ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Forget tax cuts, says Fox

This morning's headline news concerns well-sourced speculation that Labour is likely to rewrite its fiscal rules.  The increasingly sick public finances are forcing Labour to consider much greater borrowing.  The Tory reaction to all of this is to don the hair shirts.  On Tuesday David Cameron warned that he might have to increase taxes.  The leading member of the Right within the shadow cabinet, Liam Fox, is giving Associations the same message.  This is what Dr Fox told Ealing and Acton Tories earlier this week:

"If your hanging your boots on thinking we can offer tax cuts if we win, then you can forget it... The fact is, the finances will be a lot worse than people think, just as it was in 1979, they're always worse than they [Labour] say; back then it was four years before anything could be done, and this, again, is the situation that we will need to deal with when we win."

Dr Fox confirmed those words to ConservativeHome yesterday.  He said that he knew of a number of "unpaid bills" in his own area of responsibility, defence, and that national security must come before tax cuts.  He gave a similar message to the FT last month.

But just when you thought that tax cuts weren't on the agenda, along comes Nick Clegg with his promise to cut the overall burden of taxation.  A leader in The Times questions the sketchiness of the LibDem leader's plans but welcomes his attempt to shift the political debate.  Telegraph commentators Iain Dale and Janet Daley both welcome Mr Clegg's intervention:

• Iain Dale in today's Telegraph: "He hasn't just pledged a reduction in taxes; he has promised a cut in public spending, too. Admittedly, it is only £20 billion, a mere three per cent of total government spending, but it's a start. And it's a damn sight more than any other politician has had the guts to do."
• Janet Daley yesterday on The Telegraph blog: "Mr Clegg has spoken the words which no Tory frontbencher will dare to utter: the poor are paying too much tax (far more in proportion to their income than the rich), and the Government is spending too much money."

We're not so ready to applaud Mr Clegg.  As we argued on Wednesday, Nick Clegg's social policies mean that he'll do little to reduce the long-term demands on the state.  He doesn't have credibility.  Conservatives MUST realise, however, that the public mood has shifted on tax.  Just as every household is tightening its belts the Conservatives must put an end to the public spending supertanker and say that we will not continue to match Labour's spending plans.  As soon as we break free from Labour's spending plans we force the much-needed war on waste and begin to create space to reduce borrowing and introduce some economy-boosting tax relief.  We set out our other four tax'n'spending recommendations last month.

The big idea is social reform

On his blog yesterday Nick Robinson wondered if this website would cheer a forthcoming promise by Nick Clegg to cut the overall burden of taxation.  It's true that we're supply-siders on tax.  We side with the TaxPayers' Alliance in our fear that it would be disastrous for UK plc if we raise taxes during a slowdown.  But there's one big reason why we can't take Mr Clegg seriously on the size of the state: Mr Clegg isn't serious about society.

Last week, in Glasgow, David Cameron gave his landmark 'right and wrong' speech.  Last evening, in a thoughtful, fascinating speech - to the Centre for Policy Studies - George Osborne linked social failure with the large (welfare) state and economic uncompetitiveness.  Overnight Mr Cameron congratulated Barack Obama on the US presidential candidate's tough message to black males: A man raises a child, he doesn't just create one.  Cameron and Osborne are combining two great insights:

• the economic potency of social factors, and
• an understanding that politicians can play a role in 'bully-pulpiting' and nudging change as well as legislating for change.

We'd like to suggest we got there a few years ago but Nick Clegg just doesn't get this stuff at all.  Reacting to David Cameron's Glasgow speech last week, Mr Clegg played juvenile politics, accusing Mr Cameron of having "contempt for the poor and the forgotten".  His party's indifference to the institution of marriage, opposition to education reforms and weakness on crime mean he has no route map to deliver the kind of society that can underpin a smaller state.

The conservative coalition has three main components: social, economic and 'national purpose' conservatives.  On social policy the next Conservative government promises to be profoundly interesting.  Economic policy is probably too cautious but is getting more promising.  It is in the area of 'national purpose' - our relationship with Europe, national security and wider foreign policy - where thinking has been most limited but the party has two years to develop this area.

Bad news for Liberal Democrats in latest ComRes survey

Not only have the Liberal Democrats fallen back in the latest ComRes survey for The Independent but Nick Clegg has a lower approval rating than Ming Campbell when he was ousted as the party leader six months ago.

ComRes finds that "The Tories are ahead among every age group and social class. Labour, which has seen its traditional working-class supporters desert it following the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax, trails the Tories by 38 per cent to 35 per cent among the lowest DE social group and by 43 per cent to 30 per cent among C2 skilled manual workers.  Mr Cameron's party is ahead of Labour in every region of Britain except Scotland and enjoys a 10-point lead in Labour's former stronghold in the north of England."

> Over at Seats and candidates, Bromley councillor Neil Reddin explains why the LibDems can't take much comfort from the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election in their battling to do well in Henley.

Clegg ready to back minority Tory government from day one

"In consultations with senior members of the party, he said he was prepared to take the necessary steps that would enable the Tories to form a minority administration.

Mr Clegg ruled out taking a Cabinet seat in a Conservative government in return for his support and instead would provide Mr Cameron with "supply and confidence" – meaning he would promise to back a Conservative Budget and would side with the Tories in any votes of confidence.

As a result, Mr Cameron would be free to accept the post of Prime Minister from the Queen on the day after the next general election, even if he failed to win an outright majority."

Read more in The Telegraph.

LibDems are to the left of Labour

The Economist has this week published an intriguing poll that points to large political differences between British and American citizens.  Britain, it says, is much more left-wing than America - particularly on questions of values, religion and military action.  The graph opposite summarises the differences and there is much more info on this page.

The survey needs to be heavily qualified.  Is atheism or support for abortion really left-wing?  Is military intervention overseas in order to oust a dictatorship really right-wing?

Putting those major questions aside for one moment the survey of British voters reveals that the average LibDem is more likely to take left-wing views than the average Labour supporter.  On national interest (the LibDems are most likely to support institutions that deny national independence), military intervention (LDs are likely to be most pacifist), religion (LDs most hostile), values (LDs most permissive), and climate change (LDs most enthusiastic about radical green action) we see the same pattern.  Only on general questions of ideology are LibDems narrowly to the right of Labour but are still much closer to Labour supporters than Conservatives.

A poll for The Sunday Times two weeks ago found that LibDems voters were least supportive of tough work requirements on those on benefit plus that 13% of LibDem voters wanted higher taxes and only 8% of Labour voters (although there were more LibDem voters also wanting tax relief, 58% over 43%).

This all represents something of a problem for Nick Clegg.  A recent polling presentation to the shadow cabinet showed that David Cameron's success in recruiting once LibDem voters into the Tory camp had left behind a much more left-leaning LibDem party.  Mr Clegg's instincts are those of an Orange Book reformer but can he free himself from his party's biases?

Clegg faces surrender on referendum or defining rebellion

At about 7pm tonight the LibDem leader will be holding a meeting with his parliamentary party.  Seventeen of his MPs - listed below - have challenged his line that there should be no referendum on the EU Treaty.

The equivalent would be a rebellion of fifty for David Cameron.

If Clegg insists on voting against a referendum he will risk a major rebellion tomorrow and his authority as leader may never recover.

His escape option might be to support an amendment by Ian Davidson that would give the British people two votes - one on the Lisbon Treaty and another undefined vote, in the gift on ministers.  That second vote could be Nick Clegg's in-out vote.

William Hague has issued a statement, piling pressure on Mr Clegg and those rebels (many of them in fear of Eurosceptic campaigns by their Tory opponents):

“Wednesday is decision time for the Lib Dems. They can honour their election promise of a referendum on this Treaty or they do Gordon Brown’s dirty work for him and break their word. They can be sure of this: voters will judge each MP on how he or she behaves today. Because what it the point of voting for an MP or party that makes promises at election time only later to do the exact opposite?”

Nick Clegg's first big test

Last week we noted the resistance of Frank Field and Kate Hoey to the bullying of Labour whips on the EU Treaty.

We have been a bit slow in covering this story but the Liberal Democrat leader is facing his first big test - over the same issue.

One LibDem frontbencher, David Heath MP, Justice spokesman, has made it clear that he will vote for a referendum on the EU Treaty.  This is in clear contravention of Mr Clegg's position.  Mr Clegg has said that "we would vote against a referendum on the treaty."  The Telegraph has reported that as many as fifteen other LibDem MPs are unhappy at their leader's position.

Yesterday William Hague intervened:

"At the last election the Liberal Democrats were as committed as every other party to a referendum on the EU Constitution. The EU Treaty before parliament is the Constitution under another name. It is time the Lib Dem leadership joined David Heath in refusing to break their election promises, otherwise it will be clear that the voters can never trust the Liberal Democrats on this issue."

So what does Nick Clegg do?  Discipline Mr Heath and risk others following him off the frontbench?  Or does he allow Mr Heath to keep his job?  If he chooses the latter option - as seems likely - his authority will be badly undermined and other LibDem MPs will be more willing to openly attack Mr Clegg's Orange book tendencies.  It's delicious to watch another party suffering European difficulties.

One month of Nick Clegg

At last week's two hour special meeting of the shadow cabinet Michael Ashcroft's polling team gave a presentation on the state of public opinion.  One of the conclusions was that the last two years had seen many Tory-inclined LibDem voters migrate to the blue corner.  They had left behind a smaller party that was much more left-wing than it had been for a decade or so.

It's too early to make big conclusions about Nick Clegg's short period as leader - he was elected one month ago - but here are a few quick thoughts:

Polling: His election did not produce an opinion poll bounce.  The LibDems are 0.2% higher in the latest ConservativeHome poll of polls than where they were just before Clegg was elected on the narrowest of margins.  His most memorable intervention was his 'I don't believe in God' remark.

Team Clegg: His top team is a strong one.  Not as strong as ours (!) but stronger than Brown's.  Vince Cable at the Treasury continues to win considerable publicity on Northern Rock - more than George Osborne.  Home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne was assured on BBC1's Question Time last night (on which Louise Bagshawe did very well).  And Ed Davey will be a safe pair of hands at Foreign affairs.

PMQs: He's done okay at PMQs - choosing safe topics - neither making a big impression but neither flopping in the ways that so damaged Ming.

Policy direction: Last week's speech on the public services (watch highlights here)  - Clegg's first big speech as leader - was well received by some conservative commentators, including Matthew d'Ancona.  MdA described the speech as "impressive" and "robust"; "this was Clegg back to his formidable best".  Clegg has also promised to look at Britain's Constitution and attacked Cameron's support for marriage.

Hurdles: The big tests for Clegg will come in May.  The LibDem's Mayoral candidate, Brian Paddick, is scoring only 7% against Boris and Livingstone.  Clegg will need to have compensatory wins elsewhere in local elections (or a good parliamentary by-election campaign (there's none scheduled)) if the Huhnistas aren't to start dusting off their 'Calamity Clegg' dossier.

The political spectrum: But Danny Finkelstein lifts us above the immediate party political considerations and reflects on, what he hopes, might be the longer-term impact of the new LibDem leader:

"My hope for Clegg is that he will help tip politics in Britain to the centre right. With both Liberals and Conservatives standing for smaller central government and much more choice in public services the debate will, hopefully begin to change.  The question marks are over Clegg's ability to resist pressure from Liberal activists and over whether his choice of big issue to make his mark will be a centre right issue or a more traditional centre right one."

New LibDem team

What do you think of Nick Clegg's new Shadow Cabinet team?

Do any of them have an interesting background in their new briefs?

Leader: Nick Clegg
Deputy Leader: Vincent Cable
Leader's chief of staff: Danny Alexander
Leader's PPS: Mark Hunter

Chief Whip: Paul Burstow
Chair of Campaigns and Communications: Ed Davey
Parliamentary campaigns chairman: Willie Rennie

Treasury: Vincent Cable
Treasury: Jeremy Browne
Business and enterprise: Sarah Teather

Home affairs: Chris Huhne
Justice: David Heath
Shadow Attorney General: Lord Thomas
Shadow Solicitor General: David Howarth

Foreign affairs: Ed Davey
Defence: Nick Harvey
International Development: Michael Moore 

Live blog of LibDem leadership result

9.20pm: Nick Clegg records a victory message for YouTube

6.15pm: Deborah Thomas, our candidate up against Vince Cable, has blogged her own reaction to Clegg's win.

5.45pm: Clegg's Sat-Nav concept.

4.25pm: James Forsyth suggests that Huhne could become the champion of LibDem grassroots sentiments on issues like PR... Read him here.

3.40pm: ToryRadio has an audio of Calamity's speech.

3.25pm: Well done to the well-prepared LibDem website team...

3.20pm: Both Sky and News 24 have moved on.  Turned on Radio Five and they've moved on, too.  It'll be interesting to see how much coverage this gets on tonight's bulletins.  There doesn't seem to be much excitement and as James Forsyth wrote earlier: "The timing of the leadership race, though, has done whoever wins no favours. Any momentum they build up over the next few days will be halted by the holidays."

3.15pm: John Rentoul's review of Clegg's speech: "Clegg was completely vacuous. His election was a fresh start, he said. Which new leader does not think that - they have to prove it. He was elected to change Britain, apparently. And he's a liberal. Blimey."

3.05pm: Caroline Spelman congratulates Nick Clegg:

“We congratulate Nick Clegg on becoming the latest leader of the Liberal Democrats. We hope that the Liberal Democrats under Mr Clegg will join us in putting pressure on the Government to devolve power to local authorities, communities and individuals; in our opposition to ID cards; and in our commitment to social justice and environmental progress. We hope that together we can create a new progressive alliance to decentralise British politics.”

That's known as love-bombing!  Fascinating.  Will Cameron call Clegg and congratulate him when he lands in China?

3pm: Charles Kennedy tells News 24 that it was best new leader's speech he has ever heard.  Clegg said that liberalism was spirit of the age and that he wanted to create a Liberal Britain. 

2.55pm: 51,325 LibDems voted in the election that saw Ming win.  The number of participants shrunk by nearly 20% this time.

2.47pm: Generous speech from Huhne.  All that Calamity Clegg stuff is forgotten it seems.  Poor Ming looks so sad.

2.45pm: 198,844 people voted in the Tory leadership race... Just 41,465 voted in the LibDem contest.  4.8 times as many Tories.

2.39pm: Clegg wins by 20,988 to 20,477.

2.35pm: Vince Cable about to declare result... Says that he's not about to undertake a coup!  Some LibDems will wish he that he would.  Says that LibDems need to appreciate the importance of programmes like Strictly Come Dancing!  Get on with it, Vince!!

2.33pm: Sky saying that Clegg's winning margin is only 500 votes.

2.20pm: News24 is predicting a very narrow Clegg victory.  Clegg was expected to win decisively... if it is "very narrow" it will be a result of his lacklustre campaign.

2.15pm: Announcement of ballot delayed until about 2.45pm.  Political Betting's pundits are collectively predicting a Clegg victory with 53.7%.  Vince Cable's acting leadership ends on another high.  He's been all over the media today discussing the latest development's in the stealthy nationalisation of Northern Rock.  We put his 'Bean performance' at PMQs on PlayPolitical earlier.

Seven approaches to beating the Liberal Democrats

Yesterday ConservativeHome argued that the Liberal Democrats are David Cameron's biggest headache.  Tomorrow Britain's third party announces that Nick Clegg will be their next leader.  Surely it will be him?  On today's Platform Iain Duncan Smith argues that we are most likely to beat the LibDems by being a decent party ourselves.

In the most recent ConservativeHome readers' survey we asked for your ideas on we should tackle the Liberal Democrats.  We've selected some of your verbatim responses and publish them below under seven broad headings...

DON’T GIVE THEM PUBLICITY (AND NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING DOESN’T WORK)

• “By ignoring them”
• “Don't give them the oxygen of publicity.”
• “Be more ssertive in publicising Conservative policies. Negative campaigning, even when true, turns the electorate off. It also gives them publicity & inprints their names in the electorate's mind.”
• “They are doing quite enough to tackle themselves- just ignore them.”
• “Let them continue to hang themselves.”
• “Concentrate on being Conservatives; the Liberal Democrats will fade away.”
• “Exhibit lofty disregard.”

HIGHLIGHT THEIR UNPOPULAR AND INCONSISTENT POLICIES

• “You should explain that their plans to axe council tax for a local income tax will make the average family worse off.”
• “By highlighting their constant demand for more taxes.”
• “LibDems want us to be a province of Europe! We should expose this in PR output.”
• “By highlighting the inconsistencies in their stated policies.”
• “Mass publicity of their daftest ideas.”
• “The Conservative Party takes a far too relaxed attitude to the LibDems. Every opportunity must be taken to examine, expose & ridicule their far-left, spendthrift policies. The LibDems are are a far greater danger than they are given credit for & must be countered & neutralised at every opportunity.”
• “High visibility attacks on their policy stances and the variations between constituencies.”
• “Expose them as more left than Labour. It is a myth that they are in the centre and a place for Tories to protest too in mid term. They are very radical , silly and dangerous and more irresponsible than Labour , more like left Labour. We must expose them on Defence , as unilateralists and as a high tax and spend party.”

Should Sajjad Karim be fast-tracked to the top of the North West list?

This was the message that Timothy Kirkhope, Leader of our MEPs, emailed to all of his colleagues earlier today concerning the defection of Sajjad Karim:

"I am delighted to inform you all that SAJJAD KARIM, until now one of the Lib/Dem MEPs for the North West of England, has decided to join the Conservative Party and has accepted my offer to join our Delegation. The Chief Whip, with my authority, has informed him that he is in receipt of the Conservative Whip as of today.

This decision by Sajjad is a very important and courageous one and underlines the fact that under David Cameron's leadership we are now, as a Party, with our "Broad Church" much more attractive to former Lib/Dem members.  David Cameron himself has given his full approval and support to this decision by Sajjad.

The discussions themselves which I have carried on with Sajjad have, by necessity, been confidential and obviously sensitive but I am certain that the outcome will be of great mutual benefit to both him and us.

I will notify you in a separate message of an early opportunity for you all to meet with our new Conservative member although I appreciate some of you already know him - but obviously not in the new role which he is taking on.

This is a timely event falling as it does during the increasingly fractious Lib/Dem leadership election.  Perhaps others may decide to leave that Party and join us.  I do hope so."

Do the words (emboldened) in paragraph three mean what I think they mean?  Has he been promised a top spot on the North West list - pour encourager les autres - thus denying a long-standing Conservative the chance to become an MEP?  While I welcome any defection from the LibDems I'd like to be persuaded that his views are consistent with what we'd want from a Conservative representative.  There has to be some suspicion that they are not (see here and here).

Ming who?

Although I noted that Campbell's resignation meant not many lobby journalists trekked up to Finsbury to hear Cameron speak about poverty this morning, the general level of interest in his surprise decision has been pitifully low.

It's often not been the main story on the news bulletins and this morning's papers weren't exactly packed full of analysis and features. This surely reflects a lack of interest in the Liberal Democrats as much as Campbell's low personal profile.

Campbell gave his first verbal statements to the broadcast journalists this afternoon. Speaking to Nick Robinson he said that:

• He gave sixty interviews at conference and has made policy speeches on things like council tax, but the media were only interested in the state of his leadership and some were obsessed with looking for anti-Lib Dem stories.
• Several consecutive reports in the press about his age and leadership led him to the conclusion that it would be continually difficult to stay on.
• Now that Brown has called off the election he feels able to do so, and can give a new leader enough time to bed in.
• The Party isn't unleadable, it didn't get rid of him although some colleagues could have been more helpful in public.
• He will stay in Parliament and stand at the next election.
• He will finish writing his memoirs and didn't rule out taking up a role in Brown's government if offered

It's amazing that this was the first time he's spoken about it, if it really was all jump and no push you would have thought he'd have taken more than an afternoon to prepare himself for the announcement.

Deputy Editor

Ten instant reactions to Ming's resignation

This was pretty much inevitable.  The combination of terrible opinion poll ratings and Brown's decision to delay an election until at least 2009 gave the LibDems the opportunity to oust a leader who had failed to connect with the public.

It's odd that Ming hasn't appeared in public.  Perhaps he hasn't resigned but the men in sandals have him tied up in the basement of Cowley Street!  As Ben Brogan says: "Show us the body"!

The FT blog is describing Ming as a "broken man".  Don't feel too sorry for him, however.  He was ruthless in ousting Charles Kennedy.  If he hadn't jumped he would have been pushed.  Hardly any MPs had come to his public defence in recent days.

Ming was a big Tory asset.  Anyone who wanted the best for David Cameron would have preferred Ming to stay.  The Tories were doing very well in southern marginals.  Guido's Save Ming campaign came too late.

The Kennedy factor. Iain Dale blogs that Charles Kennedy is the only man who can lift the LibDems up to 20%.  I don't agree with that but a Kennedy return would make the contest very interesting.

Clegg is the man.  In my opinion - the LibDems should choose Nick Clegg if they have any sense.  I've worried about him for some time.  Guess who has written this tonight: "He’s articulate, personable, simpatico and modest. He speaks five languages fluently. He’s a proper parliamentarian, equally at ease in committees and on the floor of the house. He’s temperate in his opinions, and courteous to those – like me – who find those opinions risible."?  Answer: Dan Hannan.  Dan knew Clegg when he was an MEP.  He also knew the other leading contender, Huhne.  He writes about both here.

How should Tories react?  We should watch and wait mainly but Clegg, if he was to win and he's the bookies' favourite, will probably save a lot of southern LibDem seats.  That's no reason for Tory panic but it underlines the importance of the Conservatives making progress in the north and Midlands - against Labour.

The manner of the leadership contest will be important.  Many LibDems might object to Clegg's Orange Book tendencies.  It could get ugly.  After dumping two leaders in two years the Libs are certainly looking less nice than they like to pretend.  The LibDem ruling body has already announced the timetable.  The new leader will be in place by 17th December.

This is a big opportunity for the LibDem blogs.  LabourHome failed to take off during the Blair-Brown succession and the Deputy Leadership contest.  Watch LibDemVoice, in particular, and see if it can become the place for LibDem conversation.  It has lacked bite up until now - avoiding a lot of the difficult debates.

Oaten for leader!#*?  Silliest question of the evening: BBC News 24 to Mark Oaten - "Can you rule yourself out?"  Now Oaten as leader would be a dream scenario.

MING CAMPBELL TO RESIGN

Imminently. It seems to have taken the media and the Lib Dems by surprise.

6.35pm: Vince Cable (Deputy, and now Acting, Leader) and Simon Hughes (President of the Party) have just given a statement outside Cowley Street, confirming that Ming has decided to resign with immediate effect. Ming won't be making a statement tonight. Hughes said:

"Throughout all his political life Ming has taken all his decisions, and this decision is one of them, in the interests of our party and liberal democracy in Britain."

They didn't take any questions (ignoring "did you wield the dagger, did you wield the dagger?!").

6.45pm: He apparently told Party officials that he felt he wasn't able to turn their fortunes around and as there won't be an election for some months he thought it was time to give way. Shirley Williams says it's time for a new generation.

6.50pm: Both Lembit Opik and Lord Steel have made accusations about ageism.

6.55pm: Gordon Brown has released a statement saying Ming is "A man of great stature and integrity who has served his party and country with distinction".

Will the 11% LibDems take this opportunity to oust Ming?

Channel 4 has just revealed that a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times puts the Conservatives 3% ahead of Labour.  The real movement is in the collapse of the LibDems, however.  Will Messrs Huhne and Clegg have the courage to act?

Added on Sunday morning:

Blog reactions to Ming's big speech

Ben Brogan: "His opener was angry: Britain under Brown, where hedge fund managers pay less tax than their cleaners and a Government leads the country into an illegal war, is not a liberal country (it's noticeable that Ming more often than not drops the word 'democrat'). He poked easy fun at the way Mr Brown and Mr Cameron are dancing around Lady Thatcher. And he tore into the "cosy consensus" being preached by the main parties as a cover for political stitch ups. His pitch is five freedoms - opportunity, good health, personal security, prosperity for all and a clean environment - backed by traditional liberalism."

James Forsyth: "The section on foreign policy was a crowd pleaser but does show that the Lib Dems are now, absurdly for a supposedly serious party, fully signed up to the idea that George W. Bush is more of a threat to the world  than Iran."

Lloyd Evans: "Ming’s problem isn’t that he looks like a walking mummy but that he’s so comfortable looking like a walking mummy. He has one of those kindly old-fashioned faces that gaze out at you from Victorian encyclopaedias. There’s an air of respectable munificence about him as if he spends most of his time founding orphanages. This isn’t modern. It isn’t relevant or sexy. But it’s thoroughly Liberal Democrat. Plenty of gravitas. No weight."

The Times' Sam Coates: "Politically it was also interesting, amounting to a rebalancing from last year where the centrepiece was a highly personal attack on David Cameron. This year there was no personal attacks, and the critique of Labour was much sharper. It amounted to a subtle shift further from Labour - providing some comfort to those who think he is too nice about Gordon Brown - and away from demonising the Tories to please left leaning activists."

Stephen Tall on LibDemVoice: "All in all, it felt to me like a relaxed (surprisingly so, given the media barrage of criticism he’s faced) and confident performance. The conference speech clearly isn’t a task Ming relishes, but he certainly didn’t shrink from it, either. It’s a thumbs-up from me."

Nick Robinson: "There was no plot this week to unseat Sir Menzies Campbell, but there were mutterings. This speech should stop them - for now."

Let's hope Nick Robinson is right.  The LibDems need Clegg to save a good number of their southern seats.

Labour or the LibDems - who's worst?

Last week in a new series of occasional debates we asked: 'Ousting Maggie or Black Wednesday - Which event hurt the Tories most?' Today, as the LibDems gang up against Ming in Brighton, we ask the question: 'Labour or the LibDems - Who's worst?'

The LibDems are worst?: Just look at their beliefs... They're the most pro-European and the most anti-American.  Their plans to tax the wealth creators of Britain with 'hammering' taxation of capital and high incomes would not even be contemplated by 'New Labour'.  They're against nuclear power and if they ever got real power in Westminster they'd introduce proportional representation so that they'd hold the balance of power for the foreseeable future.  Any local Tory or Labour activists agree that the LibDems are the dirtiest campaigners.

Labour are worst?: It's a nonsense to say that the LibDems are worse than Labour.  The LibDems have hardly had any MPs until recently.  It's Labour that has been in power - handing power to the unions, raising taxes, bureaucratising the police, creating new layers of government, sending our armed forces to war without proper equipment, undermining our civil liberties... We may not like the LibDems but local Tories are much, much more likely to work with them in local councils than with Labour.   It's also true that the LibDems are the top second preference for Tory voters.  Labour are behind UKIP and the BNP (!) in the league table of our second preferences.

Discuss...

Ming's "pitiful" call for in-out EU vote

Earlier this week we noted the LibDem leader's support for Gordon Brown's dishonourable position on the draft EU Treaty.

Matthew d'Ancona says this about Ming Campbell's call for a vote on membership of the EU:

"Sir Menzies Campbell's call for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is a desperate bid to preserve party unity on the eve of what may be his last conference as Lib Dem leader... The trouble is that the question Ming wants to pose - In or Out - is a complete irrelevance (except for Ukip voters). The controversy over the re-heated EU Constitution, now stripped of grandiose language but substantially the same as it was in 2004, has nothing whatsoever to do with membership of Europe. It is about trust and Labour's unambiguous pledge in its 2005 manifesto to hold a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty (or Reform Treaty as it is now relabelled after the deal struck this year). Either the Government honours that pledge or it does not... Sir Ming has merely confused a very simple issue of principle, as only Lib Dems can. Pitiful stuff from a third-rate party leader already in the departure lounge."

Let's just hope that he stays in that departure lounge and LibDems don't put him on a one-way flight to retirement land.  The collapse in LibDem support across the south of England since he replaced Charles Kennedy (and David Cameron replaced Michael Howard) is the most encouraging poll data I've seen for some time.

My message to the LibDems gathering in Brighton is simple: please, please, please keep Ming as your leader.

Ming rushes to Brown's rescue on EU Treaty

In his online Q&A with Telegraph readers yesterday, David Cameron promised a parliamentary ambush of Gordon Brown on the EU Treaty.  Over the summer a growing number of Labour MPs have voiced doubts about not allowing a public vote and the TUC is today expected to back one of two motions urging a referendum.

Mr Cameron told The Telegraph:

"This new treaty is the constitution in all but name according to the Spanish, Irish and French prime ministers. They have all said this is either 93, 95 or 98 per cent the same. It is absolutely clear the treaty is pretty much the same as the constitution. So that referendum should happen.  Labour MPs should stick to what they promised. They should vote for our motion when we bring it forward in the House of Commons."

Chances of defeating rather than just embarrassing Gordon Brown receded overnight, however, when it emerged that the Liberal Democrat leadership is minded to support the Government's position despite the doubts of many individual LibDem MPs.  Interviewed by the Financial Times, the LibDem leader and pro-EU Menzies Campbell said that a vote was "not necessary" because the new Treaty was "sufficiently different" from the old Constitution:

“My judgment is a referendum is not necessary on this document.. But if we were to have a referendum, then it is worth considering a more fundamental referendum, in a sense of being in or out.”

This is not the first nor even the second time that Ming has shown pro-Brown tendencies.  Voters in LibDem-Tory marginals need to know that Ming's heart is on the left and every inclination of a LibDem party that he leads will be to support Gordon Brown's agenda.

By the way: Have you signed Open Europe's I Want A Referendum petition yet?

4.45pm press release from Open Europe: "The cross-party I Want a Referendum campaign today welcomed the TUC’s decision to back a referendum on the EU’s Constitutional Treaty.  Derek Scott, Chairman of I Want a Referendum, said: “This is great news.  The Government are going to come under increasing pressure to keep their promise to hold a referendum.  Trade unions are in tune with their members and the overwhelming majority of voters.  The Government should listen to them.”  Labour MP Ian Davidson said: “This is a wonderful result which could not have been anticipated last week. We have won the arguments at the TUC over the last few days.  Trade unions have listened to their members, and the Government should listen to its voters.”

5pm statement from William Hague: "People from all walks of life and from across the political spectrum are now calling on Gordon Brown to honour the commitment he made to a referendum of the British people. He has no democratic mandate to introduce a EU treaty which is essentially the same as the EU Constitution without such a referendum.  This deeply embarrassing defeat at the TUC is a result of the Government's arrogance and its intention to disregard both its own promises and the views of the British public. I hope it will strengthen the determination of many Labour MPs to stand by their own promises to vote for a referendum and to tell Gordon Brown he should do so as well."  Good stuff from Mr Hague - much, much better than his response to the Petraeus report.

Good news for Zac and Philippa as LibDems drop 9% in south

Earlier today I posted on today's ICM poll for The Guardian.

I've now had a little more time to look at the survey and the most interesting detail comes in looking more closely at the newspaper's regional analyses (summarised in The Guardian graphic on the right - click to enlarge).

A leader in the Guardian makes this conclusion:

"In the north Lib Dem support is firm: 22% now, against 23% in 2005. But in the south - where most Lib Dem MPs are elected - it has collapsed, down nine points at 19%. That means the Liberal Democrats are now stronger in the north than the south for the first time since their formation. The party has also dropped back seven points in London. Polling day could be brutal."

The Guardian has consolidated a number of different polls in order to get its regional breakdown so we shouldn't draw strong conclusions but it would be appear that southern Conservatives are prospering in the Cameron-versus-Ming-contest.  This is potentially good news for Conservative candidates like Zac Goldsmith in Richmond and Philippa Stroud in Sutton and Cheam although LibDem MPs may be better dug into individual constituencies.

Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report takes the regional breakdown and forecasts a Commons with 249 Conserative MPs, 335 Labour MPs and 35 Liberal Democrats - a Labour majority of just 20.  Anthony writes: "The seats Labour gain in London and the North on these figures are not enough to outweigh the losses they’d make in Scotland and the South."

LibDems AWOL in poverty debate

Oliver Letwin is leading for the Tories in a Commons debate on the relief of poverty - a debate I'm proud to report was initiated by the Conservatives.  The debate comes a day after Iain Duncan Smith's 188 recommendations into fighting the social injustices that have got worse under Labour.  Speaking yesterday David Cameron said:

"Gordon Brown’s social failure is costing this country over a hundred billion pounds a year.  But it is not just the financial cost that should concern us.  It is the cost in wasted lives, dashed hopes and disappointment.  And the scandal is, this was what the Labour government was supposed to fix.  Gordon Brown said he wanted to get Britain back to work.  But after ten years of his policies, five million people of working age – over one in ten adults – are out of work and on benefits.  Gordon Brown said he wanted to give young people the best start in life.  But after ten years of his policies, there are over a million young people not in work, education or training – more than in 1997.  Gordon Brown said he wanted to tackle poverty.  Yet after ten years of his policies, the poorest people in our society have got poorer – and there are more of them.  What on earth was it all about, these last ten years, if it wasn’t about this?  With this report as our evidence we will take Gordon Brown to pieces for his devastating social failure.  These Labour politicians, they talk about being progressive; they pose as the champions of the poor and the vulnerable... and all the while preside over a Britain where the poorest and most vulnerable sink further and further behind.  We’ve got among the worst rates of teenage pregnancy, drug addiction and personal debt in Europe."

The LibDems pose as progressives too but where were they in today's poverty debate?  The above screen shot of the Commons chamber from just a few minutes ago shows a respectable number of Tory MPs but empty LibDem benches behind David Laws.  Surely their unlikely hopes for a good result in Ealing Southall aren't being put before their commitment to fighting poverty?

Does Brown have most to gain from a resurgent Liberal Democrat party?

In today's Telegraph, Simon Heffer writes the wisest thing I have read so far on that Ashdown offer:

"With the fact of the meeting and the offer being reported in the media, and Sir Menzies having denied that any such offer would be accepted, Mr Brown then chose to ignore him, went over his head, and approached Lord Ashdown direct - not merely offering him a place in the Government, but in the Cabinet itself.

Such a move can, surely, have had only one aim in view, and it would not have been to "de-tribalise" British politics. No: it can have been only to make Sir Menzies look a twit, someone unworthy of having his views taken seriously or respected by the next Prime Minister. And the near-certain effect of this (indeed, it has already started) is to reopen the barely quiescent speculation about his future.

At first glance, this might seem an odd thing for Mr Brown to have done. In much of northern England now, and in our inner cities especially, the two-party politics that exists is between Labour and the Lib Dems. Sir Menzies presided only last month over highly disappointing local election results for his party, thereby proving what an asset he is to Labour.

Surely any move by Mr Brown that destabilises Sir Menzies further is only going to make things harder for Labour, should that destabilisation result in Sir Menzies being deposed and a new, bright, exciting and much younger leader being put in to replace him.

Not necessarily. A very strong case can be made - and it would seem to be one with which Mr Brown instinctively agrees - that the Conservative Party has far more to fear from resurgent Lib Dems than his party does."

Vote LibDem > Get Labour

This morning's Guardian reveals that Gordon Brown has been holding secret talks with Ming Campbell about possible LibDem participation in his first Cabinet.  Reading the article it appears that a deal may be impossible but it's further confirmation of what we all know: Ming's heart is on the left and there is every chance that he'll get into bed with Brown after the next election and little chance that he'll form any kind of coalition with David Cameron.

There is a clear message that we need to communicate to every voter in Romsey, Solihull and Torbay who is wavering between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats: There is only one way to end the years of Labour incompetence and that is to vote for David Cameron's new Conservative Party.  The Conservatives won't keep Brown in power.  The Liberal Democrats want to.

The Guardian presents the Brown-Campbell talks as a desire for a new era of bipartisanship.  In reality it is a scheme to keep the left in power in Britain for at least another parliament.  Conservatives need to spell out what that means in terms of a soft approach to crime, still higher taxes and a failure to address the root causes of social injustice.

10.30am postscript: It is interesting that The Guardian's front page splash is only attributed to a 'Staff Reporter'.  Normally it's only very small stories that are credited in this way.  It is likely that The Guardian's source needed protecting and hiding the name of the journalist might aid this and frustrate any leak investigation.  Gordon Brown is seen as an unforgiving man and the responsible reporter may also have wanted to stay out of his bad books.

It appears that there'll be an early test of Lib-Lab co-operation because of the death of Labour's Ealing Southall MP Piara Khabra.  The LibDems are in second place in the seat and if the yellow peril are up to their usual tricks their byelection machine will already be in full swing before Mr Khabra's funeral.

The 14% pinstripe radical

Although it's been an unhappy month for our party there is, as I have argued, no need for panic.  Brown is beatable and Team Cameron are beginning to take the kind of steps that will bring the conservative coalition together.  The most notable steps are the crunchy policy announcements, the appointment of Andy Coulson and the 'Whitelaw' roles being given to Fox, Hague and Davis.  The real leader in trouble is Ming Campbell.  The Tories at 37% in yesterday's YouGov poll could be doing better but after the last few weeks that's not a bad rating.  The LibDems at 14% are not.  Today's Times reports that Ming is to be relaunched as a "pinstripe radical".  The party is to become more "spiky".  Oh dear.  The amazing thing is how LibDem MPs are willing to tolerate this state of affairs.