ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Tories' spending pledge will not be repeated

ConservativeHome has learnt that the Tory Party is almost certain not to renew its pledge to match Labour's spending plans.

Last September George Osborne pledged to match Labour's spending plans for the three years until 2010/11.  The party almost certainly will not repeat the pledge.  At most there'll be a pledge to match spending for one extra year if the election is called in 2010.  ConservativeHome has campaigned against the renewal of the pledge and the overwhelming majority of Tory members oppose it.

The decision has been taken for a number of reasons:

• The deterioration of the economy and the public finances;
• A need to create room for economy-boosting tax relief (David Cameron hints at the changed attitude to tax in The Sunday Telegraph);
• A deep change in the public mood which now does not believe in the value of extra public spending.

One aide to the Tory leader told ConservativeHome: "An incoming Conservative Government will inherit a desperately weak economy.  Most voters realise that the economic situation is dire and will respect the first political party that levels with them. Restraint in public spending is the most important manifestation of the needed honesty."

One shadow cabinet minister gave a similar message: "Last year's pledge was made in very different political times. We were on the back foot and George's decision to match Labour on spending was to avoid an election dominated by 'Tory cuts' attacks. Everything is now different. When so many families now making cuts to make ends meet the public spending pledge looks extravagant."

Osborne: More important than my inheritance tax announcement was my opposition to the Right's call for general tax cuts

The FT's coverage of Conservative politics is now amongst the best in what was once known as Fleet Street.  Again and again Jean Eaglesham, in particular, produces interesting insights into the direction of Project Cameron.

Today's FT magazine is a case in point.  Within a profile of Shadow Chancellor George Osborne we learn that he believes his 2006 Party Conference speech in which he denied calls for tax cuts was strategically more important than his 2007 announcement of the abolition of inheritance tax for all but millionaires:

"Ask Osborne to identify the turning point for the Tories and he will pick... the party conference in 2006, the first under David Cameron’s leadership. There was a row brewing over whether the Conservatives should commit themselves to tax cuts, he recalls. Osborne says he decided that he needed to resist rightwing pressure to do so – marshalling his arguments up to the last minute. “I remember changing the speech during the conference,” he says.  The refusal of the Tory modernisers to offer activist-pleasing policies for fear of moving the party off the election-winning centre-ground echoes Tony Blair’s scrapping of clause 4, the article in the Labour party constitution that committed it to the principle of nationalisation. Osborne argues that the decision to adopt a Blair-style economic policy, eschewing unfunded tax cuts, has been proved prescient. “Of all the judgments I’ve had to make, and David Cameron’s had to make on economic policy, that was the most important and has been entirely vindicated by economic events since,” he says."

The profile goes on to note the very close working relationship between David Cameron and Mr Osborne, his membership of the infamous Bullingdon Club, his attempts to keep his weekends free of politics and his social and economic liberalism.  Read the feature here.

Tories 19% ahead in new ComRes survey

More in The Independent.

ConHome admin

Tim Montgomerie writes:

Contractural obligations mean that Jonathan Isaby probably won't be joining ConHome until after the Tory Party Conference but his contributions will be well worth waiting for. I am really looking forward to working with him.

In the meantime I hope that ConHome will continue to offer the most comprehensive and independently-minded coverage of Tory politics. August is usually something of a slow month but I was delighted that the website won 200,000 more hits in August 2008 than August 2007 (660,905 hits compared to 462,302). CentreRight.com - the project that Sam and I launched in January - is now the second most popular page of ConservativeHome.  Earlier this month it overtook the ToryDiary and has stayed ahead.  Only the gateway page to the rest of the site - the frontpage - receives more visitors.

The two big casualties of the extended interregnum between Samuel Coates' departure and Jonathan's arrival are two new projects; the Wiki pages and conservativeinternational.com. But they'll take off once Jonathan is on board.  I'm optimistic that they'll both succeed.

Peter Franklin will soon be writing an extra Friday feature and sometime next week I'll be telling you more about this.  I'll also be able to introduce our new local government editor. Watch this space!

David Cameron's inappropriate soundbite

We covered the speech yesterday but the FT is one of a number of newspapers to major in on David Cameron's attempt to distance himself from "neoconservatism":

“We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” he said in Islamabad. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we should not try. Put crudely, that was what was wrong with the “neo-con” approach and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-Conservative.”

Mr Cameron is politically sensible to distance himself from the toxic term neoconservatism but he's wrong to misrepresent what coalition forces are doing in Iraq.  The "drop democracy from 10,000 feet" soundbite isn't just silly, it borders on the offensive.

Bill Clinton tried to solve the Iraqi problem from 10,000 feet.  During his presidency America bombed Iraq but stopped short of any serious engagement.  At enormous cost America, in particular, but other nations, notably Britain, have committed ground troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of giving those two troubled nations the possibility of the same freedoms that we enjoy.  Mr Cameron is 100% correct to say that democracy is much more than elections but it is misleading to suggest that Iraq's democracy is being imposed from 10,000 feet or at the barrel of a gun.  For example, enormous efforts have been made to craft constitutions that respect the rights of women and religious diversity in both countries.  Troops are now embedded in Iraqi communities, intimately involved in community protection, and providing the space that is necessary for political and institutional progress.

In an ideal world we would have time to allow the institutions that support democracy to evolve - as Mr Cameron recommends - but we don't live in an ideal world.  The free world had to intervene in Afghanistan because the nation's Taliban regime was supporting al-Qaeda, not least the 9/11 attacks.  Without that intervention we cannot know how recent history might have been different but who thought, at the time, that 9/11 was an isolated event rather than the beginning of a campaign of terror?

More controversially, we also had to intervene in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an unrepentant threat to the peace of the region and wider world.  The Iraq campaign was very badly handled.  We all know that but David Cameron would be better advised to criticise the Rumsfeld doctrine - and its belief in a limited deployment - or Iran for its destabilising role.  Talk of dropping democracy from 10,000 feet makes for good headlines but it doesn't help us understand what went wrong - nor what has begun to go right in Iraq.

Cameron outlines a 'liberal conservative foreign policy'

Speaking in Islamabad, David Cameron will today outline five steps for dealing with modern foreign policy threats. In his speech, he also discusses Pakistan and Russia at length, calling on Pakistan to bear down on extremists, and on Europe to work out an agreed approach to Russian aggression.

A liberal conservative foreign policy: “My starting point is the philosophy that I believe in, the philosophy that I would apply to international affairs if elected. I am a liberal Conservative. Liberal – because I believe in freedom, human rights and democracy, and I want to see more of these things in our world. But Conservative, because I believe strongly in the continued relevance of the nation state and because I am sceptical of grand utopian schemes to re-make the world according to a politician’s timetable. My instinct is to work patiently with the grain of human nature; with the flow of culture, tradition and history."

Modern challenges: "Robert Kagan and others argue that the rise of China, and the resurgence of Russia, call into question the assumption that the growth of economic liberty would eventually lead to a global embrace of liberal political values. The rise of these autocracies, some believe, offers an alternative political model rising living standards in a framework of order, unencumbered by the chaotic inefficiencies of Western democracy.

“At the same time, the Western democracies have faced problems of their own. The experience of trying to build democracies in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and the way in which Western democracies have conducted some aspects of the fight against terrorism have undermined our standing in the world.

“So faced with these challenges, what is the liberal Conservative response? I believe there should be five essential steps to our response.

“First, we must hold fast to our values. Second, the democracies must stick together. Third, we need to understand the full nature of the threats that face us. Fourth, we must display stamina and patience. And finally we must always strive to act with moral authority.

Holding fast to our values: "Holding fast to the basic idea - not losing confidence in freedom, human rights and democracy. That is the liberal part of liberal Conservatism, and we should welcome the opportunity to make the case for the open and plural society once again. But we should also remember the Conservative part. We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun; that we cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet – and we shouldn’t try.

“Put crudely, that was what was wrong with the ‘neo-con’ approach, and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo – Conservative."

Democracies must stick together: "They are stronger when they stand together... As a country that has recently reasserted its democracy, you understand that very well. The importance of standing together is one reason why I felt so strongly about what has happened many miles away from here in the Caucasus and why I felt it was important to go to Tbilisi and underline my support for Georgia at this decisive moment in its history."

Understanding the threats we face: "Today none is greater than that posed by terrorism. We can see that clearly in both Britain and Pakistan.

“Pakistan has suffered terribly at the hands of terrorism. 56 suicide bombs in 2007, over 640 dead and injured. It is an appalling – and rising – toll of misery. In Britain, we have had our own attacks, and many more attempted attacks which have been thwarted – some thanks to co-operation with Pakistan, for which we are grateful.

“Let’s be clear that the threat we face – principally from Al Qaeda and its affiliates - remains a formidable danger to your society and to mine.

"... The longer the Taliban can operate with relative freedom in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, the more they will threaten not just the future of Afghanistan but the future – some would say the survival – of Pakistan itself.

“Forgive my candour. But it is the candour of a friend. The truth is that we will only tackle this scourge successfully if we work together.

Pakistan should be a top foreign policy priority for David Cameron

After his visit to Afghanistan (where CentreRight contributor and TA soldier Lee Rotherham is serving) David Cameron arrives in Pakistan today for talks with political leaders.

It is very timely that the Conservative leader is making this visit.  He visits a very troubled nation.  Richard Holbrooke and the New York Times have argued that Pakistan was George W Bush's biggest foreign policy failure:

"It is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world." Nothing -- not even Iraq -- represents a greater policy failure for the outgoing administration."

It's hard to disagree with that judgment and to be optimistic about the near future.

Benazir Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, is expected to become the nation's president on Saturday, succeeding Pervez Musharraf.  Bret Stephens introduced Mr Zardadi to Wall Street Journal readers yesterday:

• Known as "Mr 10%" he was found guilty in 2003 of laundering $10m.
• He owns a 3555 acre estate near London although he has never earned any large amounts of money (legally).
• In return for support from an extremist political party for his presidential bid he helped to engineer an end to the Pakistan military's bombing of Taliban positions.

Mr Stephens also quotes a June poll that found that 71% of Pakistanis oppose cooperating with the USA in counterterrorism.  51% oppose fighting the Taliban at all.  Britain - and its next PM - may have an important role in ensuring that Pakistan remains an ally in the war on terror.  In his maiden post for CentreRight, Suli Shah made the case for the UK leading international action plan that would see significant economic, military and intelligence assistance for Pakistan.  Suli's post is worth reading again.

Cameron pledges proper rest periods for the armed forces

Since British intervention in Afghanistan began, the Conservatives have criticised the poor pay and equipment for her Majesty's armed forces in strong terms as a breach of the nation's covenant with our troops.

As David Cameron looks closer to power than any Tory leader for over a decade, he has become increasingly clear in his pledge to put this right once in government, hinting at various measures that may entail higher defence spending. After meeting troops in Afghanistan, Cameron has today announced that the Conservatives will tackle the issue of lost leave - under which soldiers' rest periods are counted from the moment they leave the field, including all delays in flights home. He endorsed the recommendations of Simon Weston and Frederick Forsyth that the leave be counted only from the moment they arrive home.

"Today when our servicemen and women end their duties in the heat and dust of Afghanistan or Iraq, their leave starts not when they arrive home but often after several days delay in trying to get home.  Under our plans, the leave clock would not start ticking until they arrive back on British soil.  This is a common sense idea that will make a big difference to the lives of our brave troops and their families.

"I think this is fair for our troops. They should be able to predict how long their leave is going to be rather than having to spend it on an aeroplane and on air bases a long way from home."

Liam Fox has warned regularly in his capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary of how under-funded the armed forces have been, noting in March that the army, air force and navy are now sufficiently small that every single serviceman will be able to fit into the new Wembley Stadium.

Cameron has explained to Dylan Jones how as Prime Minister he would handle the issue of military overstretch, so that the resources available to our armed forces genuinely reflect our nation's commitments:

“There is a very strong case for a bigger army, and this will sound like a fudge but it isn’t meant to be: what we need is a defence review based on our national security, not on Treasury guidelines, and that will tell us either that we need to reduce the commitments that we have or we need to increase spending.”

Do the Tories have a Sarah Palin?

One shadow cabinet minister has described Sarah Palin as "the hottest governor from the coldest state"!

Time will tell if McCain's electrifying pick will stand the test of time but it has already produced a massive boost to Republican fundraising and neutralised Barack Obama's post-Denver bounce.

Is there a Sarah Palin within the Tory Party?  Not necessarily a woman but a up-and-coming and under-used talent who has the potential to connect with new voters.  Suggestions in the thread below please...

Labour's economic support measures enjoy support but voters don't expect them to be significant

In the overall headline numbers in The Times' poll there is no change with the Conservatives maintaining a 16% advantage.  One of the most interesting findings is that "barely a half (51%) of those who voted Labour in 2005 say they would do so in a general election now".  That figure contrasts with 83% for the Conservatives.

Populus also asked about some of the measures touted by Labour to boost the flagging UK economy:

• 58% support a windfall tax on energy companies but just 22% think it will make a significant difference to their economic situation.
• 68% back help for lower income families to pay higher fuel bills but only a quarter of voters think such help will be significant.
• 70% back a temporary suspension of stamp duty on house purchases but just 30% think it'll make a big difference.
• 83% back public spending measures that would increase the affordability of house purchase.  33% believe such measures would be significant in their effect.

August's ten biggest political stories

There was a time when August was a quiet political month.  No longer.  If today is your first day back at the computer here's the ten most important (mainly Tory) stories you missed from the last few weeks...

The Tories maintain their large opinion poll lead. The month began with a Conservative lead of 19.0% in the ConHome poll of polls.  It ended with a lead of 18.6%.

Boris Johnson enjoyed lots of attention.  He endorsed Barack Obama, celebrated 100 days as Mayor, lost another Deputy Mayor, received the Olympic flag from Beijing, claimed the Brits had invented ping-pong, unveiled a climate change strategy for London and fanned speculation that he wanted to be PM.  A new narrative is clearly underway: Boris V Cameron is going to be the media's device to undermine DC.

Michael Gove attacked the hedonism of lads' magazines like Zoo and Nuts.  This socially-responsible Conservatism was followed up by Iain Duncan Smith and Ed Vaizey who suggested that Batman, The Dark Knight should have carried a stricter cinema classification and Andrew Lansley launching an inquiry into obesity.  A ConservativeHome survey found that Tory members were much less laissez-faire on these 'nudging' initiatives than those who leave comments on blogs.

David Cameron took a tough line against Russia over Georgia. A telephone call with John McCain helped produce a very assertive Conservative position - overturning an even-handed immediate reaction from a very cautious William Hague.  Mr Cameron's active stance contrasted hugely with the absence from the world stage of the feuding Brown and Miliband.

David Cameron's tour of northern marginals was overshadowed by a Policy Exchange report that the media reported as a call to 'abandon the north'.  The report was unfairly reported but it highlighted the dangerous strategy that had seen PX get too close to Team Cameron.

John Major won a lot of credit for funding the revival of British athletics.  ConHome was first to recognise that Britain's last Tory PM was due a measure of rehabilitation.

Lord (Sandy) Bruce-Lockhart died.  One of the gentlemen on Conservative politics - a leader in local government and of compassionate conservatism - lost his battle with cancer.  Tributes poured in and in.

Caroline Spelman lost the confidence of Conservative Party members.  A ConservativeHome survey found more members dissatisfied with the Tory Chairman than satisfied.  An unfair briefing campaign against Eric Pickles suggested that Team Cameron may be thinking of Chris Grayling as her likelier successor.

George Osborne claimed that the Conservatives are now the party of fairness. Mr Osborne is formally the Shadow Chancellor but he most enjoys his role as the strategic brain behind Project Cameron.  His 'fairness' speech sought to knock Labour off its most sacred turf.

The biggest story came at the very end of the month when Alistair Darling spoke of the worst economic crisis for sixty years.  Yes, sixty years!  Watch him here.  Charlie Elphicke decided that Darling must go for unforgivably talking the UK economy down.  Is Tory economic policy up to the increasing challenge of restoring the competitiveness of UK plc?  ConHome surveyed the good, the bad and the ugly of the frontbench's thinking.

Conservative members are not as libertarian as blog threads suggest

One of the questions in the latest survey of Tory members sought to establish support for some of the 'libertarian paternalism' or 'nudging' being promoted by David Cameron's frontbench team.  We asked members to say whether they welcomed or opposed a politician doing the following things.  The table below summarises the results.  A high positive percentage means that many more members approved of a politician engaging with the subject matter than disapproved:

Three conclusions:

1. Tory members are much more willing to accept interventionism when the welfare of children is at stake.  That's why 74% of members welcome a politician speaking about chainstores selling clothes that sexualise young girls (as David Cameron has done).  20% opposed this.
2. Another determining factor appears to be the scale of the problem.  56% supported George Osborne's suggestion that there should be a cooling off period before people can use new instore credit cards.  31% opposed.  The scale of Britain's personal debt problem appears to have persuaded a majority of Tory members to give up their laissez-faire instincts in this area.
3. The third conclusion is the most interesting.  The overwhelming majority of comments left on the post about Michael Gove's Nuts and Zoo remarks was hostile.  The survey finds that Tory members are actually evenly split.  39.7% welcomed Michael Gove's intervention and 40.6% opposed it.  This is another reminder that people who leave comments on blogs are not necessarily representative.