thetorydiary

David Willetts insists that marriage must not become the preserve of a middle class elite

Today's Guardian splashes with an interview with David Willetts, in which he expresses his fear that marriage is in danger of becoming an exclusively middle-class institution unless action is taken to bolster it. He says:

"The aspiration of marriage is becoming harder to achieve. Instead of it becoming just what you do in your 20s, it has become like scaling Mount Everest, a sort of great moral endeavour – and something that requires a lot of time and money. We think we need to ease some of the pressures.

"There is quite a lot of evidence coming from America about how we are in danger of heading towards a society where middle-class people get married and people on low and erratic incomes don't get married, and that in turn leads to a divergence of a whole host of other outcomes.

"In my view it would be extremely dangerous if marriage became something only for the affluent elite and that is what will happen, unless we try to get some kind of policy that restores it as a more widespread institution as we had in the past."

He said that the current rate of family break-up was "a disaster for children", although according to the report:

"Owing to budgetary pressures it was unlikely that recognition of marriage in the tax system would appear in the Tories' first budget, but it was important to establish the principle, he said."

The paper reports that the party's forthcoming green paper on the issue will propose:

• Home nurse visits for new families with greater emphasis on help for the father;
• Relationship guidance at the time of a civil marriage similar to that given by a vicar, hopefully spreading the model of the Bristol community family trust that provides relationship courses to 30% of new mothers in the city;
• After a couple split, fathers should be given access to tax credits if they are looking after the child more frequently than the mother;
• Grandparents should be automatically considered for placements if both parents are not deemed suitable to bring up the children, with grandparents also to be considered for access to the child following a divorce.
• Children's school reports should be sent to fathers as well as mothers in cases of breakdown.

Read the full interview here.

Jonathan Isaby

The unholy alliance of The Independent and the right-wing anti-modernisers

In a leading article The Independent argues that "Conservative messages have become increasingly contradictory".

The Independent thinks the party cannot modernise and also talk about more familiar Tory issues: "What made Mr Cameron initially seem radically different from his predecessors William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard was his decision to stop talking about those old Tory obsessions of crime, Europe, immigration and tax cuts. Instead, he set reform of the public services at the heart of his agenda."

The idea that there is a contradiction between these things is a nonsense and it's a view that is shared by many anti-modernisers on the diehard Right (but far from every 'Rightie'*). These anti-modernisers blindly interpret every effort to talk about global poverty or gay equality as a sell-out.

I've long argued for 'a politics of and'.  A politics that twins entirely compatible propositions. A Conservativism that is broader than in 1997 rather than fundamentally changed.  The ConHome shields attempt to represent pictorially the breadth of our ambitions and potential coalition.

Here are a few examples:

The key thing about this broader conservatism is that it can be stronger than the brand that went before.

• It's politically harder for example to adopt a very tough approach on immigration if voters think you don't care about the poor overseas.
• It's harder to back marriage and all the benefits it brings children if some think Tories are homophobic.
• It's harder to trim the size of the state if voters think politicians are still feathering their nests.

Ensuring that we get this balance right and are very serious about the broader conservatism is essential to the future of the Conservative Party. Talking only about crime, tax, Europe and immigration won't be enough to realign British politics. Fusing a concern for the poor, the environment and civil liberties with the issues more associated with the Conservative Party gives us the opportunity to become the natural party of government again.

At the heart of 'the politics of and' is one simple and very British idea: Fairness. Fairness to those who create the wealth and fairness to those who need help. If David Cameron is still looking for a title for the draft manifesto he's launching on 4th January I would suggest fairness as a uniting theme.

Tim Montgomerie  

* Some seen as on the Right have done more to 'modernise' the party than those on the Left. Think, for example, of what IDS has achieved on social justice and David Davis on civil libertarianism.

ComRes has Tories ahead by 38% to 29%

Within the poll there is evidence that the Conservatives still have work to do.  By 49% to 45% voters disagree with the statement that “the Conservative Party offers an appealing alternative to the Labour Party.”

There may also be a little mileage in the Labour attack that the Tories are the party of the rich.  By 52% to 44% voters agree , that “a Conservative Government would mainly represent the interests of the well-off rather than ordinary people.”

There is 55% to 38% support, however, for the Conservative policy of raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. That will encourage George Osborne to stick with that pledge even though it won't appear in any early budget should he become Chancellor.

Tim Montgomerie

Why we should welcome the televised leaders' debates

Tim blogged a little earlier this evening an explanation as to why he is highly sceptical about the televised leaders' election debates which have been announced this evening for next year's campaign.

As regular readers should be well aware, Tim and I do not agree on everything and this an occasion where I will put an alternative point of view.

I am very excited about the prospect of the debates. At a time when public confidence in politicians is at an all-time low, David Cameron is leading the way (remember he was first to agree to the debates) in demonstrating a willingness, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, to be cross-examined in that most public of arenas, the TV studio.

In the same way that millions sit around the TV to watch the election results coming in - hence the campaign I co-founded to Save General Election Night - I anticipate that these prime time TV encounters will also see millions engaging with the political process, and that can be no bad thing.

The Conservatives currently being favourites to win the election would not have been a legitimate reason for David Cameron to duck out of the debates. That would have been portrayed by the media and opponents as a (completely unnecessary) sign of weakness. David Cameron's ability to put the party's case convincingly is unrelated to the party's standing in the polls at any given moment.

And as for Tim's main worry that it will boost the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that the fact that the Lib Dems stand in every seat in Great Britain and already have 60-odd seats in the Commons could have made it legally difficult to exclude them.

But we should not be afraid of taking them on and I have every confidence that David Cameron - and Gordon Brown for that matter - will hammer home at every opportunity the fact that Nick Clegg is in no position to become Prime Minister at the election and remind voters that the election really is - to coin a phrase - a two-horse race.

I believe that the general election will be a close-run contest nationally and that as polling day gets closer, people's minds will be focused on the stark choice of either returning Gordon Brown and a failing Labour Government to office or voting for change and the fresh start offered by David Cameron. The country needs a decisive outcome and should Clegg try to argue about the benefits of a hung Parliament - particularly when he is unable to indicate what he and his party would do in that position - then Mark Field's recent platform post provides many of the counter-arguments.

So let's embrace the debates as a positive development for the democratic process - bring them on!

Jonathan Isaby

Christmas comes early for Brown and Clegg in the shape of election debates

I posted this reaction to the news that there will be three election debates earlier:

"I am disappointed if this story is true. Heading for a massive defeat these debates are a lifeline for Gordon Brown. They will also be a big boost for Nick Clegg. He'll be given a status that the third party in British politics has never had before. Polls suggest Cameron will win the debate and there are very low expectations for Brown (which will suit his advisers). I hope CCHQ don't live to regret this decision."

The most we should have given Nick Clegg was two debates. He isn't going to be Prime Minister. The nation deserved a Brown V Cameron head-to-head if there are to be debates.

On PoliticalBetting Mike Smithson puts it well:

"There’s little doubt that this will shape the entire election campaign and there’s also little doubt that these will become a permanent feature of UK general elections. The big winner from this is Nick Clegg who’ll gain a lot by being seen on the same platform as the other two. That fact has the potential to hurt both the bigger parties - particularly Labour. But the big loser could possibly be David Cameron who, in my view, has made a seriously bad decision. When you are in as strong a position as he is then the last thing he should have agreed to is something that could be a game-changer. Anything could happen. As we’ve seen in the US how the candidates are seen and react with each other can matter more than what they say."

My alarm at CCHQ agreeing to debates (largely I think because they'd boxed themselves into a difficult position) is NOT a lack of confidence in Cameron. This is what I replied to "Irene" earlier:

"When you heading for a majority of 80 you can only really lose from these debates. My main worry is the boost it will give to the Liberal Democrats. They'll get more attention than they've ever had in an election before. Even if Cameron wins every debate I can't see our position being much stronger than it is today."

I don't believe they'll enhance democracy either but that's a subject for another day.

Tim Montgomerie

Party leaders agree to three televised election debates

According to the Telegraph, a deal has been done that will see history made in the run-up to next year's general election with three debates being held between the party leaders:

"It will be the first time that British party leaders have gone head-to-head in a live television battle similar to those in American presidential elections. Barring a last-minute hitch an announcement will be made tonight. It comes after fierce negotiating between Number 10, David Cameron’s office and the BBC, ITV News and Sky News."

David Cameron was of course the first to agree to the proposal when put by Sky News back in September.

According to the BBC, all three leaders will take part in the debates with the following schedule:

1. ITV debate chaired by Alistair Stewart
2. Sky News debate chaired by Adam Boulton
3. BBC debate chaired by David Dimbleby

5.45pm update:

Speaking at a Cameron Direct meeting in Leamington Spa, David Cameron welcomed the agreement as "a thoroughly good thing":

"I've been pushing for two years for this to happen, I've always believed in live television debates. I think they can help enliven our democracy, I think they will help answer people's questions, I think they will help crystallise the debate about the change this country needs and I'm delighted that they are taking place. I think it's a step forward for our democracy and I think it's something that, in such a bad year for politics and Parliament, we can proudly celebrate. We've joined the 21st century, when every other democracy seems to have leader's debates, we're now going to have them right here in Britain and I think that's a very good thing."

Reaction from Tim Montgomerie: "I am disappointed if this story is true. Heading for a massive defeat these debates are a lifeline for Gordon Brown. They will also be a big boost for Nick Clegg. He'll be given a status that the third party in British politics has never had before. Polls suggest Cameron will win the debate and there are very low expectations for Brown (which will suit his advisers). I hope CCHQ don't live to regret this decision."

> Tim Montgmerie's full reaction to the proposed TV debates

> Jonathan Isaby explains why he is delighted the debates are taking place

Jonathan Isaby

David Cameron pledges continued £10 million annual funding for children's hospices

The mystery surrounding what was behind the meeting last month between David Cameron and Simon Cowell would appear to have been solved. 

The X Factor judge is the Patron of Children's Hospices UK and has today been quoted by the party as welcoming an announcement that David Cameron has made this morning during a visit to a children's hospice in Loughborough.

The Tory leader announced that a Conservative Government would pledge a continued annual £10 million grant to children's hospices - which look after some of the 4,000 children who die each year from terminal diseases - until reforms guaranteeing long-term funding become fully introduced, which would see a new per-patient funding stream for all hospices and other providers of end-of-life care.

Mr Cameron, who lost his own profoundly disabled son Ivan earlier this year, said:

“This Christmas many thousands of families in Britain are caring for terminally ill children... It is essential that these parents and carers get the support they need to make life liveable, comfortable and fun for both them and their children.

"Hospices provide a vital part of that support. They are a sanctuary for parents looking for specialist help and understanding, a special place for children to have short breaks and – most importantly – a loving, professional environment for care at the end of a child’s life. So it is extremely concerning to hear that the grant runs out in March 2011 and there are no current plans to renew it. The Conservative Party is today making a commitment to ensuring that proper funding for this essential sector can continue... Nothing can be more important than caring for our most vulnerable children.”

Whilst today's announcement concerns children, I gather that the current funding envelope for adult end-of-life care also stops in March 2011 and that this potentially leaves a gap there that will also need to be addressed. The party's proposed tariff system for end-of-life care would see hospices and other providers funded on the basis of the number of people who use their services. But the proposed timescale for that is to pilot the tariff in 2012-13 and implement it by 2013-14.

Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, seems to acknowledge the need to deal with this wider issue in a statement this morning:

“In the longer-term, Conservatives will make sure all hospices are properly paid for the work they do, which would otherwise be the NHS’s responsibility.  The support they provide at the end of people’s lives is invaluable; paying them properly will mean that more people are helped to die at home or in the community as is their wish, rather than being needlessly rushed into hospital.”

Jonathan Isaby

Conservatives should proudly help poor nations protect their people from extreme weather events

In the new year I'm planning a special series of features on effective aid spending. Just because too much aid goes to the wrong people (as Sajid Javid argued last week) we should not say that all aid fails. Much aid - given publicly and privately by the British people - is preventing very poor people from dying of hunger or treatable disease. I hope next year's series will help convince more ConHome readers of that.

Another important use of aid is to help poor countries cope with extreme weather events. You don't have to believe that climate change is man-made to agree that many developing countries could do with help in protecting their people from hurricanes, flooding and other natural disasters. Making these countries richer through freer trade is the best way of helping them to afford resilience but aid spending and technical assistance can play a part too.

In the powerful video below Greg Clark, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, reports from Bangladesh on how we can help the poorest people of our world survive extreme events. He emphasises helping people adapt to a changing climate (rather than combatting climate change). That is very much in line with Lord Lawson's 'Plan B' for the environment that I summarised yesterday.

Tim Montgomerie

Only a Conservative government will save Britain from a borrowing crisis, says George Osborne (BUT HOW?)

Image from Tory campaign stunt at Battersea Power Station.

George Osborne has written for The Telegraph today and has warned that "2010 will be the year when the world's focus shifts from the debts in our banks to the enormous debts being run up by governments".

He notes that rating agencies have downgraded Greece and that Britain is the most vulnerable country of any of the top-rated nations in the world.  He lists a number of global banks that reacted negatively to Alistair Darling's PBR, including Barclays who said that "the UK's triple-A sovereign credit rating and the currency are likely to remain vulnerable".

Mr Osborne spells out what would happen to Britain if international investors lose confidence:

"The people of Greece know what happens when the world loses confidence in your ability to pay your bills. It's costing them an additional 2.5% on the interest rates they are paying to borrow. Before Sweden started dealing with their debts in the Nineties, it faced a market penalty of 4.5%. Britain is borrowing more than Greece, and more than Sweden was. All that is saving us at the moment is the expectation that a future Conservative government will get a grip. If Labour get in again, that won't happen. If Britain follows Greece, the interest bill on a £150,000 mortgage could go up by more than £200 a month. The cost of credit for businesses would go up, too, and more jobs would be lost. And we'd be paying billions more in taxes each year just to service the national debt."

Mr Osborne is right to warn Britain that Labour has no plan to cut Britain's deficit. It is also true that he is yet to announce a deficit reduction plan of his own. We have had some austerity measures from the Tories but only a fraction of what is going to be necessary. Every day Tories are in the press attacking the very few measures that Labour has taken. In the FT today, for example, William Hague is criticising David Miliband's cutbacks to Britain's Foreign Embassies.

Lord Lawson outlines 'Plan B' on climate change after Copenhagen's failure

Former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson has today outlined a 'Plan B' for the world on climate change (although it was always his 'Plan A').

His Global Warming Policy Foundation outlined four themes for this 'Plan B':

• A switch from trying to avoid climate change to one that adapts to change. The GWPF recommends "an agenda aimed at helping to increase the resilience of both advanced and poorer countries to such change." On ConHome last week, Tory Climate Change spokesman Greg Clark noted that Copenhagen did move global policy-making in a direction that would help developing nations cope with extreme climate events.
• Greater recognition of the real priorities of the developing world. "Economic development and the relief of poverty are, rightly, more important than the curbing of carbon emissions," notes the GWPF. The self-styled Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, has long argued through his Copenhagen Consensus project that international politicians should devote their limited energies to lifting trade barriers if they had the poorest nations' true interests at heart. As countries grow richer through trade they will be much more able to adjust to any climate change that occurs.
• More transparency in climate change science.  The failure of Copenhagen, say GWPF, should be seen as "an opportunity to focus on a better understanding of the dynamics and long-term impacts of climate change, including the economic analysis embodied in climate change models."
• An end to unilateral environmental action.  Unilateral environmental measures by Britain and the EU would be "extremely short-sighted" if they are implemented now that it is clear that most other countries are unwilling to burden their economies in similar ways.

I would add a fifth theme: Continue with policies that increase the energy resilience of our nations.  By resilience I mean protection from outside shocks.  We should not be, for example, dependent on a narrow range of often despotic regimes for our energy supplies.  We should invest in energy efficiency, nuclear power and renewable energy in order to achieve this resilience.

Tim Montgomerie

> On Platform today, Jack Perschke draws some distinctions between Red Green policies and Blue Green policies.

Will Boris duck re-election? And will Peter Mandelson be his opponent?

The two questions are raised by Fraser Nelson in his News of the World column, and distilled at Coffee House.

Fraser writes that Boris is "highly unlikely" to stand again - eyeing, instead, the prize of Ten Downing Street (despite Boris' claims to the contrary).

The best reason Fraser gives is the obvious one: "Boris is up for re-election in May 2012, by which time the Tories will be making Irish-style spending cuts - and be hated for it. Whoever stands as Labour candidate has a pretty good chance of victory. And being the most powerful figure in the party."

[I emphasise "Irish-style". Does Fraser know something we don't about 5%+ cuts in public sector pay?]

If Mandelson does stand he'll have to beat Ken Livingstone who wants a third crack at London's top political job.

I can't quarrel strongly with Fraser but, on balance, I think Boris will stand again...

1. By all accounts he is enjoying the job.
2. I think he'll want to be Mayor for the 2012 Olympics (which take place immediately after the moment he is up for re-election).
3. In the absence of a strong alternative Tory candidate there'll be enormous pressure from the party for him to stand again.
4. His chances of ever becoming PM will not be helped if he is seen to have walked away from a re-election challenge. Tory members don't yet think he is Prime Ministerial material. That is most likely to change after eight successful years of governing London (not four).
5. The backdrop of an unpopular Tory government in Westminster will make his task hard but I expect Boris Johnson to be increasingly independent-minded. Watch him fight for Crossrail against a Tory Treasury. Watch him fight for a fairer share of the taxes paid by Londoners to stay in London (not Scotland). Watch him tack to the left with a defence of "a living wage" and to the right with a defence of the City. He'll style himself as as independent of a Tory government as Ken Livingstone styled himself as independent of Tony Blair. He certainly has the charisma to do it.
6. Boris' re-election task will be made easier if there is a bloody Labour primary battle between Mandelson and Livingstone.

Jo Johnson's recent selection showed the potency of the Johnson brand. Boris can walk into any safe seat in the country but he might as well wait until 2016 to do that.

Tim Montgomerie

Chris Grayling will strengthen legal rights of householders to defend their property and families from intruders

The case of Munir Hussain has shocked the nation this last week and brought fresh attention to the fears of law-abiding householders that the law appears to be on the intruders' side when they confront those intruders. Mr Hussain was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, after he beat one of the intruders with a cricket bat after he had broken into his home and threatened his family.

Melanchton on CentreRight last night argued that the householder had a right to do much more than chase an intruder away:

"Conviction rates for burglary are poor.  The chances that the burglar would remain at liberty to terrorise Mr Hussein and his family in revenge for his fight-back must have been high.  The chase and capture must thus be regarded as an integral part of the act of violent self-defence."

That issue of low conviction rates is the key thing. The public has lost confidence in the system and its ability/ willingness to apprehend and punish criminals. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, will launch Where's the Justice in That? tomorrow; a Tory document that catalogues the huge jump in the number of cautions for serious offences. This capitulation is driving people like Mr Hussain to take the law into their own hands.   

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Grayling promises to give homeowners more protections under the law:

"There are two pieces of legislation that need to be looked at again. At the moment the law allows a defendant to use "reasonable force" to protect him or herself, their family or their property. Conservatives argue that the defence that the law offers a householder should be much clearer, and that prosecutions and convictions should only happen in cases where courts judge the actions involved to be "grossly disproportionate". A future Conservative government will look again at the current legal situation and will look to provide the right level of protection for householders. We will also put a stop to the situation where malicious complaints by troublemakers can put a law-abiding citizen into a police cell. We will change the police rule book so that they aren't allowed to arrest someone acting in good faith to prevent a crime or apprehend a criminal suspect and we will make sure that police have the freedom to apply common sense when they are faced with absurd allegations."

While I welcome Mr Grayling's words I worry about the reported decision to soften the party's prison building pledge. The Tory commitment to carry on increasing NHS spending will require even heavier cuts in justice and defence budgets. That is the wrong priority for a Conservative government.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories heading for landslide victory according to updated ConHome Poll of Polls

Less than a month ago Ipsos MORI had the Tory lead down to 6%.

The ConHome Poll of Polls is now suggesting a Tory majority of over 80.

Most commentators expect a much closer election, however. On Radio 4's Week in Westminster Jackey Ashley, Benedict Brogan, Peter Oborne, Peter Riddell and Steve Richards all predicted a Tory majority of no more than thirty.

Tim Montgomerie

Tories say climate talks must continue "until a real deal is agreed"

Greg Clark MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has issued this statement in response to the outcome of the Copenhagen talks:

"Although some progress has been made, it is clear that the Copenhagen accord has fallen short of what we hoped it could achieve. The accord is not legally binding, is vague about where the funding for adaptation will come from, and is unclear about when emissions should be cut and by how much.

Copenhagen must now be seen as the beginning, not the end, of further progess.  Talks must continue during the months ahead until a real deal is agreed.  It is particularly important to agree how the concrete actions to confront the here-and-now of climate change - like helping poor countries adapt to the changing climate and halting the destruction of the rainforests - will be funded.

I made it clear in Copenhagen that, if negotiations continue beyond the General Election and Conservatives were in Government, there would be no let up in our determination to secure a rigorous global deal.  We would also be a beacon to other countries by kickstarting practical action at home to cut energy consumption and become a low carbon economy."

Tim Montgomerie

Tories 12% ahead in YouGov poll

The Tory lead was 9% last Sunday according to YouGov.  An Angus-Reid poll yesterday had the Tories 16% ahead.

The People's Nigel Nelson tweets that the poll for his paper has the Tories on 40%, Labour on 28% and the LibDems on just 18%.

Tim Montgomerie

Tory manifesto may be launched on 4th January as Cameron switches to positive message in 2010

'Sunny Cameron' is set to return in 2010 according to The Daily Mail.

The switch of emphasis comes as the Tory opinion poll lead has narrowed. Some Tory strategists are blaming the austerity message, ignoring the very clear evidence that it was the Europe policy announcement that began the softening in Tory support.  Harriet Harman's depiction of Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne as the Brothers Grimm has unsettled the Conservatives.

"The next stage," Mr Cameron tells The Mail's Tim Shipman, "is to explain some of the opportunities we have. There is a bright future. There is light at the end of the tunnel."

From the new year the Tories plan an energetic campaign:

• David Cameron will make three trips every week to marginal constituencies, reports Tim Shipman.
• The Times says a draft manifesto will be launched on 4th January as part of a "policy-a-day blitz throughout January". "Andy Coulson, the party’s director of communications," reports The Times, "has asked Shadow Cabinet ministers to “find new angles” on existing policies to generate media coverage, according to insiders."
• A number of appointments are to be made at CCHQ to strengthen the team. One is, as we reported last night, the welcome return of George Bridges.

"Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person?"

This was one of a stream of questions asked of Trevor Phillips by Tory MP Philip Davies.

Mr Davies, a backbencher who is often critical of the Tory leadership, has sent 19 letters since April 2008 to Mr Phillips, Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The Guardian reports some of Mr Davies' questions and the Commission's answers.

Q. "Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person?"

A. "There are many writings produced by scholars about blacking up, arguing that minstrel shows lampoon black people in derogatory ways, and many people clearly find blacking up to portray minstrels or black people offensive."

Q. Whether the Metropolitan Black Police Association breaches discrimination law by restricting its membership to black people. He compared this to the BNP's whites-only policy, which the far-right party has now agreed to change.

A.  "The BNP only permits white people to become members of the party and … this is unlawful under the Race Relations Act 1976 … The Metropolitan Black Police Association … is not a political party and therefore is not directly comparable with the BNP. We are, however, interested in any organisation which appears to act in breach of the equality enactments and thank you for drawing this matter to our attention."

Q. Whether it was lawful for an advert for a job working with victims of domestic violence to specify that applicants had to be female and/or black or ethnic minority.

A. "It is not clear that this advertisement is unlawful because there appears to be a reasonable argument that the requirement to be female and/or from the BME [black and minority ethnic] community was a genuine occupational requirement for the roles in question."

Mr Davis defended his letter-writing as a campaign against political correctness:

"Anybody who follows my career in parliament knows I'm concerned with the issue of political correctness. I'm merely pursuing a subject I raise more regularly than anyone else in parliament. It's one of my bugbears. Lots of people are castigated for being racist when that's not their intention."

He told The Guardian that he believed in equality but opposed "positive discrimination". "That builds up a resentment that doesn't exist before."

Tim Montgomerie

CCHQ strengthens team in run up to General Election with return of George Bridges

He resigned two-and-a-half years ago but it will be confirmed in the next 24 hours that George Bridges is returning to CCHQ to help with the General Election campaign. I understand he'll be reporting directly to George Osborne in the latter's capacity as General Election Co-ordinator.

I warmly welcome this appointment. George is a great operator and I included him on my recent list of twenty people who would make excellent MPs.

George has served three Tory leaders; John Major, Michael Howard and David Cameron. He knows how to run campaigns and learnt a great deal when he worked closely with Lynton Crosby in 2005.

I suspect that George will also be an important voice within the Cameron operation arguing for more robust positions on immigration, the trade unions and the economy. His writing for The Telegraph and Spectator since he left CCHQ has often been uncompromising. This on the National Union of Teachers was typical:

"The NUT cannot turn off the nation's lights, but it can certainly dim children's prospects. And just as Margaret Thatcher's defeat of the NUM decided our economy's future, David Cameron's battle against the NUT will decide the future of our children. It will not be a battle for the fainthearted, but for those who feel in their bones that they are doing the right thing. There will be naysayers, even on the Tory front bench, warning: "Remember, teachers are voters, too." Well, there are more parents than teachers."

Tim Montgomerie

PS I'll need to update my Wallchart of the Cameron operation!

Tories 16% ahead in new Angus-Reid/ PoliticalBetting survey

The numbers in the Angus-Reid poll for PoliticalBetting.com are the Conservatives unchanged at 40%; Labour up 1% on 24% and the Liberal Democrats up 1% on 20%.

Cameron rejects early referendum on Scottish independence

Earlier this week David McLetchie MSP was put in charge of the Conservative Party's campaign to elect eleven Scottish MPs. In reality four or five victories would delight the Tory leadership but publicly the party is hoping for more.

David Cameron is on a visit to Scotland and in various interviews has been setting out his stall to voters north of the border.

He has rejected Lord Forsyth's suggestion that a new Conservative government 'shoots the Nationalist fox' by pre-empting Alex Salmond and holding a referendum on independence soon rather than at a time of the First Minister's choosing. Mr Cameron's opposition to a speedy referendum is recorded in The Scotsman:

 "I am 100 per cent behind preserving the United Kingdom. I will not put it at risk by having a referendum we do not need. If the Scottish Parliament decides it wants a referendum, the UK can't stand in its way, but to preempt it by having a referendum without it coming from the Scottish Parliament would be tricksy and wrong."

Mr Cameron also promises more powers for the Scottish Parliament and will set out what those powers should be before the 2011 Holyrood elections. The Scottish Conservatives now insist that, in line with the Calman report, they are now so committed to devolution that they want to deepen it.

The Times notes that Mr Cameron defended the Thatcher legacy: “There was a folk memory of the Thatcher legacy — people who are 30 now think Thatcher was bad for Scotland but they actually weren’t around at the time. People will see we have changed. This is a different Conservative party and a different leader.”

Mr Cameron has also given limited backing to the Shadow Scottish Secretary David Mundell who is seen to have been undermined by David McLetchie's promotion. Mr Mundell had a "strong and important future," he told PA. The Conservative leader, however, "did not give an assurance that the Shadow Scottish Secretary will be made Secretary of State if the Tories win the General Election next year."

The expectation is that the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might be wrapped into one Constitutional Cabinet role as part of a Tory government's efforts to cut costs and the size of the ministerial pay roll. There is support for such a rationalisation in Wales. The current Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy is regarded as little more than a spokesman for the Labour cause north of the border.... and all at our expense.

Tim Montgomerie