ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Why Fraser Nelson is Britain's best centre right commentator

He was your choice for writer of the year and Fraser Nelson's blog over at The Spectator this morning confirms (again) that verdict:

"The Scorched Earth policy has begun. The FT has a hugely significant story – that the Treasury is “working privately on plans to reform Gordon Brown’s fiscal rules” which would “initially allow for increased borrowing”. In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending."

Read Fraser's whole blog here.

Has Dacre given up on Brown?

On Tuesday the Mail decided that Jacqui Smith wasn't up to the job: How sad in these deeply worrying times that we are saddled instead with the vapidity of Home Secretary Smith.

Yesterday the Chancellor was dumped: Fiddling while the economy burns.

And now this:

George W Bush and David Cameron hold second meeting

It's very unusual for George W Bush to meet opposition leaders but America's President did meet David Cameron for thirty minutes earlier today, during his London visit.  That's a good sign of (a) the White House's awareness of the Conservative Party's ascendancy and (b) Much improved Tory-GOP relations.

William Hague, George Osborne and Pauline Neville-Jones accompanied the Conservative leader during at meeting at the US Ambassador's London residence.

CCHQ has released the following statement from David Cameron: 

“I had a very productive meeting with President Bush, taking forward some of the issues we discussed when we met in Washington last November.
 
I raised the situation in Zimbabwe, and the pressing need to do everything possible to prevent Mugabe from stealing the election. It is extremely important to make sure that independent observers have full access to the poll.  We continued the discussion we had before about the importance of standing up for free trade.
 
I underlined the commitment of the Conservative Party to Britain’s role in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. I also raised with the President my concerns about the need for improved co-ordination of the civilian effort of the ground, and greater clarity and unity of purpose between the different military chains of command – in particular between the NATO-led International Security assistance Force (ISAF) and Operating Enduring Freedom.”

***
Over the weekend we twice blogged about The Telegraph's mischief-making re David Davis (here and here).  The Telegraph's take on the Bush-Cameron meeting, from Rosa Prince: Green David Cameron undermined by George W Bush meeting.  A headline worthy of The Independent/ Guardian/ Mirror.

Related link: ToryDiary report on the first Cameron-Bush meeting, last November.

The Telegraph makes more mischief

Yesterday we noted how The Telegraph's most senior political journalists twice reported that David Davis had been excluded from the party leadership's 9.15am strategy meeting.  What The Telegraph wrote was simply false and interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning, David Davis confirmed it was false.  Unfortunately The Sunday Telegraph makes more mischief this morning.  This is the headline that appears on today's front page:

But if you read what Liam Fox actually said to reporter Melissa Kite he did not say that David Davis had been selfish.  These are Dr Fox's words so you can judge for yourself whether Ms Kite and the newspaper have been fair:

"Many of us feel very similarly to David but his way of highlighting it, calling a by-election, was a personal decision, it wasn't something that was taken in consultation with the shadow cabinet.

I think there's still a fair amount of mileage in the battle in Parliament at the moment. We've still got a fair amount of fighting to do, in the Lords and in the Commons."

Asked what he would have said to him if he had been consulted, Dr Fox replied: "I think the reason he wasn't consulting colleagues is he didn't want to be talked out of it. He made up his mind.

"David has very strong views. He's decided that's how he would like to highlight it. Obviously that's his personal decision and, as David Cameron said, it's a courageous thing to do because you never know what will happen in a by-election. But it was not a collective decision."

Dr Fox, a one-time rival of Mr Davis in the 2005 leadership campaign, which saw Mr Cameron elevated, appeared to suggest that Mr Davis had better get used to life on the back benches if he were to re-take his seat. "When he comes back to the House of Commons, I imagine he will want to continue pressing on these issues, issues of personal liberty being eroded."

Asked whether it would not seem odd to have such a big hitter on the back benches, Dr Fox said: "No. One of the things that's been a great tragedy in recent years is the lack of senior politicians on the back benches. I think Parliament actually benefits from having people of experience on the back benches, rather than it just being a training ground for young, ambitious newcomers."

Asked whether he thought the decision selfish, Dr Fox replied: "I think it's clearly a decision he made for himself. It is evidently not something I would have done. It wasn't something that was decided collectively, so David takes responsibility for that action."

Liam Fox made it clear that David Davis made the decision alone but he certainly did not use the word "selfish" and, in our opinion, did not even imply that he thought David Davis was acting selfishly.  [Liam Fox was speaking to The Sunday Telegraph in advance of an interim report from Frederick Forsyth on defence matters - reported perfectly fairly here by Sean Rayment].

This is not the first time that Melissa Kite has been guilty of sloppy and sensationalist journalism.  She recently speculated that Oliver Heald should be demoted from the shadow cabinet even though he isn't in the shadow cabinet.  Last year Alan Duncan accused Ms Kite of "shoddy" journalism after she had written a trouble-making story about David Cameron wanting to demote William Hague.  A little earlier she had tried to derail the launch of Iain Duncan Smith's Breakdown Britain report with a spurious story about the former party leader's view of gay parenting.  If a Tory wants to be interviewed for The Sunday Telegraph they'd be wise to deal with the newspaper's PolEd, Patrick Hennessy.

The Telegraph makes mischief

"Every morning at nine, Mr Cameron meets key aides and shadow ministers including William Hague, Michael Gove and George Osborne. Mr Davis has always been put out that he is not invited."

Those two sentences appeared in yesterday's Telegraph, from Robert Winnett.  Quite damaging on the face of it but not true.  We happen to know that David Davis attended the morning meeting as often as George Osborne.  When David Cameron and William Hague are both away David Davis actually chaired the meeting. 

Not content with getting it wrong once the Telegraph's Political Editor Andy Porter repeats the idea again this morning:

"Davis was irked that despite his seniority, he was rarely asked to attend the Tories' regular 9am strategy meetings. Instead, the close cabal is made up of George Osborne, Michael Gove and William Hague; chiefs of staff Ed Llewellyn and Catherine Fall; and communications chief Andy Coulson. Steve Hilton, the Svengali figure credited with rebranding the Tories, used to attend, but recently his appearances have been limited, as he prepares to move to California."

The Telegraph would be on stronger ground if it wrote about the closeness of David Cameron and George Osborne, for example.  (Only natural given Mr Osborne's chairmanship of Cameron's leadership bid).  They didn't do that but have made very specific and more troubling accusations about David Davis being sidelined from this key meeting.  We know that The Telegraph is not writing the truth.  We can't believe that CCHQ hasn't told The Telegraph that it's untrue.  Why The Telegraph persists in writing it is the real question.

10am, Sunday 15th June: David Davis, interviewed by Andrew Marr, confirmed that he did attend the 9.15am strategy meeting.

3pm, Sunday: Andrew Porter has now blogged on these morning meetings.

Will The Sun give Mackenzie full backing?

Surprisingly, there's barely any mention of Kelvin Mackenzie's candidacy in The Sun today, despite it being an idea supported by Rebekah Wade and Rupert Murdoch himself (it started off as a dinner party joke). Mackenzie - who failed to unseat a Conservative at the last local elections - said he was 90% certain of standing.

Davis' confirmed rivals so far include the OMRLP, the Miss Great Britain Party and a local fruit-n-veg trader. Whether The Sun throws its weight behind its former editor or not, the Conservatives - especially Davis - have lost favour with the paper recently. One story it does cover today is Dominic Grieve's remarks shortly after 7/7:

"The new Shadow Home Secretary sparked fury after the 7/7 attacks – saying he understood terrorists’ anger. Dominic Grieve said a month after the London bombings – which killed 52 people – that he found it “totally explicable”. And the barrister claimed the Iraq War was partly to blame. Details of his offensive remarks re-emerged yesterday in a fresh embarrassment to David Cameron."

As we noted yesterday, "one of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism".

83% of Conservative MPs voted for 22 weeks (80% of Labour MPs voted against)

Research by the BBC for Radio 4's World at One programme reveals the significant party divide hidden behind last night's free votes on the need for fatherhood and for a lower abortion limit:

• 92% of Conservative MPs backed Iain Duncan Smith's call for fatherhood to be recognised when decisions about fertility treatment are being made.  82% of Labour MPs were opposed to such a recognition.
• A very similar divide was clear when it came to the unsuccessful attempt to reduce the time limit for abortion.  83% of Tory MPs favoured a lower limit and 80% of Labour MPs opposed it.  Tory MP after Tory MP gave speeches last night in favour of increased protection for the unborn child.

If the Conservatives win the next election and if new MPs vote in similar proportion to the way their existing parliamentary parties vote then it is very likely that a tougher regime for abortion will be introduced.

The only clues to the next Conservative intake's views on social issues come from a November 2007 survey of candidates by ConservativeHome.com.  Abortion wasn't addressed but euthanasia and gay adoption were.  Candidates were divided on a right-to-die for very sick people but largely in favour of Catholic adoption agencies being free to deny placing children with gay couples.

'Fleet Street' is becoming friendly again

The Sun backed him earlier this week and, today, The Times endorses Boris Johnson:

"The Conservative candidate is an enormously intelligent man. His eccentricities are, it should be remembered, basically harmless and inoffensive whereas Mr Livingstone's various attempts to summon up the political spirit of 1968 and cosy up to political thugs and merchants of hate most definitely are not. The thrust of Mr Johnson's policy suggestions on crime, transport and planning are sensible. His candour is welcome. His energy, enthusiasm and appetite for the role are much needed, particularly as London's economy heads into a testing few years. He is alive to Londoners' very deep concerns about drugs, stabbings and gangs, disappointment about persistent poverty and housing shortages, as well as their frustrations at traffic jams, empty bendy buses and an Underground network that is held to ransom by Bob Crow and the RMT."

There will be real delight inside Team Cameron that two Murdoch-owned titles have 'voted for' a Conservative candidate for the first time since the creation of New Labour.  Although many dispute that newspaper endorsements are of much electoral value - and Cameron won the Tory leadership despite much early hostility from right-wing newspapers - there is much more benefit to be had from positive coverage on the news pages, which can often flow from changes in editorial stance.

Team Cameron can already rely upon the endorsement of The Express and The Telegraph.  The Telegraph would like more boldness from David Cameron (ConservativeHome's position, too) but the only newspaper that backed the Tories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 will back the Conservatives again.

What would you like to see happen to The Telegraph's Comment pages?

Many congratulations to Iain Martin.  Iain has been appointed the new 'Head of Comment and Community' at The Telegraph.  This involves responsibility for overseeing comment on the Daily and Sunday newspapers plus all of the community blogging.  He's a great guy and we wish him luck.  We certainly hope he prospers - there have been, we think, eight comment editors at The Telegraph in as many years (and the inconsistency has been very evident).

Iain Martin won't be short of advice over the coming weeks but let's use this thread to get the advice going.

The temptation will be to dumb down - like the rest of the newspaper.  Our principal hope would that that would be resisted.  We'd like to see The Telegraph's Comment pages become the home of British conservatism (note the small 'c').  They should be pages alive with discussion about reclaiming powers from Europe, how to improve our nation's schools, how to lower the tax burden and about distinctively conservative solutions to poverty.  They should be articles linked to campaigns.  The internet is dissolving the walls between what is a newspaper, a campaign organisation and a political party.  Let's see The Telegraph lead the way through those changes.  In short Telegraph Comment should play the role that The Wall Street Journal's 'Opinion Journal' has played for the American conservative movement.  For years The Telegraph was the Conservative Party's in-house journal.  With party politics in retreat and single issue politics growing, it should become the home of small 'c' conservative thinking.  Give the Barclay Brothers something to be proud of - a jewel in the crown of campaigning opinion journalism.

The thought-leaders of British conservatism should regularly populate the comment pages: David Green, Allister Heath, Jill Kirby, Douglas Murray, Ruth Lea included.

Use the Comment pages to engage with the culture wars.  Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum would be perfect for that task.

Other advice to Iain: Please try and get Mark Steyn back and see if you can poach James Forsyth and Fraser Nelson from The Spectator.

In other media news: Jenny Scott is leaving The Daily Politics to become Head of Press at the Bank of England.

Is The Sun cooling towards bullying Brown?

Earlier this week Irwin Stelzer - 'Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth' - gave an interview to The Guardian in which he signalled a growing warmth of The Sun (and News of the World) to David Cameron.

The Murdoch-Brown-Cameron relationships have been taken up by Roy Greenslade today in his 'Media Analysis' column for the London Evening Standard.  Mr Greenslade quotes a number of evidences for believing that The Sun etc might have stopped spinning for Brown:

• The Sun's strident campaign on the EU treaty including yesterday's page lead approvingly quoting Labour MP Gisela Stuart and her startling suggestion that Brown might be behaving dishonestly;
• The Sunday Times' criticisms of Labour's moves on Capital Gains Tax;
• The Times' leaders yesterday attacking Brown on tax and Miliband on the EU Treaty.

I understand that there is also growing resentment within the Murdoch press - and at other media outlets - of Brown's bullying nature.  I've sometimes been concerned that the Tory operation hasn't been on the phone enough to senior political correspondents but Brown and his operatives are seemingly overdoing the contacting.

Editors of national newspapers have had the Prime Minister on the telephone on a number of occasions some days.  It makes him look too political (he's supposed to be running the nation after all) and his operatives are getting a reputation for being bullies.  Bullying works better when you are on the up (Mandelson before 1997 in particular) - it doesn't work so well when you're tanking... when you've given cosy exclusives to rival journalists (Brown to Marr on Chicken Saturday)... and when the press pack has reason to doubt your honesty (Brown: 'I wouldn't have gone to the country if opinion polls were predicting a 100 Labour majority!').

Mirror journalist joins Telegraph's political team

The Press Gazette is reporting that Rosa Prince, a political journalist at The Mirror for the last ten years, is to replace Brendan Carlin as a political reporter for The Telegraph.  Brendan Carlin is leaving for the Mail on Sunday.

The Telegraph's recently-appointed political editor Andrew Porter said: "I am delighted Rosa is joining The Daily Telegraph’s political team. She has an excellent track record and will add a new dimension to the team."  'What new dimension?' will be a question on the minds of many Tories who have worried about The Telegraph's friendliness towards Labour in recent times.  ConservativeHome has been worried about The Telegraph's editorial direction for some time (see here, here and here).  Earlier this week Guido also voiced his concerns at goings-on at what he dubbed 'The Daily Labourgraph'.

It's the News of the World wot stopped it?

More details of the ICM/ News of the World poll:

• 77% disapprove of Labour's record on immigration.
• 63% of its law and order performance.
• 62% disapprove of Labour  on tax.
• More than half (52%) give Labour the thumbs down on the NHS.

The NotW leader offers advice to David Cameron:

"The Tories' alluring promise of stamp duty and inheritance tax cuts has resonated with a public tired of overbearing taxation and weary of not being able to get on the housing ladder. We have long believed that a party of smaller government, less bureaucracy and lower taxes is a winning party."

Earlier this evening, on Channel 4 News, George Osborne insisted that the tax announcements were only a part of the reason for the Tory fightback.  He also credited David Cameron's speech - which the NotW notes "had a considerable impact" - and the overall message of the party on the NHS and education.  What is clear and welcome, however, is that lower taxation is back at the heart of the Conservative pitch.

BROWN CANNIBALISED HIS OWN PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGES:

The Mail and Telegraph fail their readers (it's Cameron's job to change that)

The Sun is at its best this morning.  Not only does its front page attack Brown for his dismissive 12 second mention of the EU Treaty (and its own high voltage campaign for the referendum we were promised) but its Sun Says column exposes the hypocrisy of yesterday's speech:

"In Bournemouth, he promised to abolish child poverty. Yet under Labour the gap between rich and poor has grown.

Mr Brown warned foreign drug dealers and gun-wielding thugs will be kicked out of Britain. But where to? Not to the EU or anywhere they might be in danger. The EU would probably send them back.

He vowed to give power to matrons to rid wards of hospital superbugs.  But this is the third time of promising. Meanwhile, thousands have needlessly died because staff won’t wash their hands.

We are to have the most modern health care and access to doctors and hospitals of our choice.  Yet after doubling NHS spending, Britain still has the worst survival rates for cancer and strokes in Europe.

“Suffer the little children to come unto me,” said Mr Brown in one of his frequent biblical quotations.  Yet Britain is close to the bottom of the western world league table as a place for children to grow up."

In stark contrast, The Mail and Telegraph choose almost identical headlines... "Brown targets Tory heartlands" splashes The Telegraph and The Mail's front page headline is: "Brown woos the Tory heartlands".  Both highlight the fact that Brown used the words British and Britishness 71 times (The Telegraph's count) and 81 times (The Mail's count) as if this excuses a speech that will amount to a relentless  expansion of state welfare.  It's true that both newspapers publish leading articles that are critical of Brown's 63 minute performance but the news coverage is much more important.  Why didn't The Telegraph choose "Brown's promises will raise taxes" as its headline?  Why didn't The Mail attack Brown for his not-too-coded attack on David Cameron's support for two parent families?

Ten years ago - at the start of the Brown-Blair years - newspapers could have been forgiven for taking Brown's promises at face value but it's unforgivable now.  Every Brown Budget contained sleights of hand.  Labour's failures on crime, immigration, Europe, inner city renewal and the environment could all have been heavily featured but that blue background seemed more interesting to these two once clear-headed newspapers.

A large part of their reluctance to attack Gordon Brown is probably rooted in their lack of enthusiasm for David Cameron.  That is the Conservative leader's main task in Blackpool next week.  He has to enthuse the Conservative media and the Conservative base.  He needs to show that there is a real alternative to Gordon Brown's stealthy undoing of Thatcherism.  Until the next election becomes a real choice I don't think enough people will be more than half-hearted in their resistance to Gordon Brown.

2.15pm: Fraser Nelson blogs that Gordon Brown "spent ages at the Telegraph party".

What's going on at The Telegraph?

On each of the last three weekdays the newspaper formerly known as The Daily Torygraph has been causing big headaches at CCHQ.

On Friday it gave massive attention to a YouGov opinion poll - a lot of the data for which was already a week old.  That week had included the energetic Cameron offensive on crime and social breakdown.  The Telegraph talked of a landslide Tory defeat.

Yesterday The Telegraph gave Gordon Brown celebrity treatment on the back of an interview he gave to the newspaper.  A front page splash was accompanied by a two page spread by new political editor, Andrew Porter.  That spread included large pictures of a laughing Gordon Brown and a very prime ministerial portrait shot.

Today's Telegraph has given headline coverage to Michael Ancram's untimely intervention.  A leader in today's Telegraph - 'Tories must rediscover their core principles' - concludes: "What is at stake is more than the next election: it is the survival of the Conservative cause itself and the values that it embodies."

The next election is not a referendum on David Cameron.  It is a choice.  A choice between a Conservative leader who is beginning to get his message right and a Labour Prime Minister who has increased tax to record levels, presided over the defeat in Basra and denied people a vote on the EU Treaty.  Why is The Telegraph giving Mr Brown so much comfort?

Related link: Cameron cannot win without The Mail, Telegraph and Express writes Nick Wood in his new Spin Wars column for ConservativeHome.

8.30pm update: Patience Wheatcroft has resigned as Editor of The Sunday Telegraph (Guardian).

News International boss says Brown "formidable" and Cameron "clever"

In a rare interview in September's Esquire magazine Les Hinton, the executive chairman of News International (owners of the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World), said that the next election will be "the first time we've had a contest since 1992" and that it is "impossible to say" who will win it.

He said that "the next year will show that Brown has been underestimated and my guess is that he will turn out to be formidable." Adding "Brown is a formidable intellect. So is Blair, but he had the ability to be a bit more folksy - which Gordon is learning."

On David Cameron Les Hinton said "Cameron has made some horrible misjudgements but is still a fresh, eager, clever man."

Les Hinton is Rupert Murdoch's right hand man in the UK, he was a 15 year old copy boy on the Adelaide News when he met a 28 year old Rupert Murdoch. Whether the views he expressed are his bosses we do not know but they are certainly observations worth noting from a former journalist who runs some of Britain's biggest newspapers.

The Mail praises Brown's "return to decent values"

All of the papers are reporting that Gordon Brown has killed off Tony Blair's supercasino plans.  The Mail can barely contain its delight:

"To his huge credit, Gordon Brown is turning his back on the big-money interests that held his predecessor in thrall and is signalling that Britain's first supercasino is dead in the water.  Admittedly, Blair's wretched gambling policy had already become a farce.  Only weeks after Manchester was awarded the licence to run this vast new opportunity to exploit the weak and vulnerable, the House of Lords threw out the proposal - and with it, plans for 16 smaller casinos.

But that doesn't alter the significance of what Mr Brown had to say on the subject yesterday.  He doesn't repeat Downing Street's arrogant claim last March that the gambling industry is still 'very much alive', despite the Parliamentary vote.  He acknowledges frankly that there is 'no consensus' in either the Commons or the Lords.  He knows most voters don't want a supercasino.  And unlike Mr Blair, he is listening."

Gordon Brown's friend Paul Dacre may have been positive about IDS' marriage report yesterday but today's leader shows that The Mail's affection for the new Prime Minister remains strong.

David Cameron has attacked the manner of the supercasino u-turn - announced at PMQs in response to a question from a Labour backbencher.  The Conservative leader said it contradicted Brown's declared wish for a return to Cabinet government: "Suddenly the Government's policy is torn up on the sort of whim of an answer at Prime Minister's questions."  I'd prefer the Tories to simply welcome the u-turn and the abandonment of a supercasino that Hugo Swire did so much to successfully oppose.

Big welcome from centre right press for IDS' report

The traditionally right-of-centre newspapers give a warm welcome this morning to yesterday's policy recommendations from Iain Duncan Smith.  Although there is some discussion of the breadth of the report, the main focus is on the promises to help families.

Daily Mail (not online): "For ten years, Gordon Brown has presided over a tax and benefits system that not only destroys incentives to work, but positively encourages parents to live apart, while penalising those who stay together.  Mr Cameron's determination to redress that balance not only makes good sense for Britain; it makes good politics for the Tories too.  If he has the sense to match properly costed policies to his brave words, he'll find he's on to a vote-winner."

Daily Telegraph: "The outcomes for children raised by two parents living together are far better than for those raised by single parents, and couples are far more likely to remain together if they are married rather than cohabiting... This is clearly a sphere in which Mr Cameron feels comfortable and to which he can bring sincere personal conviction. It may well be his key to a successful opposition strategy."

The Sun (not online): "For the first-time, the Tories have carved out vote-winning territory beyond the reach of New Labour.  They promise to use the tax and welfare system to reward marriage... A stable and happy marriage offers the best family environment for children... Now - instead of suggesting we pay more for our booze, museums and cheap flights - the Tories are backing marriage.  And that has to be a good thing."

Daily Express (not online): "David Cameron is right to set a political course that encompasses tax breaks for married parents.  Marriage should be encouraged because children thrive when they grow up in stable, two-parent families.  Labour's welfare state tinkering has led to parents lower down the income scale being much better off if they split up.  That cannot be right."

Leaders in The Guardian and Independent are critical of the marriage recommendations although The Independent is impressed with much of the report: "This voluminous report is for the most part admirably free of preconceptions, and contains ideas that would deserve consideration by a government of any complexion."

David Cameron writes for the Mail about his commitment to marriage.

Will Brown choose Harman or Dacre in the great marriage debate?

The Tory-Mail relationship hasn't been great of late so there'll have been a few smiles within Team Cameron at this morning's Daily Mail front page splash...

The Mail's enthusiasm for Iain Duncan Smith's likely recommendation that action is taken to reduce the disincentives to marry within the tax and benefits system will be a test for Gordon Brown.  Our new Prime Minister has courted The Sun and Mail ever since he set his eyes on Number Ten.  He will be concerned that he may lose Paul Dacre if he goes too hard against the Tory marriage policy although Harriet Harman et al will be pressing him very hard to do so.

This is how today's Mail leader column concludes:

"Duncan Smith's report is a welcome challenge to political correctness. Though some of his proposals may prove contentious - for example, swingeing taxes on alcohol to fund treatments for drug addicts - his case for strengthening family structures is compelling.  As David Cameron says, mending Britain's 'broken society' is the biggest issue of our times. It will be instructive to see how other parties respond."

Ms Harman's political correctness means she despises any hint that one form of family structure is usually better for children than any other.  That political correctness forces her and her ideological Labour colleagues to ignore the evidence that poverty is almost certainly unbeatable if public policy does not support two parents and marriage.

Andrew Porter to be Telegraph's Political Editor

34yr old Porter will take over from George Jones in October. He is The Sun's Deputy Political Editor, and previously was the Deputy Political Editor of The Sunday Times, Telegraph Editor Will Lewis' former paper.

Deputy Editor

A General Election within one year?

Iain Dale has already noted the BBC's OTT coverage of Brown's first day as Labour leader.  Throughout this week I'll be keeping a daily eye on the coverage of The Daily Mail and of The Sun of Brown's first week as Tony Blair's successor.  Both newspapers will be crucial influences on whether Brown can maintain the coalition of voters that delivered three victories for Mr Blair.  Both have a history of indulging the Chancellor.

Both newspapers have more or less the same front page splashes: 'Election In A Year' (The Sun - which bills its story as an exclusive!) and 'Brown Gears Up For Sping Election' (The Daily Mail).  Have they been spun by the man who has promised to end spin? Or are their political antennae making the same conclusions from the appointment of Douglas Alexander as General Election Coordinator?

EU referendum: Page two of The Sun declares 'Over To EU: Irish Referendum Pressure On Gord'.  Political Editor George Pascoe Watson quotes William Hague and piles the pressure on 'Gord' to  honour 2005's Labour manifesto promise.  In The Mail there is extensive coverage of William Hague's intervention, Melanie Phillips writes that Brown will deserve to forfeit voters' trust if he does not grant a referendum and the Mail leader says: "Mr Brown insists that he wants the public to be 'informed and consulted'. But not, apparently, on Europe. He holds out no hope of a referendum."

Harriet Harman: Neither newspaper is impressed with Harriet Harman's victory.  The Mail describes her as an "ice cold feminist" and reminds us of her 'Harriet Harperson' nickname (shouldn't that be Harperkin to avoid the reference to 'son'?!).  Both newspapers say that Brown has snubbed her by giving her a "non-job" (The Sun).  The Sun's overall verdict on HH:

"The election of Harriet Harman as Deputy Leader cast a shadow over Mr Brown’s unopposed inheritance of the job he has waited thirteen long years for.  But the man who the Queen will appoint Prime Minister on Wednesday showed he is quick-witted and ruthless.  Within minutes of Ms Harman’s election he made it clear she will NOT be the new Deputy Prime Minister in place of John Prescott.  Though as party chairman Harriet will have a similar role to hopeless old Two Jags — keeping the Old Labour lefties in line.  They won’t mind her disowning of the Iraq conflict as “wrong”.  They might agree with her thumbs down to nuclear power, a suicidal policy that would leave us at the mercy of the unpredictable Russians and the volatile Middle East.  Who knows?  The trouble is that she is so politically correct some of her MP colleagues call her Harriet Harperson.  Mr Brown spotted her weaknesses a mile off — which shows he has good judgment as he prepares to announce his new Cabinet.  He will have enough on his plate fulfilling his promises on housing, education and the NHS without having Ms Harman making a mess of one of the great Ministries."

The Brown speech: Both newspapers say that they are waiting for the beef but both gave the general message a thumbs up.  The Sun said "Gordon Brown had an almost perfect day."  The Mail:

"After such a very long time to gather his thoughts, Gordon Brown could be expected to press all the right buttons when he made his maiden speech as Labour leader. He did not disappoint.  Education, the NHS, housing, voters' disenchantment with the political process, fear of crime and worries about devolution - each was mentioned as he accepted the party crown at the conclusion of his non-election... Mr Brown has proved beyond doubt his ability to command a great office of state. Now he has to bring the same skill to the whole business of government."

Strong Brown: Both newspapers - particularly with regard to non-jobbing Harriet Harman - emphasised Brown's ruthlessness. The new Labour leader won't mind that.

Other stories: It's often not the editorial line but the selection of stories that most influences readers.  Today's Mail was encouraging in that respect.  Here are some anti-Government headlines in today's newspaper:

• East Europe migrants bring surge in pickpocketing crime
• Quarter of marriages revealed as sham as rules are tightened
• Now pupils might miss out on a place at university if their parents have good jobs
• Labour has lost support of doctors says BMA boss
• Mum denied cancer drug funding has to sell her house
• ASBOs leading to more crime
• Prisoners released without checks in rush to free-up cells

It will be relentless news stories like that which will eventually do for Brown.  I hope.

Just when The Telegraph warms to Cameron, the Mail goes AWOL

Via under-the-table means, ConservativeHome readers had advance sight of David Cameron's big speech last night.  In a sign of the Cameroons keenness to repair relations with the newspaper-of-choice for Tory activists, The Telegraph didn't have to get hold of its copy in such a way.  The speech gets front page treatment today.  There are also detailed extracts of the speech printed on page four and a welcoming leader:

"Readers who complain that David Cameron's approach to politics is insubstantial might usefully ponder his latest speech. The Tory leader is plainly determined to recapture civic society for the Conservatives.  The Left, at its core, stands for the power of the state; the Right for the freedom of the individual. But in between the state and the individual is the realm of society: the realm of guilds and orchestras and parish councils and public companies and Girl Guide troops and Facebook communities."

Facebook communities are now a small platoon.  What would Edmund Burke make of that?

But, if the Telegraph-Tory relationship is improving, the Mail-Tory relationship continues to be tricky.  The longstanding Brown-Dacre affection is reflected in The Mail's page two lead: Brown to allow UK to have a referendum on Europe.  In a leader the Chancellor is described as "Eurosceptic".

The Mail's Political Editor, Ben Brogan, also speculates that senior Cameron aide George Bridges is to replace Oliver Letwin MP as the day-to-day 'bomb-proofer' of the policy review process.  Mr Letwin's role will become more strategic.  More annoying for CCHQ is the Melanie Phillips column on page 18: No wonder it's so hard to trust Dave.

Never one to pull her punches, Ms Phillips says that the Tories are "in panic-stricken disarray."  The article contains one attack after another on Project Cameron.  Ms Phillips is very much her own person but it is Paul Dacre who generally decides the subject of her Monday column.  The fact that he has commissioned this piece from Mel P reveals that the Mail's ridiculous affection for Gordon Brown appears to be continuing.  On tax, support for marriage and investment in crime-fighting, the Chancellor is at odds with the key 'values' of the Mail.  The Mail's affection for Mr Brown is a subject for another day, however.

Concluding our brief look at the traditional right-wing press, The Sun Says ignores Cameron's speech but attacks the handling of the museums issue:

"With Tory poll ratings nose-diving and David Cameron reeling from the grammar schools debacle, another old Etonian on his front bench has a brilliant idea: Scrap free admission to museums.  Yes, you read it correctly. Axe the most universally popular initiative of Labour’s entire period in office."

The Sun continues in a line of attack you'll hear a lot from Brown: "Tory culture spokesman Hugo Swire has never been short of a tenner. And that’s the problem. He and many of his colleagues simply don’t understand ordinary families."  ToryDiary covered the museums story yesterday.

Telegraph spins report to reignite grammar school argument

If you picked up a copy of the Telegraph today, formerly known as the Torygraph, you'd have seen a story on the inside page entitled "Study shows grammars benefit poor pupils":

"The row over academic selection was reignited last night after a study concluded that more grammar schools would boost the results of working class pupils and raise education standards nationwide. Researchers said that expanding the number of selective places was just as likely to benefit children from poor homes."

However, the report is entirely about how it may be better for poor children to do more core academic subjects instead of vocational skills within schools - and nothing to do with school selection. The authors were even savvy enough to leave a clear disclaimer on this:

"Clearly this research cannot be interpreted as evaluating the overall effects of a comprehensive or selective ('tracked') system of education" 

The report, published in the journal of the LSE's Centre for Economic Performance could have just as easily been interpreted as supportive of the comprehensive system. It effectively criticises academic selection (tracking) at one point when it says:

"we show that the net effect of the de-tracking reform was to increase [improve] examination results at the end of compulsory schooling"

And on page 26, in one of the few mentions of selection, it supports the Willetts view of social selection:

"Part of the large differential in educational outcomes between these socio-economic groups is directly attributed to the lower probability of children from poor family backgrounds entering into grammar schools."

Moving Simon Heffer away from the comment pages doesn't appear to have lessened the hostility to Cameron's Conservatives on the part of the Telegraph's editorial team, they clearly leant on Education Correspondent Graeme Paton to spin this report so misleadingly.

Deputy Editor

11am update: Left-wing co-author Sandra McNally has come to the rescue of David Willetts by clarifying that the report was indeed not relevant to the grammars debate:

"This paper is only directed at one narrow question about Northern Irish education.  The paper does not address or provide evidence on whether selective or comprehensive education systems do better and provides no support for reintroducing grammar schools across the UK.  The paper does, however, provide evidence that the grammar school system entrenches social disadvantage."

Educational economist Gervas Huxley has gone through the report and found this to be true:

"The fundamental message of this research is that less able children benefit from an academic as opposed to a vocational education system. It says almost nothing about streaming, setting, selection, grammar schools, the 11+ or anything else."

Pressed for a quote last night Graham Brady said that "the figures speak for themselves", unfortunately for him they don't say what he was led to believe!

5pm update: "In an interview with the House Magazine former frontbencher Ann Winterton said that the policy announced by shadow education secretary David Willetts was deeply unpopular with ordinary members of the party." - ePolitix

The Daily Mail: The Conservative Party must unite behind the best leader it has had in years

Most Daily Mail readers will have gained a very negative sense of the current position of the Cameron project from their newspaper this morning.  Ben Brogan has written a page six piece headlined "The Tories terrible week".  The article's three subheadings are:

• Willetts in jeopardy over grammar row;
• Outcry over red-top editor's new PR role;
• MPs' scorn over 'heir to Blair' claims.

Readers turning to pages 14 and 15 will see a double page article from former Thatcher adviser Robin Harris that is headlined: "Why does Cameron despise the Tories?"  On page 25 Peter Oborne's regular column also makes very uncomfortable reading.  The headline: "The Leader's 'heir of Blair' strategy is in disarray.  His enemies are on the prowl."

Few readers will probably read the leader column on page 14 but it will offer some relief to Team Cameron.  The leader (not currently online) notes that "the inelectable fact is that [David Cameron] is the first leader in more than a decade to make the party look electable".  The leader continues:

"If Michael Howard brought discipline, then Mr Cameron, by giving the party a new caring image, has reconnected the Conservatives to countless people who had been alienated by the perceived harshness of some Tory policies.  He has executed this stategy with both brilliance and courage."

Although critical of Mr Cameron's addiction to the appeasement of The Guardian-BBC (a key concern of Mail Editor Paul Dacre) the leader-writers warns that the party must "unite behind the best leader they have had in years."

For David Cameron the last two weeks will make him stronger if he learns the right lessons.  Lesson number one is that he must pay more attention to the breadth of the Conservative coalition.  There should be no retreat from the greener and gentler conservatism that has been so successful in attracting LibDem voters back into the Tory column.  But he must pay more attention to the concerns of striving voters and other natural Tories who would like him to address their concerns about crime and immigration and squeezed disposable incomes.  As this website has constantly argued - there need be no conflict between a compassionate engagement with the problems of developing countries, for example, and a very tough approach to border control.  The party can and should combine a massive prisons building programme with more support for the children of prisoners.  ConservativeHome believes we have the right leader for our times.  With this week's inspired appointment of Andy Coulson he now has a key adviser who can help him connect with the traditional, northern and lower income voters who are currently unconvinced by the new Conservative Party.

No longer The Torygraph?

I've written for Comment is free about the difficult relationship between The Telegraph and the Tory leadership.  I argue that The Telegraph should still matter to the Tories:

"In the same way that Tony Blair pursued the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch and The Sun, David Cameron has devoted an enormous amount of energy to neutralising the traditional hostility of the BBC towards the Conservative Party. Keeping The Telegraph happy matters a lot less to Team Cameron than a good relationship with Nick Robinson et al. But the Telegraph-Tory relationship should still matter. The Telegraph remains the newspaper most widely read by the party's most active supporters although the blogosphere is already beginning to provide these supporters with faster, more comprehensive and interactive coverage of Tory news. In a close election The Telegraph would play a vital role in energising centre-right voters."

3pm update from The Guardian: Simon Heffer to stop being Telegraph Comment Editor.

Heffer spikes Michael Howard's grammar schools article

Rumours around the Westminster village yesterday suggested that today would see an article appear in The Telegraph in which Michael Howard would question the new Tory policy on grammar schools.  I was told that The Telegraph was "excited" by the piece. 

A member of Michael Howard's office confirmed the existence of the article yesterday morning.  When David Cameron's office heard the same rumours they rushed to persuade Mr Howard to dilute the article.  The operation was so successful that Simon Heffer has declined to publish it.  The episode is only the latest example of the difficult Telegraph-Cameron relationship - brought into focus again yesterday by WebCameron's attack on the "near hysterical" Telegraph.

A YouGov poll in this morning's Telegraph found that 49% of voters support a mixture of grammar schools and secondary moderns.  Support increases to 71% amongst Tory voters - a figure nearly identical to ConservativeHome's January 2006 finding that 73% of members oppose David Cameron's 'no more grammars' pledge.

The Times notes that David Willetts sought to defuse MPs' anger by offering to "repeal laws that allow parents to vote to scrap existing grammar schools".