members of the shadow cabinet, reading Hammond's words on tax and getting very angry

Generally though the spring conference seems to have gone well.The big theme was the family,Cameron following uo his appearance on ITN with a speach in which he affirms

My ambition is to make Britain more family-friendly. To make our country a better place to bring up children. Not just because it's the right thing to do, not just because my family is the most important thing in my life, but because families should be the most important thing in our country's life.

Something that will go down down in the Blue rinse brigade.

Although not in all quarters,

I'm not convinced about David Cameron's "family friendly" agenda that dominated his speech at the end of the conference.
Obviously he thinks it's a vote winner. But I thought it was rather odd that the Tory leader promised to spend £200 million on recruiting more health visitors and at the same time told his party they would have to get used to saying no more often than yes to spending pledges.

says Jon Craig

And over at the Sindy Cole Morton asks whether Cameron will regret placing tots in the frontline?

As he points out

Gordon Brown wouldn't feel comfortable with any of it. Both as a politician and a man he seems to have benefited enormously from having a wife and two children – although there has been suffering too, in the death of their first-born, Jennifer. Mr Brown has a son with cystic fibrosis but he has never allowed his family to be filmed or photographed, except for official portraits.

Cameron turns to defence but is he held back by spending commitments

Policy announcements thick and fast from the Tories.Hot on the heals of NHS spending and prisons,today it is the turn of defence.

On the back of Prince Harry's triumphant return from Helmund province,David Cameron uses a speach at the in front of Falklands hero,Simon Weston to talk of restoring the military conovent

The Telegraph reports that

The Conservative leader has announced a new party commission to look at ways to improve the treatment of service personnel and their families.

And they have got a heavyweight to chair it as Red Box reports

The Cameron tent just got bigger, with the appointment by David Cameron of author Frederick Forsyth to chair a Tory Commission on the military covernant

.

Ben Brogan asks whether defence be Cameron's No1 priority?

I was particularly struck by Mr Cameron's political courage in raising the issue, despite being unable to tell us whether the Conservatives would spend more or less on defence in future. It's a risky area for him, and he is under pressure from Liam Fox to say more.

A risky area not in part because of the party being frightened of committing to spending increases and Nick Robinson notes

Curiously he omitted a line from his prepared speech about Labour cutting defence spending. It's yet another sign that he is struggling to control the pressure coming from within his party to spend more and tax less.

New poll shows Tories on course of majority

This morning's Independent carries the latest opinion poll which shows that the Tories would gain a House of Commons Majority if the results were reflected at the mext general election.


The results,from a surveyu by Com Ras,seem to reflect the kick back form last weeks Northern Rock fiasco and according to the paper

the Tories are on 41 per cent (up three points on last month), Labour is unchanged on 30 per cent, the Liberal Democrats remain on 17 per cent and other parties are on 12 per cent (down three). If repeated at the next election, David Cameron would win with an overall majority of 38.

A word of caution though from political betting

One factor which probably hurts Labour with the firm is the way the turn-out is calculated. ICM filters so it only includes those saying 7/10 or more and they are all given the same value. ComRes filters out those below 5/10 but then weights responses in line with the expressed certainty. YouGov does not filter or weight on the certainty to vote.

Tories to jail teenage drinkers

Via Liberal England


The Conservative Home site has released a statement this morning claiming that

that under-age children who try to buy alcohol illegally are going unpunished.
Over a million youths are refused alcohol in pubs every month, and there were a further 300,000 refusals from one off-licence chain alone last year.
But fewer than a hundred individuals a year are punished for trying to buy alcohol illegally, meaning there is less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of under-age youths receiving any sanction whatsoever