ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Time to give Aitken a second chance

Predictably, the first word used by media outlets such as PA, BBC, ITV, the Observer, the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday Times in reporting that Jonathan Aitken had been appointed by the CSJ to look into prison reform, was "disgraced". Once the media have settled on your prefix it's nigh on impossible to shake it off.

It was seven years ago when Aitken walked out of Belmarsh with an electronic tag attached to him. He'd served seven months of an eighteen month sentence for calculated perjury. Since then he's spent his time reading Theology at Oxford, looking into prison reform and talking to Christain groups about his experience. A convicted bank robber, who became Aitken's best friend during his time in prison, said:

"We were expecting an arrogant ex-Tory minister who felt hard done-by and who was going to be a complete pain in the arse... but it was the opposite straight away. He was one of the chaps."

Aitken wrote about his prison experience in his second autobiography Porridge and Passion. He "rediscovered the Bible" and came out a humble man with a new perspective on life:

"To be humbled makes you look at every aspect of yourself. There is relief in being who I am. Nothing can embarrass me, as everyone knows everything about me."

The key thing here is partly what David Cameron is getting at when he talks about politicians' right to have private lives before they worked in the public square. Yes we should reserve the right to judge the character of our politicians when they have an extra-marital affair, receive undeclared payments, and anything that causes us to question their trustworthiness. But if it is clear they are genuinely reformed characters then they should be given a second chance. George W Bush did all sorts of things in his youth but when he became a Christian the American people not only accepted the new man he'd become, but saw him as a regular guy in a way that isn't normally possible for a President's son.

Restore the standing of the shadow cabinet and other frontbenchers

• Invite all frontbenchers to propose new policies for their portfolios in preparation for presenting them to a new and formal policy approval process.
• Ensure that all frontbenchers have one bilateral meeting with the party leader at least once a year.
• Use Francis Maude's new implementation office to give every frontbencher full access to the training and support they need to be confident ministers-in-waiting.

A constant complaint of Conservative activists is that the shadow cabinet and frontbench are pretty anonymous.  Only five shadow cabinet ministers registered more than a 0.5% showing in our recent survey of party conference performers.  There are all sorts of reasons for this problem.  British politics is increasingly presidential and the media are not much interested in anyone other than the leader and a small handful of others.  Some of the problem also has much to do with the scale of frontbenchers' outside interests... but that's a subject we've addressed enough already.

Media coverage is not, of course, the only way of judging the impact of frontbenchers although Iain Dale's 'Media Tarts Lists' are always worth a scan.   Shadow cabinet ministers can also make a difference by providing the party with cut-through policies and breakthrough scrutiny of their opposite numbers' performance.  Nick Herbert, for example, has been terrific in recent days.  He's been all over the media; first attacking Labour on early prisoner release and then for failing to deport foreign convicts.

At Tuesday's press conference, David Cameron confirmed that the policy groups were being wound up.  This is an excellent opportunity to give shadow cabinet ministers some real opportunities to develop policies in their portfolio areas.  For the first two years of Project Cameron the existence of the policy groups process made it hard for them to be creative.  That has all changed.  Mr Cameron should issue a direct instruction to all frontbench teams to develop new policies - particularly micro policies that can be marketed via the internet.

STEM report published (quietly)

Ian Taylor's policy group on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics will release its findings today. Click here for the pdf of the full report. It sets out nine objectives:

1. To improve the effectiveness of UK innovation
2. To use public procurement to drive innovation
3. To stimulate UK R&D investment
4. To raise school performance in STEM subjects
5. To create the environment to enable more UK universities to become world-class
6. To improve the UK’s national position in global excellence in science and technology
7. To raise the status of STEM in Britain
8. To tackle the risk-averse culture
9. To establish a Department of Science & Innovation

Alpha Galileo has more synopsis.  Whilst at 16,000 words it's not in the same league as the Social Justice and Quality of Life reports, it's strange that the STEM report hasn't been trailed in the papers or launched at an event. It hasn't even been press released yet.

There's a welcoming statement by David Cameron on the party's website:

"The Conservative Party is acutely aware that science and engineering are key to our national competitiveness - and this substantial report sets out a constructive and effective way forward for these vital industries."

The group's interim report advocated giving prize money to people and organisations that display great innovation.

2.30pm update: The Press Association has covered it now. It highlights proposals to put science labs in primary schools, and to put more money into science teachers' wages and university science departments.

Deputy Editor

Zac Goldsmith offers rebuttal of criticisms of his QofL report

Zac Goldsmith has just emailed me a Q&A that attempts to rebut the "amazingly misleading" press coverage of recent days. He writes: "The report is not about bans, punishments or telling people what to do. It's about making green decisions possible for everyone - not just the wealthy. It's about pushing business to be less wasteful and more efficient."

This is his Q&A briefing:

"More Bans?

The report actually puts very little emphasis on Bans. We propose banning landfill of waste that can be composted or recycled. But that’s about it. The emphasis is on raising standards as far as possible, but never more than existing technology allows. There are huge savings to be made through greater appliance efficiency.

Reports that we want to ban Plasma screens are wrong. We want to encourage plasmas that are less wasteful. Nor are we proposing to ban the standby. We want to have an automatic switch-off mechanism fitted so that appliances switch off after a set period of time.

More Regulations?

We don’t want more regulation. We have some of the most difficult regulations in Europe, and some of the lowest standards. We want to replace prescriptive – process-oriented regulations – with outcome-specific standards. So - we would abolish the Building Regulations. In farming – the most regulated of all activities – we would move to a process of self-certification based on trust. On Planning, we would decentralise the process to avoid situations where the Central Government is able to rule on genuinely local issues, against the wishes of local people and Local Authorities.

Zac's perspective

Highlights from today's Telegraph article:

"The most credible science now tells us that human behaviour, through activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the rainforests, is accelerating climate change at a rate that threatens devastating consequences for our security, prosperity and wellbeing."

"In a world whose population and hunger for resources is growing at an unprecedented rate, the depletion of natural capital and growing instability of our climate are factors bringing profound economic, social and security implications for every country. Britain imports oil and gas in an era of dwindling reserves concentrated in very few hands, not all of which we can rely on."

"As a country we have failed to get to grips with these vital issues. I think there are two principle reasons. First, the green agenda has concentrated on the wrong solutions - sticks, punishments, and doom-and-gloom messages that alienate people. Second, Gordon Brown has cynically exploited the growing concern about these issues to enrich the Treasury."

Too much materialism?

The above quotation from the Gummer-Goldsmith Quality of Life report (read it here) was shown to viewers of Newsnight.

I think it's true that material possessions don't bring happiness.  Sometimes the Conservative Party has been caricatured as too interested in money and insufficiently interested in the nation's culture, the strength of its families and the beauty of the countryside.  The best thing about the party's policy review process is that it has communicated breadth of political interest.   We haven't just had a focus on competitiveness and security.  We've also shown to be interested in social justice, international poverty, the public services and, today, the environment.  What I don't like in the tone of the Gummer-Goldsmith report is an apparent embrace of the belief at the heart of the green movement that growth, material acquisition and sometimes even humanity itself are enemies of the planet.

This seems a good time to use my favourite Edward Heath quote.  Mr Heath made the quote in the early 1970s - when the green movement first came to political prominence:

"The alternative to expansion is not, as some occasionally seem to suppose, an England of quiet market towns linked only by steam trains puffing slowly and peacefully through green meadows. The alternative is slums, dangerous roads, old factories, cramped schools, stunted lives.”

Let's have a debate about 'the good life' but Conservative politicians - particularly those frontbenchers with their 115 paid outside interests - shouldn't be lecturing low income families that there's too much materalism in Britain.

The Quality of Life report

Advance copy of the report: ConservativeHome has a copy of the Quality of Life report due to be launched tomorrow at 10.30am.  Interestingly it doesn't have an executive summary.  Reports without executive summaries nearly always - in my experience - don't want to be fully open about what they contain.

Download a PDF of the Gummer-Goldsmith report

Discouragement of home improvements: There are a number of taxes on cars and aeroplanes as expected.  So far I have discovered one very controversial new policy that hasn't been flagged yet: Page 72 recommends that any householder wanting to improve their homes via, for example, a loft conversion or adding a conservatory will be required to make "cost-effective energy efficient improvements to the existing structure".  This proposal could have major implications for homeowners' ability to afford home improvements.  While "cost-effective energy efficient improvements" may pay for themselves in the long-run the requirement for whole-house energy-efficient measures will discourage many people on tighter incomes from improving their homes.

Airport expansion: I have just been interviewed for Radio 4's World Tonight.  Before I spoke David Wilshire was interviewed.  His constituency includes Heathrow and he encouraged David Cameron to disown the report's recommendations on airport expansion and discouragement of domestic flights.  Mr Wilshire warned that restrictions on the expansion of UK airports will simply see airline business migrate to Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt.  He complained that Zac Goldsmith didn't understand the aviation industry and had not met him to discuss his concerns despite requests for him to do so:

"Zac doesn't understand aviation - it's a global business. British aviation produces 1.6% of global emissions. If we fiddle about on an entirely unilateral basis, we will damage the British economy, cost my constituents jobs and then we can watch the Chinese open up another 49 airports.  You can't fiddle about with aviation and make gestures, price people out of flying and make it an elitist activity for the wealthy."

MPs from the North West and East Midlands have also been in touch with me over recent days to talk about the importance of airports to regional economies.  My understanding is that David Cameron has rejected the report's blanket restrictions on airport expansion.

Achievable environmentalism: David Cameron should, in my opinion, not unilaterally attempt to save the planet.  Any marginal gains that can be achieved in Britain will be quickly overwhelmed by economic growth in India and China. Instead Conservatives should focus on 'achievable environmentalism'.  This should include planting trees, recycling, cutting waste, investing in renewables, protecting natural habitats and so on.

News reports already online: BBC | Times

David Cameron moves fast to kill charges-for-supermarket-parking row

Interviewed earlier by Telegraph readers, David Cameron has appeared to rule out charges for supermarket parking.  He said:

"I understand as a parent of three children that when you are going to the shops, you are trying to manage everything, car parking charges may not be the most helpful way forward."

This is the second time he has quickly disowned a Gummer-Goldsmith idea.  He has already said that he won't accept the moratorium on airport expansion.  Earlier today the balance of ConservativeHome opinion was strongly against the idea of having to pay to park your car at Tesco or Sainsbury.

Mr Cameron also "pledged that within weeks of Parliament's return on Oct 9 he would force a Commons vote demanding a referendum on the successor treaty to the abandoned European Constitution."

On the right is the picture the Telegraph has on its website of Mr Cameron answering readers' questions.  I'm not sure that the size of those energy-guzzling screens will impress Mr Gummer!  Al Gore wouldn't mind, though.

Gummer-Goldsmith ideas to protect smaller shops upset traditional Tory commentators

This morning's newspapers have a number of reports on 'Tory plans' to tax supermarket shopping.  The plans are, in fact, only proposals from the Gummer-Goldsmith Quality of Life policy group but they have produced upset at The Sun (see clipping on the right).

Richard Littlejohn, in the Daily Mail, also rails against the Conservative plans in his column:

"People are aware of their responsibilities to the planet, and most try to conserve energy and recycle as much as possible.  But they resent lectures about individual behaviour from Old Etonian politicians. An extra two grand on a Mondeo may not matter to a multi-millionaire like Goldsmith, but it's a huge chunk of change from the average family budget.  And whatever CMD [Call Me Dave] may think, regardless of what people tell pollsters, no one will vote for higher taxes and higher prices. They also resent being expected to pay more, on top of their council tax, for less frequent rubbish collections.  The Government already raises the thick end of £30 billion a year through "green" taxes - virtually none of which gets spent improving the environment."

Expect much, much more of the same if Gummer-Goldsmith recommends significant increases in taxation of air travel and cars later this week.  In order to offset the likely political damage the Tory leadership needs to move quickly.  It will be helpful if George Osborne immediately announces which tax cuts will be enacted by a Conservative government - afforded by the extra green taxation that David Cameron promised yesterday.

The Guardian notes that John Gummer's policy group believes that local authorities should have the power to levy fees on supermarket car parks that bring them into line with town centre rates of charging.  The revenues raised, suggests Mr Gummer, would fund improvements in public transport.  Mr Cameron has already ruled this out - saying that all new environment taxes will pay for cuts in family and business taxation.  The Guardian also says that  the group will recommend a confidential hotline through which farmers will be able to 'shop' supermarkets that treat them unfairly.  It quotes a recent poll showed that found that 71% of consumers worried that supermarkets were too powerful.

Zac Goldsmith has fought a campaign against the building of a new Sainsbury's supermarket in Barnes - the centre of the Richmond Park constituency which he hopes to represent after the next General Election.

Related link: The six political dangers of Gummer-Goldsmith

The six political dangers of Gummer-Goldsmith

Oliver Letwin's sixth policy group will report later this week and it's an interesting question as to what David Cameron's head of policy will do then?  It is Francis Maude, I understand, who has the job of converting all policy ideas into usable form.

The sixth policy group - on the environment and the broader quality of national life - is potentially the most controversial.  If, for example, it recommends large increases in green taxation it risks undermining the good work that has been done in recent weeks in restoring some faith in the Cameron project amongst traditionally Tory-supporting newspapers.  This morning's news about the report was nonetheless encouraging:

• There will be tax rewards for good green behaviour and not just penalties for environmentally-insensitive behaviour;
• The potentially very bureaucratic green miles proposal has been dropped;
• John Gummer has prevailed against Zac Goldsmith's strong opposition to nuclear power.

As David Cameron and George Osborne consider the remainder of the Gummer-Goldsmith proposals they need to be aware of six main dangers...

Green taxation is unpopular.  It's unpopular with voters at large.  It's unpopular with Tory members.  It's unpopular with the right-of-centre press.  Most people would rather see technology-led solutions to environmental problems.  They see green arguments as a convenient cover for politicians who want to find stealthy new ways of raising taxes.  A report from The TaxPayers' Alliance earlier this week found that existing levels of green taxation more than cover the environmental costs of our activities.  John Redwood recommends a mindset shift to tax relief for planet-friendly activities.  He's correct to do so.

Green action mustn't punish the poor. Green taxation - like the congestion charge and VAT on domestic flights - can fall most heavily on the poorest.  There is a real danger that environmentalism can look like a rich man's sport.  The Gummer-Goldsmith report will apparently attack "the hedonistic treadmill" and tendencies to treat the market as a god.  Few Conservatives are in favour of hedonism or unregulated capitalism but too much environmentalism resembles rich people telling the poor what they can and cannot do.  Rich people who enjoy foreign holidays want to tax the budget getaway-to-the-sun for low income families.  Already rich nations want to limit the industrial development of poor nations.  It is true that environmental problems hurt the poor most but it's important that the wealthiest voters and countries shoulder a full share of any environmental action.

The party leadership mustn't just talk green. Voters won't respect the Conservatives on the environment if we don't walk the walk.  If we're going to clamp down on domestic flights then the shadow cabinet must use trains.  If we're going to object to foreign holidays then frontbenchers need to spend recess in Devon, Cumbria and at other UK resorts.

Green action should not endanger Britain's competitiveness.  Much environmental action can be a good in itself.  Zac Goldsmith makes a very good case, for example, in today's Mail on Sunday for retailers taking more responsibility for the excessive packaging that comes with their products.  The dangers of energy insecurity should also encourage more renewable energy use and more energy conservation.  But some of the recommendations of the Gummer-Goldsmith report look economically dangerous.  Crude restrictions on airport expansion will only transfer business overseas.  Heathrow's loss will, for example, be Schiphol's gain.  We also need to be aware that most of the growth in emissions is coming from India and China.  British action should not amount to unilateral economic disarmament.

Climate change must not eclipse other concerns.  Team Cameron now realise that they talked too much about the environment in their first eighteen months.  Recently they have begun to achieve more of a balance in their communications.  They are now also focusing on issues that are more worrying for voters: the NHS, crime and the cost of living.  That needs to continue.

There should be a focus on 'achievable conservation' - not changing the world. The party's green messages have been most successful when they have been local.  The 2006 and 2007 'Vote Blue Go Green' campaigns successfully highlighted the excellent record of Conservative local councils.  There is only so much that Britain can do to combat global climate change but there's a lot more that a Conservative government can do locally and nationally.  I think of planting trees, recycling, cutting waste, investing in renewables, protecting natural habitats and so on.  We should focus on what voters know is doable.  I mention Zac's Mail on Sunday article again as a good example of sensible, achievable environmentalism.

If the party gets all this badly wrong in the next seven days we can expect talk of an autumn election to become frenetic again.

Quality of Life report dominates Sunday papers

Leaks of the contents of John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith's policy group report signal that the three most controversial issues have been settled amicably:

• The Sunday Times' headline story is that there will be significant rebates on stamp duty, VAT and council tax to reward environmental efficiencies. Putting emphasis on "incentivising the good" rather than "taxing the bad" is sensible in the light of the TPA's recent demolition of green taxes.
• Nicholas Watt in the Observer reports that Gummer has abandoned the highly unpopular "green air miles" proposals but does intend to target taxes at the aviation industry for using planes that are especially environmentally unfriendly.
• Watt reports that Gummer won the nuclear power battle as well, despite Goldsmith saying he would "fight like hell" against it. The report will endorse nuclear power but with the caveat that the nuclear industry will have to pass certain tests. A "senior Tory" sees this as evidence that the political realities of being a candidate have softened some of Goldsmith's radical positions.

The Sunday Mirror links "furious behind-the-scenes rows at Tory HQ" on these issues with Johan Eliasch leaving the party. Thankfully though, the finished product promises to stave off a lot of unwanted unrest.

The other headline proposals are on energy efficiency in the home. They will recommend that household electrical appliances should be regulated more so that the worst offenders don't enter the market and the others will carry labels at the point of sale so consumers can see how much energy it uses. Plasma screens and permanent stand-by functions would be banned.

The Independent on Sunday seems to be alone in revealing a side to the report that delves into social psychology. It quotes Jules Peck, Director of the report, saying that they have been "rethinking the whole way we look at the world". The report will talk about the "hedonistic treadmill where individuals can never be satisfied", and say that "treating [the market] as a god and doing its bidding does not make men and women happy". That excessive material consumption can be both bad for the environment and bad for people is undoubtedly true and looks to me to be the most interesting aspect of the forthcoming report.

Noon update: The Mail on Sunday reports that the cost of a family saloon car could rise by as much as £2000 under plans to tax high carbon cars.

Deputy Editor

"Restoring Pride in Our Public Services"

The Conservative Public Services Improvement Group led by Stephen Dorrell MP and Baroness Pauline Perry published its report this morning at the Policy Exchange's Ideas Forum.  There are more than 150 proposals on education, social housing and health.  These are the main ones:

On education

• Establish a Chief Education and Skills officer and a Royal College of Teaching, along the lines of their counterparts in the NHS.
• Reduce the volume of guidelines for schools.
• Abolish "AS" levels
• More disciplinary measures, clearer exclusion powers, anonymity for teachers subject to allegations.
• An "advantage premium": additional per-capita funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Encouragement for more academic charities to run city academies.
• Provision of buses to transport children from over-subscribed to under-subscribed schools.

On social housing

• Provision of 10% equity for social housing tenants after five years good behaviour.
• Review of social housing waiting list policy
• "Commitment to mixed communities", i.e., seeking varied incomes, tenures, demographics and ethnicities, subject to local circumstances, as a way to avoid concentrations of deprivation.
• Creation of a national affordable housing fund.
• Measures to make the Right to Buy "more affordable" by altering discounts.

On health

• "Less political interference in the day to day management of the NHS"
• "Greater freedom for individual healthcare professionals, in return for
  clear accountability for outcomes"
• "A service which puts patients before bureaucrats"
• "Greater emphasis on public health objectives", improved powers for the Chief Medical Officer and "separate public health budgets"

Read and debate the report at Stand Up Speak Up.

Thomas Cahill

Tories would force underperforming primary school pupils to retake final year

In tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph (not yet online) David Cameron will say that underperforming Year 6 children could be forced to resit their final primary school year if they do not meet performance thresholds at the end of their year or during special summer classes that the Tories also intend to introduce.

Last December ConservativeHome readers had approved a policy idea from Richard Robinson that there should be a remedial year for eleven year-olds who weren't ready for secondary school.  Tomorrow's Cameron proposal may stem from the Dorrell-Perry policy group report on the public services - due, ConservativeHome understands, to be published this Tuesday.  The report's launch was rescheduled so that the party could spend another week responding to public anxieties about crime and social breakdown.

The Press Association is also reporting that the Conservative leader will advocate an "advantage premium" for schools that take children from disadvantaged backgrounds.  The financial reward might be as much as £6,000 per child.  The social justice policy group has already recommended that headteachers of primary schools in disadvantaged communities could be paid more.  58% of Tory members approved of that proposal and 24% disagreed.

Gummer-Goldsmith to recommend freeze on airport expansion

The Daily Mail is reporting that the Conservative Party's Quality of Life group under the chairmanship of John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith will recommend:

• "A moratorium on all airport expansion, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;
• The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;
• A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;
• Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead."

The Mail also suggests that the BAA London airports 'monopoly' will be broken up and 4x4 cars will face higher duties.

The second and potentially very bureaucratic tax on a person's second annual foreign flight has apparently been ditched.

Higher green taxation will be used by George Osborne to fund lower taxes on families and business.

12.30pm update: The story is actually a London Evening Standard exclusive (Standard stories appear on Mail Online).  A Standard leader welcomes the "progressive thinking" in the report but warns that it could undermine the already "shaky" support for the Tories in the business community.

Stephen Dorrell urges trust in renewed public service professionalism

This Thursday will see the fifth Conservative Party policy group report.  [11.45am: Sensibly, the report has been rescheduled to the following week]. Stephen Dorrell and Baroness Perry will present their proposals for modernising Britain's public services.  As with the competitiveness and social justice reports we can expect to see individual ideas trailed in the press on a day-by-day basis.  The report will have to compete with a news agenda that is heavily focused on the consequences flowing from the shooting of Rhys Jones.  As Matt d'Ancona writes in today's Sunday Telegraph - and as ConservativeHome urged on Thursday - Mr Cameron's social responsibility agenda may have found its moment.

But back to public services for now and an important op-ed by Stephen Dorrell in The Sunday Times.  Mr Dorrell, Health Secretary under John Major, attempts to pre-empt claims that his plans to entrust professionals amount to 'producer capture':

"The case for strong and independent professions is not the case for a return to the status quo ante. It is the case for challenging the professions to accept their responsibilities – to acknowledge that they, and they alone, are able to ensure the reality of public service excellence matches the rhetoric."

Mr Dorrell argues that measures to counter the poor professional standards of the past - measures including waiting time targets in the NHS and literacy and numeracy hours in schools - brought short-term benefits but their "inevitable long-term consequence [is] that discretion is drained from professional structures and centralised in the hands of interventionist ministers."

He says that Britain can choose to continue to impose "an increasingly arcane set of bureaucratic measures and targets, or it must seek ways of reengaging with the aspirations and idealism that originally motivated the vast majority of professional people to devote their lives to their profession."

Mr Dorrell argues that this is no choice at all.  Whilst accepting that patients and pupils must be free to move from one hospital and school to another he sets out principles for renewing public service professionalism: 

1. "The professions must be engaged in the management of the services. When professional people experience management as an activity “done to them” rather an activity in which the profession itself is engaged, it becomes too easy to reject management objectives as service distortions.
2. Public services need to develop more reliable and publicly available outcome data – including data related to the performance of individual professionals – to allow all interested parties to see the evidence about performance.
3. The professions need to be engaged in the preparation of the outcome data in order to reduce opportunities to discuss the preparation of the statistics instead of the facts they reveal.
4. The leaderships of the professions need to develop the stature to act, locally and nationally, as both effective advocates for the professions and effective monitors of standards."

The advance publicity for the Dorrell-Perry report also begins today with a story in The Observer.  In an idea very similar to that proposed by Iain Duncan Smith, the public services policy group will say that parents should have the power to set up new schools to rival those of local education authorities:

"In areas where schools are performing badly, the councils should have no power to stop such a move, a Tory policy review will recommend this week. Co-chaired by former cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell, it will argue that forcing local authorities to fund the schools would boost exam performance."

Osborne: There'll be no Tory promise to reduce the overall burden of taxation at the next General Election

I'm just back from the press conference where the Redwood-Wolfson report was launched.  The focus of journalists' questions was on tax policy but the report contains many other important economy-boosting recommendations.  Read about them here and read George Osborne's full remarks at the launch.

Most interesting was that George Osborne made it clear (yet again) that the Conservative Party would not go into the next General Election campaign offering voters an overall reduction in the burden of taxation.  There will be some tax relief measures but they will all be funded by other increases in taxation.  He also repeated that he believed in a low tax economy and that over the course of a parliament the party hoped to reduce the level of taxation - sharing the proceeds of growth between higher public spending and tax relief.

PS I've just written for The Guardian's Comment is free on why Redwood is fundamentally right and why George Osborne is politically right.

Osborne welcomes Redwood-Wolfson report but declines to commit to its tax recommendations

Interviewed for the Today programme at 8.10am Shadow Chancellor George Osborne gave a broad welcome to the report on economic competitiveness that will be formally launched later today by its co-chairmen, John Redwood MP and Next's Simon Wolfson.  Mr Redwood sets out the ambitions of his report in an article for today's ConservativeHome.  Mr Osborne has ruled out any immediate acceptance of the Redwood-Wolfson recommendations on abolishing inheritance tax on the main family home and on other tax cut suggestions which would see corporation tax cut to 25p and stamp duty on shares abolished.

Mr Osborne said that he liked the overall look of the report but that he would now need time to consider its detailed recommendations.  He said that his two basic approaches to economic policy remained the same:

(1) Tax was only part of economic policy.  The quality of transport infrastructure, the levels of skills and Britain's planning rules were other important determinants of Britain's competitiveness and the Redwood report had useful ideas on these topics.
(2) No risks would be taken with Britain's economic stability and all tax cuts would have to be funded from the proceeds of growth.  The Shadow Chancellor told Today that he was not a pure 'supply-sider'.  He said that tax cuts had, in the past, paid for for themselves by generating extra revenue but he was not willing to 'punt' that they would.

Mr Osborne said that he nonetheless believed that low tax economies such as Ireland were generally higher growth economies and he would hope to be a tax-cutting Chancellor.  He said that lower business taxes were particularly important and hoped to be able to pledge lower rates of corporation tax that would be paid for by possible simplifications of the tax system that were being drawn up by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

On IHT the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged that it was a very unpopular tax but he would not commit to its elimination now.  He said that raising the threshold or reducing the rate of inheritance tax would also be options that a future Conservative government might enact.

Mr Osborne said that this report was not a move away from the kinder Conservatism of recent months.  It had to be seen in the context of Iain Duncan Smith's earlier report on social justice, he said, and the forthcoming Gummer-Goldsmith report on quality of life issues.

Not for the first time there has been confusion over Tory tax plans.  Some newspapers such as the Daily Mail (above) and yesterday's Evening Standard have appeared to think that the Tories would embrace the call to scrap inheritance tax for the main family home.  Other newspapers, like The Times, appear to have heard George Osborne's caution.

George Osborne will not endorse Redwood proposals on inheritance tax

Earlier today I reported an Evening Standard exclusive that George Osborne was likely to accept recommendations by John Redwood to abolish inheritance tax for the main family home.  Paul Waugh of the Standard wrote:

"Crucially, shadow chancellor George Osborne is set to endorse the plan when he appears alongside the report's author John Redwood in the City tomorrow."

Just interviewed for BBC1's Ten'o'clock News, George Osborne did not formally endorse the cut in inheritance tax.  Instead he repeated the commitment to put stability before any talk of tax cuts and welcomed John Redwood's own endorsement of this precondition.

Tomorrow's Telegraph will report that Mr Osborne is "sympathetic" to the Redwood proposals and this is The Times' take:

"George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, who will attend today’s publication of the report in the City, will not embrace any proposal in it formally. However, he has already made clear that he regards the present structure of inheritance tax as unfair. In ideal circumstances it is a tax cut that he would favour, but he will insist today that the Tories will not promise any unfunded reductions at the next election."

Osborne set to accept Redwood recommendation of abolition of inheritance tax on main home

The Daily Mail is reporting that George Osborne will accept a recommendation from John Redwood that inheritance tax on the main family home should be scrapped.

A Tory source told The Mail:

"The tax penalises people who save for their future. We want to send a signal, particularly to those in London hit hard by this, that we will act.  The people who will benefit the most will be young people who will not have to pay tax on their parents' estates."

The devil will be in the detail of Mr Osborne's response to Mr Redwood, however.  George Osborne has said that there will be no "up front, unfunded tax reductions" promised before the next election.  It may be that the Shadow Chancellor will undertake to abolish the tax on the main family home as and when resources allow him to do so.  Inheritance tax was the second most unpopular tax in a survey for The TaxPayers' Alliance last year.

5.35pm response from the TaxPayers' Alliance: "This announcement from John Redwood is very encouraging because it shows that the Conservatives are starting to understand that Britain's growing tax burden is hitting families as well as businesses. The proposal is not a complete abolition of Inheritance Tax but, by excluding the main home, it will go a long way towards addressing the injustice of the death tax faced by millions of ordinary families across the country. Hopefully David Cameron will listen to John Redwood and commit the Conservatives to this proposal. Congratulations to the Economic Competitiveness Commission and Lord Forsyth’s Tax Reform Commission, which first came up with the policy."

6pm: The story is actually from Paul Waugh of the London Evening Standard.  Owned by the same group, Standard stories often appear as Mail stories online.

Redwood urges bonfire of regulations

The Sunday Telegraph has a preview of the major recommendations of John Redwood's competitiveness report:

• The scrapping of working time regulations and, even more controversially, all data protection laws, which the report will say are an "expensive bureaucracy which fails to protect people's data".
• Less regulation of the financial services industry - including deregulation of the mortgage industry.
• Less Health & Safety burdens on care homes in order to increase the number of places for elderly and disabled people.
• Easing of regulations that govern how firms make employees redundant.
• The scrapping of Home Information Packs.
• Britain should opt out of the EU directive on food supplements.
• "Charities offering bingo competitions or raffles should no longer need a gaming licence."
• An end of IR35.

Stop for sharp intake of breath.

If implemented in full this deregulation package would, it is claimed, save British business £14bn.  Patience Wheatcroft gives Mr Redwood's ideas a warm welcome.

My guess is that Labour will see huge electoral opportunities from this report.  Expect the Brown machine to mount a massive scare campaign whether or not David Cameron embraces the recommendations.

Stand Up, Speak Up on the National and International Security Policy Group Report

Last week the National and International Security Policy Group unveiled it's report. If you would like to comment or vote on any of the recommendations in the report you can now do so here at the Party's Stand Up, Speak Up site.

National and International Security Policy Group Report

Another day another policy group report. This morning the National and International Security Policy Group unveiled its final report at Chatham House. The group's chairman, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, was introduced by David Cameron who pointed out that he had placed her in a difficult position as she was now a member of the Shadow Cabinet to whom she was submitting a report. As well as David Cameron (who has not attended either of the two previous policy group launches) Liam Fox, William Hague and David Davis all attended.

In common with the reports launched by Social Justice Policy Group and the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group this morning's report - entitled An Unquiet World - is comprehensive and substantial, David Cameron called it "hard headed, gritty and practical."

In her speech Dame Pauline started with a broad definition of what constitutes security; it encompasses our domestic as well as our foreign policy. She then highlighted three key conclusions;

• The growing world powers are in Asia; Britain should make more of its unique relationship with India.
• Power is shifting to the large producers of raw materials yet these countries are often unstable, authoritarian regimes where the resources are state owned.
• The ideological challenge of political Islam to liberal democracies; where Dame Pauline said we had to succeed, there can be no compromise.

The report does include all the recommendations we previewed this morning but in her speech Dame Pauline focussed on an increased use of diplomacy, highlighting the importance of the special relationship and calling for greater engagement with China and India; the need to integrate rather than alienate British Muslims, saying that separation is increasing, and starts early, often when choosing primary schools; and more support for our overstretched armed forces, calling for a defence review and the creation of a dedicated force to assist with civil emergencies.

Dame Pauline was critical of Gordon Brown's announcement yesterday about border police, saying that it was not comparable to the force being considered by the Conservatives.

In the questions afterwards David Cameron was asked about his strategy and he was resolute, saying he would "stay in the centre ground, battle for the centre ground."

Neville-Jones to present security ideas

Yesterday Gordon Brown announced his initiative on border policing - an idea originally proposed by the Conservatives.  After initially being welcomed by the Tories it was attacked by David Davis for excluding the police.  The Independent also found a delicious quote from Labour minister Liam Byrne when the Tories first proposed the policy:

"The chaos of a damaging, distracting and disruptive reorganisation of three agencies on the front line into a single border force. That idea is outdated and is rooted in a concept of a frontier that is long past.  It is simplistic and dangerous in the disruption that it poses. The number of people who seek to come to this country might double in the next 10 to 15 years, and I simply cannot think of a worse use of time than to consume front-line staff in the process of reapplying for their own jobs in a reorganisation, the benefits of which we are already achieving by equipping different agencies with the powers to do each other's jobs."

Today is the Conservative Party's turn at presenting their ideas on homeland security.  Dame Pauline Neville-Jones will present the findings of her policy group on security.  Here are some expected highlights:

• There is be the heavily-trailed promise of a US-style National Security Council to form long-term strategies on foreign policy, defence, internal security and national cohesion.
• The establishment of a dedicated civil emergencies force that would provide coordination and leadership in the event of a major terrorist incident.
• It will call for people from ethnic minority backgrounds to be respected as individual citizens rather than as members of groups.
• It proposes a new "Partnership for Open Societies" that would bring together major democracies and Middle East powers to promote stable, liberal democracy throughout the Middle East region.
• Attacking overstretch of the armed forces it calls for a review of defence policy every four years to ensure capacity matches mission.

The Global Poverty Policy Group reports

Peter Lilley launched the Globalisation and Global Poverty Group's final report this morning. It is substantial, detailed report and it makes 76 recommendations. You can download a copy of the report here.

Like the Social Justice report the Global Poverty report demonstrates the depth of the policy work that the Party is undertaking. David Cameron can be very grateful to Peter Lilley and the other members of the Group for their work on this excellent report which communicates a conservative vision for fighting poverty in the developing world through more "real" trade and more effective aid.

If you want to know more about the Report and have the opportunity to vote on its recommendations you can visit the Global Poverty section of Stand Up, Speak Up.

The Group's main recommendations are:

Real Trade

The report proposes an all-party campaign, called Real Trade, which will work to give all poor countries real opportunities to trade with the developed world through:

• "Unilateral tariff and quota-free access to the EU (and all other developed economies) for all goods
  and services from low income countries.
• "Liberalised Rules of Origin so that genuine tariff and quota free access would be available to low
  "income countries on substantially all of their output.
• "The abolition of all export subsidies from the EU and other developing countries.
• "An increased emphasis on Aid for Trade (i.e. aid dedicated to helping developing countries build up their capacity to export).
• "Incentives (including compensation for lost tariff revenues) to low income countries to reduce trade barriers against neighbouring low income countries and particularly to kickstart development of a Pan African Trade Area."

Members divided on tax allowance for same sex couples

Only 564 members answered this question compared to the 1,417 who answered the questions highlighted earlier today.  The question was added to the survey a number of hours after the survey had gone live - following David Cameron's suggestion on Channel 4 News that any married couples' allowance would also benefit same sex couples who had entered civil partnerships.

37% of the respondents agreed with David Cameron that any allowance should benefit such same sex couples but 49% did not agree that gay couples should receive the allowance.  A further 10% of this population of 564 disagreed with any tax allowance for married or same sex couples.