Two in five Tory members back the Communications Data Bill - and a third oppose it

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

It would be an exaggeration to write that every Conservative born into the world alive is either a Little Authoritarian or a Little Libertarian.  But how much of one?  The result of our last monthly survey question about the Communications Data Bill (a.k.a the Snooper's Charter) may point towards an answer.

• 43 per cent of respondents agreed that "the Tory leadership should do all it can to enact the Communications Data Bill, even against the wishes of the Liberal Democrats".

• 34 per cent took the view that "the Communications Data Bill is an invasion of privacy and should not be made law."

• And 22 per cent believed that the Conservative leadership "should compromise with the Liberal Democrats to produce a version of the Bill that both sides can broadly agree with".

That last fifth of Tory respondents is quite a big slice of the whole, and is a reminder that all Conservatives don't come down on one side of the fence or the other.  Since compromise with our Coalition partner isn't always a popular option with party members, the figure indicates that a significant percentage of them find it hard to make their minds up about the bill.

However, the remaining three-quarters or so seem to have made their minds up.  And I think the results point towards a general truth - namely, that regardless of whether one agrees with them or not, libertarians make a lot of noise in proportion to their number.

Perhaps the Woolwich horror has had an impact on the figures.  However, the proportions certainly wouldn't justify any claim that Conservative members are lined up to support the bill: compromise is perhaps where the Home Office is heading in any event.  Over 700 Tory members responded to the survey - as did over 1400 readers in total.

Get ready to register yourself as a lobbyist. Or risk a fine. Or prison. Or maybe both.

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

In an attempt to learn from what James Surowiecki calls "The Wisdom of Crowds", I asked yesterday on Twitter what difference a statutory register of lobbyists would have made to the Patrick Mercer case.  The best answer I got was, first, that Mercer would have checked the register and, second, would have found the Panorama/Daily Telegraph operation wasn't on it - after which he presumably would not have been drawn into the sting.  So the main difference a register would have made, according to my interlocutors, was to protect MPs against investigative journalists - not necessarily a very happy outcome.

However, it is possible that it wouldn't have made any difference at all, and certain that it would not do so in the case of an MP determined to breach the rules and the law.  An MP who is prepared to defy both today in a quest for money is unlikely to be deterred by both tomorrow in the form of a statutory register.  (Mercer was in breach of rules on paid advocacy, and faces a possible police investigation under the Bribery Act.)  Furthermore, the wits of the regulators are unlikely to be more sharp than those of investigative journalists.  As Mark Wallace pointed out, the latter could set up a front company in say, Switzerland - and get on the register that way.

Continue reading "Get ready to register yourself as a lobbyist. Or risk a fine. Or prison. Or maybe both." »

Philip Hammond's spending review rebellion may be more loyal than it looks

By Mark Wallace
Follow Mark on Twitter. 

When Freeborn John Lilburne, the Leveller, appeared before the Star Chamber in 1637, he refused to do as they asked. He would not take the oath or answer questions, and as a result he was fined £500, whipped, humiliated in a pillory and thrown in jail.

Given that history, it is not hard to see why George Osborne has chosen to refound the Star Chamber to deal with those in the Cabinet who are refusing to sign up to the cuts needed for his spending review. A number of ministers must be hoping the pillory, at least, has been decommissioned since Lilburne's day.

The psychology is simple. Instead of being pelted by the London mob, any modern day John Lilburnes who won't play along are set to face humiliation in front of their peers. Eric Pickles, Danny Alexander and Oliver Letwin will be sat alongside the Chancellor flinging the metaphorical rotten turnips.

But the politics is rather more complex than it appears.

Continue reading "Philip Hammond's spending review rebellion may be more loyal than it looks" »

Cameron's been likened to Major. More votes like this one, and the comparison will be with Lord North.

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

Parliament means Party, and Party means Whips. In other words, MPs must always form themselves into political parties, which in turn will require whipping, if the executive is to work in our system of Parliamentary government.  It follows that Prime Ministers have both a selfless and a selfish reason for taking special care of their whips.  If they don't, coherent government becomes impossible (the selfless reason) and their own position becomes endangered (the selfish one).  And since it has never been harder to be a Whip - given the transformation of MPs into constituency champions, and their consequent rebelliousness - David Cameron must zealously care for their condition and morale.

The Prime Minister's EU referendum bill gambit was rushed out to quell the threat of a large number of Conservative MPs voting for John Baron's amendment to the Queen's Speech.  Over 100 did - so the manoevre failed. That's roughly half of all Tory backbenchers.  Blame must therefore lie either with the Whips, for failing to minimise the rebellion, or with Cameron himself, for failing to tell them to do so.  The guidance consistent with both minimising the rebellion and good party management would have been to offer one of those free votes that aren't really free votes at all.  Both Ministers and backbenchers would have been encouraged by the Whips to abstain, to drive down the number of Tory MPs supporting the Baron amendment.

Continue reading "Cameron's been likened to Major. More votes like this one, and the comparison will be with Lord North." »

A failure of leadership that leaves Cameron as a latter-day John Major

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

David Cameron has promised an In-Out referendum on the EU in the next Parliament.  Why, then, do some of his backbenchers want a mandate referendum now, and still more of them want to write the In-Out referendum into law?  There is no simple answer, but a number of different factors have come together.  One is the passion that the EU has excited within the Conservative Party since Bruges.  Another is fear of UKIP.  Still another is the belief, common among Tory MPs, that Cameron is very unlikely to lead a majority Conservative Government after 2015.  But, above all perhaps, there is, at worst, a distrust of the Prime Minister over Europe and, at best, the conviction among Tory MPs that on the issue he will follow rather than lead.

Cameron's gambit yesterday evening was crafted to ward off accusations of followership after a day in which party debate over the Baron/Bone amendment to the Queen's Speech, and over the EU itself, threatened to run out of control.  The device of a Private Member's Bill is the best he can do to regain the initiative - since Nick Clegg will not concede a Government Bill, even on a free vote, and there is nothing the Prime Minister can do to master him, short of breaking up the Coalition altogether.  Such a Bill is unlikely to deliver the goods, since such measures are vulnerable to being talked out. Ed Miliband's main aim will be to obscure his party's own differences on the EU, and to out-manoevre Cameron when MPs vote in the Commons - in alliance, probably, with the Liberal Democrats.

Continue reading "A failure of leadership that leaves Cameron as a latter-day John Major" »

Clegg's treatment of Elizabeth Truss's childcare plans throws a harsh light on the Coalition's future

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

Roy Jenkins used to argue that the Conservatives dominated British politics during the last century - and mustn't be allowed to do so in this one.  He went on to maintain that the two parties of the left - the Liberal Democrats and Labour, as he saw it - should work together to keep the Tories out of office.  When the voters returned a hung Parliament in 2010, David Cameron could have opted for a minority government.  Instead, he chose coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  I suspected at the time that part of his aim was to do a Jenkins in reverse: to ensure that his party and Nick Clegg's worked together to keep Labour out of office, and in doing so begin to rebuild his own party's Parliamentary dominance.

Working together, though, means coherence.  And a problem even since the Cameron-Clegg rose garden love-in, brutally accentuated by the referendum defeat of AV, is that the blue and yellow teams are not natural partners.  On economic matters, they have come closer together since the rise of the Orange Bookers.  But on social and constitutional ones - the gut issues that move hearts as well as minds - their instincts and dispositions are different.  When it comes to welfare, crime, immigration, Europe, the Lords, and the voting system, the two parties march to the beat of different drums.  On these issues and most others, the most natural partner for Nick Clegg's party is Labour.

Continue reading "Clegg's treatment of Elizabeth Truss's childcare plans throws a harsh light on the Coalition's future" »

Under one in seven party members want the Coalition to continue into 2015

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

And almost a third want it to end as soon as possible - some 30%, according to the latest ConservativeHome survey.

17.5% want it to end in 2014.  I'm interested to see that 37% want it to "stop shortly before the 2015 general election so the parties can set out their different plans".

That's my own view - although I think that David Cameron can prepare the way by loosening the Coalition from October 2014 onwards.

Just under 1850 people responded to the survey, of whom over 800 were Conservative Party members. The figures above are taken from the latter's views.

Almost half of Tory members believe Cameron will be Prime Minister after the next election

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

According to the latest ConservativeHome survey -

• 24% of believe that there will be a minority Conservative Government.

• 15% believe that there will be a Conservative majority.

• And 7% believe that there will be a second Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Add those figures up, and they suggest that Party members are more confident that David Cameron will return to Downing Street after 2015 than might have been imagined.

It's interesting to set them beside one of our survey's other main findings - that a third of Tory members want an electoral pact with UKIP for the 2015 general election.

• Conservative members are divided on whether the Coalition is good for the country. 47% say it is.  47% say it isn't.

• But they aren't divided at all over whether it's good for the Party.  They tend to think it isn't - by 71% to 23%.

Just under 1850 people responded to the survey, of whom over 800 were Conservative Party members. The figures above are taken from the latter's views.

Redwood wants an EU poll bill. So does Baron. Both raise the question: how long should the Coalition last?

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

John Redwood writes on this site today to advocate a mandate referendum on the EU in this Parliament - a move that would require an Act to make it happen.  John Baron continues to lead the campaign for a separate Act in this Parliament, which would write the In/Out referendum to which David Cameron is committed into legislation.  I will write about the arguments for and against both ideas in due course, but will for today limit myself to the implications which they have for the maintenance of the Coalition.

It might be that the Commons would vote for one of the two measures, or even both, because enough Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs would support them: it is arguable that Ed Miliband would not oppose the Baron initiative, in particular.  But let's presume that Nick Clegg lines up against both bills (a reasonable presumption).  In such circumstances, could Cameron whip Conservative MPs to go into one lobby if Liberal Democrat MPs were going into the other?

The question of whether the Prime Minister supports Redwood's or Baron's proposal (or both) thus turns out also to be a question about the future of the Coalition.  Readers must decide for themselves whether it could work effectively were the two Parliamentary parties directed into different lobbies by their respective whips - and whether the Coalition is worth preserving.  It's worth noting that the Coalition Agreement doesn't insist that the two parties vote together in all circumstances - for example, over tax breaks for marriage - and that the Liberal Democrats helped to enshrine it when they failed to support Jeremy Hunt.

My own answer is that the Coalition is worth preserving, and that while EU referendum bills might not bring it down, they would certainly strain it severely.  This raises a further question: if the Coalition is worth preserving, how long should it last for? Again, readers must give decide for themselves, but my answer is that since it will effectively be inoperable for its final six months - or as good as - Cameron could loosen the whipping arrangements during that period.

It would probably be too late for a mandate referendum by then (mind you, I suppose one could be held on general election day itself), though there would certainly be time to enshrine the In/Out referendum in law.  I would certainly like to see a series of initiatives from the backbenches, which Tory Ministers would support from the dispatch box - and, more often than not, in the lobbies.  In that last six months, backbenchers could propose a tougher immigration cap, a tighter benefits cap, a British Bill of Rights, English votes for English laws - and so on.  The alternative for David Cameron, at that stage, will be Parliamentary paralysis.

David Cameron faces more opposition to pensioner perks. For once, let’s hope he gives in

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

We don’t normally start ToryDiary posts by highlighting the words of a Labour frontbencher. That stuff’s generally reserved for LeftWatch. But there was a fairly striking moment in Harriet Harman’s Today Programme interview earlier – and it probably caught the ears of No.10, too.

It was her admission that Labour will review their policy on pensioner benefits ahead of the next election. Ed Miliband, you’ll remember, said last week that the current set-up, by which wealthy pensioners receive benefits such as Winter Fuel Allowance and free TV licences, “needs to be looked at” – before his party’s spokespeople swarmed out to reassure folk that no decisions had yet been made, that their leader didn’t like the idea of means-testing, etc, etc. But, listening to Mrs Harman, it seems as though something really is afoot. “You always have to look at everything,” is how she put it, “to make sure the provision is right for the income distribution at the time.”  

As the Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan suggests, there could be a strong dose of politics in Mrs Harman’s remarks. She’ll know that the Lib Dems are opposed to these universal benefits, and that – as Nick Clegg implied yesterday – it’s likely to be one of the sorest points of intra-Coalition discussion ahead of this summer’s Spending Review. Perhaps Labour are hoping to line up with the Lib Dems against the Tories, in this case.

Continue reading "David Cameron faces more opposition to pensioner perks. For once, let’s hope he gives in" »