ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

It is both the right and duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account

Twice this week the Prime Minister has accused Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition of speaking out inappropriately.

First came the moment during Prime Ministers' Questions when Mr Brown took exception to David Cameron's line of questioning about the failures at the heart of Haringey chidren's services.

And then yesterday, he expressed "disappointment" at George Osborne's "partisan talk" when the shadow chancellor raised perfectly reasonable questions over the dangers of too much borrowing. (By the way, the PM would do well do look at the results of today's Independent on Sunday poll which show the public overwhelmingly supporting a reduction in spending rather than increased borrowing to fund tax cuts)

All of which raises the question, isn't it the role, nay duty, of the Opposition to raise probing questions about the issues of the day and the way the Prime Minister and his Government is running the country?

As Fraser Nelson has rightly pointed out on Coffee House:

"There has never been a greater need for full-blooded, disrespectful, combative, full-on scrutiny of what he [Brown] says."

Amen to that. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposition to stand idly by and let the Prime Minister get away with whatever he wants in the name of "doing the right thing by the country".

Mr Brown would obviously take the view that what he is doing is right; but it is absolutely vital that he be held to account, criticised, questioned and condemned as necessary when what he is doing and saying is evidently not the right thing for the country.

Many have expressed concerns at various points over the last few years that the Conservative Party has taken a too consensual approach, not least in its desire to match Labour's spending plans, for instance.

So it's reassuring to see some fire in the Tory belly - and it has clearly rattled the Prime Minister. I look forward to seeing more robust lines of attack from David Cameron, George Osborne et al in the run-up to the general election.

Jonathan Isaby

The Tory tax cut must not be a mouse

The Telegraph reports that "Alistair Darling will announce measures worth several hundred pounds to every family struggling to cope in the downturn."  The Conservatives, meanwhile, will announce a fully-funded tax relief that, the Today programme reports, will be targeted on people in danger of losing their jobs.

Although small tax cuts can work electorally (see the experience of Canada) it is vital that tomorrow's Conservative tax reliefs are proportionate to the scale of the economic challenge facing Britain.  Tory members agree with the leadership that indebted Britain cannot afford even more borrowing but tough spending restraint could afford large tax reliefs (a position supported by today's Daily Mail).

Trevor Kavanagh uses his Sun column to attack the "sloppy assumptions" of the Conservative position - particularly on economics but the most important warning to David Cameron and George Osborne comes from Fraser Nelson.  Writing at Coffee House he points to the experience of America where Barack Obama 'stole' the tax issue from the Republicans:

"McCain didn’t think for a moment that the tax-cutting agenda could ever be stolen from the conservatives. He was wrong. Obama put tax cuts at the front and centre of every speech he made, even if this wasn’t much reported in Britain. Look at www.obamataxcut.com to see the power of the message he was sending American voters. You enter your income, and see how much better-off you’d be under Obama than under McCain. Obama placed tax cuts at the start of his “infomercial,” he ran two-minute television adverts on tax cuts. He stole the issue from under the noses of the conservatives. Just like Bush did with education in 2000 and Clinton with welfare reform in 1992." 

What is Conservatism's mission?

At times like this when many commentators are saying our core beliefs have been repudiated it's good to revisit our actual understanding of Conservatism.

Conservatism can be defined in terms of eternal beliefs; patriotism, the rule of law, property rights, free enterprise, support for the family.  But it can also be understood as a disposition.

As party leader, Michael Howard defined Conservatism as the champion of the 'little guy':

"No one should be over-powerful - not ministers, not trade unions, not corporations, not the European Union.  Wherever we see bullying by the over-mighty, we must stand up to it. Wherever we see one group flicking two fingers to the law, we must fight back."

Within this framework it's easy to think of Conservatism as an opponent of the market practices of recent years.  We are the party of scepticism and should probably have been more suspicious of claims that the business cycle had been abolished and that new financial instruments were quite as good as they appeared.

Alastair Cooke, former head of the Conservative Research Department (we think when David Cameron worked there), sees Conservatism as a constantly changing quantity.  This is what he writes today, over at The Blue Blog:

"Change is the key to understanding Britain's Conservative Party. It seems at first sight a paradox. A conservative party would surely want to stop things changing. The genius of the Conservative Party in Britain embodied in its greatest leaders - Peel, Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher - has been to recognise that each generation needs to amend the social and economic systems it inherits to keep abreast of changing times. Sometimes the changing times are pretty dramatic: think of Margaret Thatcher."

Over to you: How would you define the Conservative Party's mission?

Cameron rejects the anti-government tendency

In a series of eight short posts throughout today, Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, offers 'eight takeaways' from the Birmingham Party Conference.

At a fringe meeting on Tuesday I defended 'nudging'.  I was on a panel of four but I was on my own - even the chairman, Claire Fox, was against me.  One person in the audience described my recommendations as steps towards "tyranny".

I ended my remarks by rejecting the anti-government mentality that dominated this 'FreedomZone' event.  I am a small government conservative but I certainly don't reject all government activity.  I share the view of many libertarians that government actions have contributed to Britain's broken society but I do not share their view that government can't help put things right.

I listed things that government has got right in the recent past: preparing the old nationalised industries for privatisation; US welfare reform; zero tolerance policing in New York; the Iraq troops surge.  In each of those cases I'm far from convinced that a laissez-faire approach would have succeeded.

In this light I warmly welcomed David Cameron's rejection of the anti-government mentality in yesterday's speech (although he misrepresented libertarianism somewhat).  It's far too powerful in sections of the Conservative Party.

As the Conservatives embark on their programme of social reform we are going to need some active government: active government to reform the schools system, help to get people off welfare, investment in relationship education, greater grit in the store card credit market and so on.  These are short-term activisms that aim to build a stronger society.  Without a stronger society we'll never make sustainable reductions in the size of the welfare state.  David Cameron understands that.

> Related link: Intruderism

Does Cameron have a 'lightweight problem'?

The overwhelming message of last night's YouGov/ Channel 4 poll of sixty Labour marginals was positive for the Conservatives.  As we noted, the Tories are on course for a 150 seat majority - even bigger than Mrs T's 1983 landslide.  53% of voters in these seats don't think a change of Labour leader will make any difference to the Government's chances of political recovery.  During the Channel 4 programme, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee repeatedly says that Gordon Brown can't come back from the political dead.  Watch her contribution and those of C4's other guests, including George Bridges, here.

There was, however, one disappointing finding within the poll...

Perhaps the party is so far ahead that it doesn't matter that 55% of target voters think David Cameron is lightweight?  Other findings in the poll suggest that voters think his overall performance is good (and much better than Brown's).

Perhaps Mr Cameron won't ever be seen as heavyweight until he's in office, taking big decisions?

What do you think?  Is there anything Mr Cameron can do now to change this perception?

George Osborne drives Tory tanks up to Gordon Brown's front door

When on Black/ White Wednesday we lost our reputation for competence we were truly sunk as a party (until now).  If Labour loses its reputation for fairness then it will head for as bleak a time.  That's the political importance of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice agenda (although, of course, the agenda is much more than political).  It's tanks-on-Labour's-lawn-time.  Chief tank driver today is George Osborne.  Overnight he's launched a dossier that documents the extent to which Britain is becoming unfair under Labour - it wins widespread attention, including in The Sun and Guardian.  Labour hate these attacks.  Just like the 10p tax fiasco they hit at the party's core self-image.  This weekend's Observer reported Labour "fury" at the suggestion that they weren't the party of fairness anymore.

The full Tory dossier can be read as a PDF here.  In his introduction to An Unfair Britain Mr Osborne highlights four main trends:

1. 900,000 more people in extreme poverty than in 1997 and the gap in life expectancy is greater than in Victorian times.
2. Stealth taxes have fallen most heavily on the poor.  Mr Osborne asks: "Is it fair to reward enterprise and effort, yet for someone earning £100 a week, for every extra pound they earn they take home just 6p?"
3. Failure to undertake schools reform means that the gap between the poorest and richest pupils is widening.
4. A shift of burdens from today's Britons to the next generation: "Rising public borrowing and economic incompetence is putting unfair burdens on future generations."

Most of Unfair Britain is a new presentation of existing data but it does contain one important new finding, quoted by Nicholas Watt in The Guardian: "Osborne claimed that this year's 4.2% increase in the guarantee credit - a minimum income for poor pensioners - would be "eaten up" by inflation, which hits pensioners harder. Inflation for pensioners is between 5.2% and 5.6%, meaning that a couple will lose £98 this year and a single pensioner £90."

Neither controlling nor laissez-faire

We don't know who Martin Ball is but he's unimpressed with Tory 'nudging'. This is Mr Ball's letter to today's FT:

"If the Conservative party believes it is the role of government to influence individual and organisational behaviour (“Nudging not nannying to achieve social goals”, August 5) then it clearly clings to the view that the man in Whitehall knows best. No matter what fashionable and seemingly innocuous word is used, this is unmistakable nannying. Either you believe individuals are capable of making the best choices for their lives or you follow your paternalist instincts and direct them. If shoppers and customers believe businesses are not conducting themselves properly, then the power to alter this behaviour is rightfully with them. Any attempt at conditioning from a lofty political perch will not be successful or indeed desirable.

The choice for the Conservative party is clear: either it is a party of individual freedom or it wants to further go down the authoritarian route of the Blair-Brown years. There is a nation wanting to be liberated from state interference and the Conservative party should once again lead the way in setting it free."

But surely there is a middle way between state control of social life and a complete laissez-faire approach?  You could even call it conservatism!  Here's an incomplete list of where the current Tory leadership has been willing to reject both state control and a laissez-faire approach:

• Provision of more support for new parents in the form of maternity nurses and healthcare visitors.

• Support for marriage including a tax allowance of a-yet-to-be-defined kind and more investment in relationship education and counselling.

• Encouragement for firms to act socially responsibly... David Cameron has criticised BHS for its 'Little Miss Naughty' clothes range... W H Smith for selling chocolate oranges at the cashpoint... the music industry for violent messages... and this week Michael Gove questioned the publishers of Nuts and Zoo.

• George Osborne has proposed a cooling-off period between when people sign up for store credit cards and when they can use them.

• Mr Osborne has also proposed higher taxation of alcopops to discourage irresponsible drinking amongst teens and Boris Johnson has introduced a complete ban on alcohol on London's public transport.

• Jeremy Hunt has warned against "damaging gambling liberalisation".

• Ed Vaizey, only yesterday, reminded local councils that they have powers to protect children from violent films.

In today's Telegraph Mary Riddell writes about the party having "staked out a limbo between the Left's command-and-control instinct and the Right's wish to expunge the state from family life."  This isn't easy territory.  There isn't ideological purity but, as Riddell suggests, most people will approve of most of David Cameron's 'limbo choices'.

9.15am: "When Was the Last Time You Heard a Cameroon Mention "Freedom"?" asks Guido

Eight Tory lessons for the US Republicans

As we did for Mike Gerson, ConservativeHome recently arranged a three day visit to the UK for Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of America's Weekly Standard.  Our programme for Fred involved about fifteen meetings, including with George Osborne, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith (politicians); Martin Bright, Janet Daley and Daniel Finkelstein (commentators); plus Andrew Cooper, Rick Nye and Stephan Shakespeare (pollsters).  The New York Times' David Brooks is our next guest.

Fred has now written up his visit as the cover piece in the latest edition of TWS.  It's one of the very best summaries of Project Cameron that we've ever read.  He identifies the following main lessons that the Conservatives of the UK can teach the Conservatives of the US.  He unpacks each lesson in his article but here they are as bullet points:

1. It takes time... to rebuild voters' trust
2. 'It's not about ideology. It's about you.'  Personalities as well as policies needed reforming.
3. 'Broader ground.'  Social justice and green issues have been added to the Tory pitch.
4. Don't ignore elites*.  The BBC and progressives have been cultivated.
5. Co-opt liberal ends and capture liberal jargon.  The Tories have colonised the left-wing term of social justice with centre right ideas.
6. Social psychology.  Nudging etc.
7. You need a leader.  After November, if McCain loses, the Republicans will lack an obvious leader.
8. Forget slogans.

Read the full piece.

* David Frum fears the GOP has done this.  Meeting Tim Montgomerie last week he noted that, for example, there is not a single economist that supports the Republicans at the University of Chicago.

Project Cameron has evolved but has been remarkably consistent overall

Peter Oborne writes about the big Tory turnaround in today's Daily Mail.  He believes that Cameron has made major changes in order to transform his opinion poll ratings of last year.  Here are some of Oborne's 'evidences' with our comments in italics afterwards:

• Grammar schools: "A year ago, Cameron's leadership had just been brought to its knees after he infuriated his core supporters by sanctioning a scathing attack on grammar schools by his education spokesman David Willetts. However, Cameron has since appointed a new education spokesman, Michael Gove, and has a new policy which decrees that grammar schools must be 'absolutely defended'."  Although it's true that Michael Gove has been warmer to grammar schools there is no big shift in policy towards, for example, supporting their expansion in areas of the country where there are no grammars.
• Green issues: "Take, also, the environment. When Cameron became Tory leader, green issues lay at the heart of everything he did.  He would take his 'carbon neutral' bicycle journey to work.  To show his concern about melting glaciers, he orchestrated a photo-shoot of himself being pulled by dog-sled inside the Arctic Circle.  Nuclear power was, he declared, a 'last resort'.  However, this emphasis has now radically changed.  Recently, Cameron remarked: 'If nuclear power stations can make their case in the market, they should go ahead.'  The Tories have also pledged to introduce a 'fair fuel duty stabiliser' which would lower the amount of duty imposed by the Chancellor when the cost of oil goes up.  And his concern about his own carbon footprint seems to have waned - having now clocked up more than 70 flights by private jet or helicopter - the most environmentally-damaging methods of transport since becoming Tory leader."   The environment is certainly not the central theme that it was and the shift on nuclear power is notable.  David Cameron's recent opposition to Heathrow expansion shows that the theme is still alive, however.  The most significant shift is towards a more positive environmentalism - George Osborne signalling recently, for example, that households will be encouraged to recycle.
• Economic policy: "On the economy, the shift has been almost as marked. This time last year, Cameron seemed out of touch with the financial struggles which dominate the lives of so many ordinary, hard-working British families.  Economic policy, he blithely insisted, was 'not just about giving people a tax cut but giving them more time for the good things in life'.  Yet Cameron's most recent comments have been much more understanding, with an emphasis on the pain that voters are suffering from rises in the cost of living and the difficulties so many face in paying their ever-increasing tax bills."  The economy and tax are back at the centre of the Conservative message but there has been no big shifts.  The pledge to match Labour's spending increases is still Tory policy and there'll be no unfunded tax relief.
• Crime: "Then there is the area of law and order.  Soon after becoming Tory leader, David Cameron spoke with sympathy about the hoodies who menace so many of our streets.  The problem, he declared, was 'neglect and absence of love'. That naive view has quickly been jettisoned.  Now he's much tougher and the message is: 'Carry a knife, and you will go to jail.'"  No contradiction or big change here.  Cameron still wants to be tough on the causes of crime - by proving young people with better structure, education and the love of a good family - and tough on crime - by increasing prison places etc.
• Law and order: "Cameron's personal style has changed, too.  When he took over from Michael Howard, he called for an end to 'Punch and Judy politics' and promised an element of crossparty consensus by saying he would support the Government on certain issues.  Now, however, Cameron is far more confrontational, as witnessed by his repeated attack on Gordon Brown as 'useless' during Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions.  In short, a new, more confident and much nastier Tory leader has emerged in recent months - one that has received the private endorsement of Margaret Thatcher."  Peter Oborne is largely correct here and he could also have mentioned the disappearance of open necked shirts, too.

Oborne exaggerates but it's also true that his list is incomplete.  He could also have mentioned greater discussion of immigration (part of a wider 'And theory' broadening); the downgrading of the A-list for candidate selection; and a willingness to now mention (and appear with) Margaret Thatcher and George W Bush.

But the more striking feature of 'Cameronism' is its continuity on some of the biggest issues.  Three stand out:

• The centrality of the social reform agenda.  David Cameron's first act as Tory leader was to visit a community project with Iain Duncan Smith (Ray Lewis' Eastside Young Leaders' Academy actually) and establish the Policy Group on Social Justice.  Social justice has remained a central theme ever since and George Osborne connected it to the long-term health of the public finances last Tuesday.
• Economic stability before tax cuts.  We think it's a false choice but you can't accuse George Osborne of wavering from his belief that fiscal conservatism and budgetary discipline must come before supply-side tax cuts.
• The NHS is safe in Tory hands.  The party has said that it will match Labour's spending on the NHS and avoided any talk of bold reform.  As with the economy, 'NHYes' is a reassurance-drenched message.

The influence of the nudge agenda

The continuing chatter about the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness is covered in a Guardian piece today, which reveals that plans are being made for a weekend retreat for shadow ministers to talk with co-author Richard Thaler and others about potential policies that harness behavioural economics.

Cameron name-dropped their work in a speech last month and Obama's policy advisers have been looking at it very closely. Steve Hilton and other senior party advisers were said to be impressed when they met with Thaler last week. Three policy areas said to be of focus are: how to make it socially unacceptable for the young to carry knives; encouraging people to recycle; and tackling binge drinking and obesity.

Chris Dillow in today's Times sounds a note of caution about financial incentivisation however. He says "introducing payments changes the meaning of activities, reducing good works to cash transactions" and therefore inhibiting altruism. Samuel Coates wrote positively about nudging on CentreRight yesterday: "as far as I'm concerned politicians can nudge away".

A bigger prize than victory: Realignment

Tim Montgomerie has written for The Guardian today about the possibility of a prize even bigger than victory at the next General Election: Realignment.

Realignment is bigger than victory because it involves a class/ group/ section of society choosing not to just change their vote at one election but choosing to change their party identification.  Realignment involves voters making a decisive reassessment of which political party best represents their interests and values.  It is a change that will probably last for a number of elections.

There is a real possibility that lower income voters could over the next few years make a decision that the Conservative Party is now their champion.  Lower income workers - rather than the very poorest* - are the players in this scenario.  Here are four key ingredients for that possible realignment:

Labour's failure: The 10p tax rise on low income workers is only the most obvious manifestation of Labour's failure of its heartland vote.  The looming rises in car tax are another.  But the failure is across the board.  Despite fifteen years of economic growth there are 600,000 more people living in extreme poverty.  Child poverty targets have been missed.  Britain is dropping down the international literacy league and climbing the crime and disorder tables. When real disposable incomes are falling and when the very poor are getting poorer Labour's core identity is rotting.

The Conservative alternative: There are a range of Tory policies that already support realignment.  The schools policy Michael Gove highlighted yesterday won't win many votes now but has the potential to be very important once enacted.  Policies on crime, ending the couple penalty in the benefits system and a tough approach to immigration all make a contribution.  Yesterday's brilliant speech by David Cameron on 'right and wrong' has enormous potential to connect with the values of blue collar workers.  A principal reason why right-wing parties in all parts of the world are winning more support from lower income workers is that such workers are increasingly turned off by the politically correct values of left-liberal parties.  Chris Grayling's plans for 'a new welfare state' are underwritten by a strong moral sense.  In addition to the policies already articulated there should be a policy for taking the poor out of the income tax system and a more fundamental effort to clean up politics.  It was Labour MPs who dominated last week's Commons vote to keep the '"John Lewis list"; Labour voters did not send Margaret Beckett and John Prescott into the Commons so that they could get taxpayer-funded garden plants and Sky subscriptions.

The campaigning machine: Crewe & Nantwich showed that blue collar workers were willing to desert Labour and vote Conservative but it also showed that the Party now has a machine that can succeed in previously hard-to-win seats.

Time is on the Tories' side: Fundamental realignment of voters’ perceptions of the two parties is, however, at least a decade-long project but time is now on the Conservatives’ side. Modern electorates tend to give new governments more than one term in office.  Bush, Howard, Schoeder, Chirac, Zapatero and Blair all won re-election battles.  Political events permitting, the Conservatives are probably about to begin not a four year period of office but something much longer.  They should use that time to solidify the realignment that is now underway.

* Much of the agenda of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice is about helping the very poorest.  The agenda discussed above is more about lower income workers.  A Conservative Party that actively cares for these different groups is a party that recovers its finest one tradition.  Compassionate Conservatism is fundamentally the right thing to do, morally, but there are two different forms of electoral politics at work here, too.  An agenda for the very poorest will win few direct votes but tells middle class and other comfortable voters that the Conservatives are a decent party that won't leave people behind.  An agenda for low income workers has more direct political appeal to those helped.

The next few months of Conservative strategy

The Times' Sam Coates has got hold of a very interesting, unsigned internal party document summarising Conservative strategy.  Read it for yourself by enlarging/ clicking the image on the right.

Here are our key take aways from the document:

• Society rather than the economy remains the top Tory concern.
• In social policy the next Conservative government will be as radical as Margaret Thatcher was in economic policy.  That's a great aspiration - the party needs a lot more policy to make it real.
• School reform, welfare reform and the strengthening of families will be three top themes.  Expect to see a lot more of Michael Gove and Chris Grayling.
• Tories are the new progressives with the best ideas to tackle poverty, equality and social mobility.
• By reforming society we'll improve the long-term health of the UK economy by reducing the costs in tax of social breakdown.

Uber-modernisers will be disappointed to see green issues missing from this list of priorities.  Supply-siders will be disappointed not to see more of an emphasis on immediate action to address the cost of living/ tax burden.

Andy Coulson coordinates summer media offensive

It was last summer that George Osborne recruited Andy Coulson as head of party communications.  The former News of the World Editor played a major role in helping the party avert an autumn election.

PR Week - that great source of stories about turmoil in Downing Street - reports that Andy Coulson is planning a publicity offensive over the summer.  There will be no vacuums but a grid of stories to ensure that there is little respite for the embattled Labour Government. 

PR Week spins the "summer offensive" as meaning a growth of Andy Coulson's power now that Steve Hilton will be relocating to the USA for six or so months.  In reality it is more a reflection of David Cameron's desire to avoid any complacency.

Gavin Megaw - former CCHQ press operator, quoted by PR Week - gets closest to understanding the more strategic role that Steve Hilton will now be playing: "Ironically, it will be much easier for Steve to capture the real mood of the country and translate it into the party's long term plans from outside the Westminster bubble, away from all the short term politicking and media distractions."

Steve Hilton, Cameron's 'guru', off to USA for six months

The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that Steve Hilton, chief strategic adviser to David Cameron, is relocating to California where his wife - Rachel Whetstone - is taking up a six month appointment at Google's world HQ.

It appears, however - despite The Sunday Telegraph's headlines - that Mr Hilton will remain a key adviser to David Cameron, on full pay but playing a strategic, rather than a hands-on role.

It is a mark of Mr Cameron's respect for Mr Hilton that such a distant relationship has been accepted.  So many decisions in politics come out of team discussions and a fast reaction to events.  Mr Hilton's role will now have to be even more strategic - focusing on the big picture direction of the party.

Alongside George Osborne and Andy Coulson, Mr Hilton is part of what Iain Martin has called The Quartet that runs the Conservative Party, with David Cameron.  Although Mr Hilton is seen as a moderniser - and was behind the greener, gentler emphases of the period up until the course correction of last August, September - he also strongly supports the party leader's social conservatism and commitment to marriage, fatherhood and the family.

Speaking to ConservativeHome last week Steve Hilton was full of the joys of fatherhood himself and his commitment to his own family explains this move to California.

If the move is only six months - as billed - there are advantages to the Project Cameron.  This is a time for Mr Hilton to observe the US presidential campaign at close quarters and be refreshed in his strategic insights.

> More on the role each key Quartet adviser plays: Andy Coulson, Steve Hilton, George Osborne.

Five ideas for Conservative tax and spend policy

Companies leaving Britain because of our nation's high and complex tax burden.  Anger over the 10p tax increase produces the biggest crisis of Gordon Brown's leadership.  Tax and the cost of living dominate the successful Tory campaign in Crewe and Nantwich.  The front page of The Mirror and thirty Labour MPs demand a tax break for motorists.  Labour MP Denis MacShane tells Telegraph readers that it's time to cut taxes and spending.  Nick Clegg claims that only his party is committed to reduce taxation for lower and middle income workers.  Professor John Curtice notes that support for higher taxes hasn't been this low for more than two decades.  PoliticsHome.com's 5000 panel finds that tax overtakes law and order in voters' list of concerns.  And, just today, The Independent's Associate Editor, Hamish McRae asks: "When times are tough, you spend less. Why should it be any different for a government?"

How should the Conservative Party respond to this changed environment?  The easy answer to that question is to stay doing exactly what the leadership has been doing.  A large opinion poll lead would appear to vindicate the current strategy but David Cameron has rightly warned against complacency.  Two years is a long time until the likeliest date for the General Election.  We can't take victory for granted and we can't assume that Team Brown will keep shooting themselves in the feet.  Most of all we need to think beyond politics and to the good of UK plc.

So here are five recommendations - some familiar, some new:

One: Don't renew the pledge to match Labour's spending.
Two: Promise we'll do for Britain what Boris is doing for London.
Three: Embrace deeper welfare reform and Iain Duncan Smith's social justice agenda.
Four: Promise to target tax cuts on the lowest income Britons.
Five: Abandon all schemes for 'replacement taxes'.

"No one should be penalised for trying to do the right thing"

A few weeks ago we asked readers to suggest one memorable sentence that should sum up what Conservatism stands for under David Cameron's leadership.

Janet Daley has provided a very good answer in today's Daily Telegraph: "No one should be penalised for trying to do the right thing."

She goes on to the list the kind of value judgments that she has in mind:

"Parents who are determined to get the best possible education for their children should not be treated like criminals. People who work for a living and provide for their own families should not be worse off than people who don't. Couples who stay together while raising their children should not be made poorer than those who do not. The needs of the law-abiding should always come before those of the criminal."

The party already has policies that fit the bill:

The elimination of the couples penalty that currently means that there is an incentive for very low income parents to live apart or to be dishonest - paid for by welfare reform.

Requiring unemployed people to undertake community work after they've rejected reasonable job offers.

The ending of the double taxation embodied in inheritance tax - paid for by a tax on non-doms.

Boris' hope to agree a no strike deal with the transport unions in return for honouring independently arbitrated pay deals.

A review of how we treat our soldiers by a commitment to renew the Military Covenant.

Across the board - including with regard to the Scotland-England relationship - there is enormous potential in this political theme.  It can be summed up in one word, a word that is essential to Britain's understanding of itself: Fairness.  After years of Labour failure, people are crying out for it.

David Cameron has never had a better opportunity to...?

Remember our 'fasten your seatbelts' message of last June?  Eleven months later we are now inviting all passengers to release those belts if they choose...

Over at Coffee House, Peter Hoskin believes that David Cameron's speech earlier today may be his most convincing yet.  We agree.  We'll blog a lot more on this speech later - or first thing tomorrow - but here's one immediate observation for now:

Those of us who are 'hares' worried that the party's excellent opinion poll leads might encourage more caution from Cameron-Osborne on the big challenges facing Britain.  Today provides some early evidence that those fears may be unwarranted.  Rather than relaxing there's more seriousness, more grit and a total lack of complacency.  Long may that continue.

A question for readers: What, at this time of maximum advantage for Cameron, should he do next?  What difficult decision, in particular, would he be wise to make soon?

Cameron points to importance of low council tax in last week's victories

The Spectator's Political Editor Fraser Nelson has interviewed the Tory leader for this week's edition.  Here are some of the things we learn from the interview (that isn't yet online):

"[David Cameron] has two mobile telephones, one for speaking and one for reading emails. One phone has the ring tone taken from 24 — the hit television show about a counter-terrorist agent who regularly escapes mortal peril. ‘It’s an in-joke,’ the Tory leader says."

"‘Asking people to change their government is a big decision, and that is why there is not an ounce of complacency from me after the local results,’ he says. ‘There’s an enormous amount of reassurance we have to give people — that we have the right leader, a strong team, that we will take no risks with the economy and that we have a clearly worked-out plan for public services.’" Interesting that the emphasis is all on reassuring, rather than energising voters.

"‘If you take the local elections, there was no doubt in my mind that it was easiest to campaign in those places where Conservative councils really did have a record of keeping the council tax down, or at least promising to limit the increase,’ he says. ‘I haven’t done the sums. But I’m pretty sure that the areas where we did best were those where we were able to say: look, we’re in government here, we are helping with the cost of living, we understand your problems and difficulties.’"  Encouraging.

Cameronism 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

Iain Murray has been defending Cameronism from some of its critics on The Corner blog in the USA.  Here are two of his observations:

Iain Murray replying to Jonah Goldberg: "I think if you'd asked me about a year ago I'd have agreed with you. The Conservatives were talking like New Labour and trying to take advantage of the unpopularity of the government that is always associated with a long time in power. It didn't work, though. After Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, in September and October last year he was riding high. If he'd called an election then, Brown would have seen Labour re-elected with a bigger majority than Tony Blair and he would have destroyed David Cameron's claim to be a viable alternative. This concentrated the Conservative mind wonderfully. Starting at the party conference in October last year, the Tories started advancing genuinely conservative policies on tax, crime and education, for example. Yes, Brown proved to have a political ear as tinny as Al Gore's, but the Tory decontamination of the brand (Cameron's genuine acheivement) meant that people reacted well to Conservative policies for the first time in 15 years. Boris is a solid conservative (with a small 'c') and Labour attempted to use this to paint him as the bastard son of Cruella de Ville and Lord Voldemort. It didn't work. Nor did people turn to the Liberal Democrats. People are not just tuning out Labour, they are willing to listen to conservatives advancing conservative thought again. And about time, too."

Tories promise "policy striptease" as Brown bores on

Gordon Brown was on Andrew Marr and Adam Boulton this morning.

It's not clear why Gordon Brown bothered.  He offered no new message - just the usual tired talk of listening and facing up to long-term challenges.  Mr Brown told Adam Boulton (who pressed the PM much harder than the deferential Marr)  that he wouldn't hold a 'put up or shut up' leadership challenge to his critics, as John Major did in 1995.

Thursday had been a referendum on Labour, Mr Brown said, but the next election would be a choice between Labour and the Conservatives.  He said that he "relished" the prospect of beating David Cameron at the next General Election.

If Brown bored the Conservatives plan to excite, says a leader in The Sunday Times.  The leader-writers say that the Conservatives "plan a slow striptease over the next two years to unveil the policies that will form the basis of their manifesto."

ConservativeHome understands that this "striptease" aims to address the "enthusiasm challenge" and will include a heavy emphasis on measures to tackle crime and school failure.  The social justice agenda is also going to be 'bigged up' as the party aims to build on lower income voters' loss of faith in Labour after the 10p fiasco.

And let's not forget the LibDems.  Professor John Curtice in The Sunday Telegraph notes that Thursday was also poor for them (our emphasis):

"Outside London the Liberal Democrat vote slipped for the fourth year in a row. With 25 per cent of the equivalent national vote, the party recorded its weakest local election performance for a decade.  Fortunately for Nick Clegg, his party's slide was masked by a modest net gain of 31 seats and Labour's even more dismal performance. But in London, where there was no such camouflage, the party's vote was down on 2004 by between five and six points in both the mayoral race and the assembly contests."

It is very significant that voters are deciding that a vote for the Conservatives, in this mid-term moment, is the best way to most punish Labour.  We now need to make sure that - come the General Election - voters understand that a vote for the Conservatives is the only sure way of ending Labour rule.

3pm video: Sky's 18 minute interview with Gordon Brown

How should David Cameron target "Tony's Tories"?

Melissa Kite identifies this new 'Tony's Tories' group of target voters in The Sunday Telegraph.  CCHQ wants to woo the three million 29 to 40 year-olds who voted for Tony Blair but haven't taken to Gordon Brown:

"A senior Tory strategist explained: "People think of winning back votes we lost in '97 but that's an outdated approach - we need new Tories. We need a large number of people who have never voted Conservative. We need around three million first-time Tory voters." The strategy goes a long way to explaining why Mr Cameron has repeatedly dismissed the idea of promising tax cuts as a vote winner. Strategists point out that the thirtysomethings they hope to convert have never voted for a politician in return for a tax-cutting pledge and are unlikely to start now. Their concerns are more likely to be housing, transport, the environment, crime, education and the NHS. Much of the current mood music of Tory campaigning is aimed at people in their 30s.The words "change" and "new" are used repeatedly by Mr Cameron and other frontbenchers to convince them that this is a different party from the one they rejected in the late Nineties."

In the same newspaper, however, Professor John Curtice writes that a small government message may be exactly what these voters want:

"There is some reason to believe that this 'New Labour generation' might be particularly sympathetic ideologically to the Conservative message.  Over the last ten years public opinion in Britain as a whole has become less keen on big government and attempts to create greater equality - and the attitudes of younger people particularly reflect this change of mood.  For example, according to the British Social Attitudes survey, just 39 per cent of those aged under 35 believe the government should spend more on things like health and education and put up taxes if necessary to pay for it.  In contrast just over half (51 per cent) of those aged 55 and over take that view.  Equally, just 26 per cent of younger people think the government should spend more on welfare benefits for the poor at the cost of putting taxes up, compared with 47 per cent of those aged over 55.  The 'New Labour generation' wants to be able to want to get government off its back and so be free to 'get on'."

PS We've crossed swords with Melissa Kite before on reshuffles and don't particularly want to revisit all of that but her article today warns that Oliver Heald might be demoted.  For the record: Mr Heald went to the backbenches a year ago.

Call for papers on the Conservative Party

As the Conservative Party continues to make progress corporate affairs companies are increasingly hiring Conservatives, world leaders are increasingly keen to meet with the Conservative Party leadership, and academics are devoting more time to studying the Party and its beliefs.

In light of that, Professor Phillip Cowley, Dr Andrew Denham, Dr Steven Fielding and Dr Tim Bale are organising a one-day conference in Nottingham at the end of the year (Dec 12th) to discuss "how likely is a Conservative victory at the next election and how 'Conservative' is Cameron's party?".

They are interested in papers dealing with any aspect of the party's development, but especially those that place developments within the party in a comparative and historical perspective and those touching on the following themes: Ideology, Electoral strategy, Campaigning, Europe, National Identity and the Constitution, The Market and Social Justice, America and the War on Terror, Party cohesion and division, Financing, and Feminisation.

Paper proposals - a title, details of authors, along with a paragraph description - should be submitted by 1st September 2008 to Steven Fielding (Director, Centre for British Politics): Steven.Fielding@nottingham.ac.uk.

Cameron's task is harder than Thatcher's

We hoped to review the first in the series of eight Margaret Thatcher DVDs that The Telegraph is giving away from today but can't because ConHome's copy arrived with its DVD missing.  The first DVD is about The Making of Margaret Thatcher.  Apparently!

The series couldn't have come at a worse time for Gordon Brown.  The focus on her resilience and decisiveness is such a contrast with Mr Brown's dithering.  Matthew Parris and Martin Kettle have written devastating pieces about the current occupant of Number Ten in their must-read Saturday columns.

Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979 wasn't easy, of course.  Most of all she had to overcome resistance to the idea of a woman Prime Minister.  Was she tough enough for the very large challenges that Britain faced at the end of the 1970s?  Memories of the failed Heath government were also much more recent and she was a reasonably prominent member of that administration.  There are many ways, however, in which her task was easier than that facing David Cameron today:

1. Britain was in a state of economic collapse in 1979.  It's not clear that Britain's economic problems will get as bad as the Winter of Discontent by 2010.  We must certainly hope not.
2. Margaret Thatcher was much closer to a parliamentary majority when she was Leader of the Opposition.  The Tories won 276 MPs at the second 1974 election; 78 more than Michael Howard won in 2005.
3. The Liberals had just 13 seats in 1979.  Today the LibDems hold 62 seats - many of which have always been essential to a working parliamentary majority for the Conservatives.  Labour unpopularity won't produce an automatic Tory win.  Conservatives have to oust LibDems too.
4. Margaret Thatcher was able to win a majority over Labour of 44 seats by polling nearly 44% against Callaghan's 37%.  Put those numbers into electoralcalculus.co.uk today (with the LibDems on a squeezed 15%) and the Tories are eight seats short of a majority.  The electoral mountain facing the Conservatives has been catalogued by Conor Burns for ConservativeHome.
5. Incumbency is more protected.  All MPs now enjoy large allowances with which to communicate with their constituents.  It was much more expensive for individual MPs to communicate with their voters in 1979 and they were consequently more at the mercy of national trends.
6. The Conservative Party membership is much smaller and less docile.  Membership is now about 250,000.  Tory membership was much younger and larger in 1979 (although Labour also had more infantry for the 'ground war' too).  The Boris campaign is finding very uneven levels of activity as it aims to maximise turnout in London's outer boroughs.  The party is also more demanding than in 1979.  It was then a largely pragmatic party of government.  Mrs Thatcher changed that herself.  It now expects more red meat from its leadership.  It's not so ready to follow any kind of agenda.
   
7. Levels of apathy are now much greater.  Voters unhappy with Labour can vote LibDem or stay-at-home.  It's no longer enough to say 'governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them'.  In order to climb the electoral mountain the Conservatives need to persuade voters that they are superior to the other parties.
8. Selling the Conservative Party to voters is harder in today's media age. In 1979 more people read newspapers and millions more tuned into the news bulletins of the three nationwide TV networks.  Today's Conservative Party - in order to overcome the apathy factor - has to find a way of communicating with millions who never watch the mainstream channels or pick up a newspaper.  The Brown-Blair years of spin have also trashed the standing of politicians; Margaret Thatcher said something notable to the BBC1 Nine'o'clock News in 1979 and she had a big audience that was ready to believe her.  She could also be sure that The Daily Mail and The Sun and The Telegraph and the Times and The Express would report and analyse her words for a number of days afterwards.  In 1997 voters are more cynical and the rapidity of the news cycle makes it very hard for any message to stick.

Cameron has advantages.  The SNP threat to Labour in Scotland is particularly significant but he has a tough challenge to win the next election.  That's probably why the Westminster insiders that contribute to the PoliticsHomeIndex still expect a hung parliament.  The 1st May elections are very important.  Up until now Labour unity has been impressive.  The Conservatives are hoping to smash that unity with victories in London and across the country.  George Osborne is making a big speech on the economy on Monday as part of the 1st May attack plan.  ConservativeHome will be there to cover it.

The enthusiasm challenge

Today's YouGov survey is confirmation that the strong surge in Tory support that we saw after the Budget has been largely maintained.  Labour are 14% behind the Conservatives.  Years of spin'n'squander are finally being reflected in Labour's opinion poll rating.   It is also to David Cameron's credit that the main beneficiary of Labour unpopularity is the Conservative Party.  The LibDems remain subdued under their new leader.  After 100 days of Nick Clegg the party is stuck on 18% in the ConservativeHome poll of polls.

Where there is still work to do is in generating enthusiasm for a Conservative government.  Last month we discovered that 82% of Tory members thought that voters were unhappy with Labour but were yet to become enthusiastic about the prospect of a Conservative government.  The detail of the YouGov survey confirms that.  The graphic shows that Project Cameron's reassurance strategy (most exemplified by 'disarming' on tax and the NHS) has produced a significant drop in the number of people who would be "dismayed" at the prospect of a Tory government and a big increase in those who "wouldn't mind".  Those who would be "delighted" if Cameron became PM hasn't changed that much, however.  25% would be delighted - just 3% more than said the same about Michael Howard in 2005.  PoliticalBetting has been looking at similar numbers and notes that only 61% of Tory supporters would be "delighted" at a Tory victory; 36% wouldn't mind.

None of this matters if the other parties don't find a way of enthusing voters but it might matter if they do.  We cannot assume that unhappy voters will always flock bluewards.  They can also stay at home or vote Liberal Democrat.  Time is on the Tories' side but our support is currently much broader than it is deep.

Commitment to rescue failing schools from local authority control underlines new centrality of education in Tory strategy

The main story in this morning's Telegraph (also covered in The Times) is a Tory plan to use the first Queen's Speech of a Conservative Government to remove up to 640 failing secondary schools from local authority control and transfer them to city academies, charitable trusts, and parent co-operatives.  Iain Duncan Smith proposed such Pioneer Schools last July.

Michael Gove MP told The Telegraph:

"In areas where the same party has been in power for too long, and where standards remain poor, we will have the most failing schools transferred to academy sponsors and others who have a proven record of improving education for the poorest. We will bring forward legislation to do so in the first Queen's Speech."

Michael Gove has rapidly become the shadow cabinet's leading hare since he took over the brief last summer.  The Tory leadership has largely decided that education rather than the environment will be the main 'change theme' for the party - a big change from the first eighteen months of Project Cameron.

Other Tory measures include a new national reading test for six and seven year-olds, Year Six resits, a general return to traditional teaching methods, an option for 'National Citizen Service' for all sixteen year-olds, grammar streams in every school, protection of special needs schools, synthetic phonics and new freedoms for headteachers to exclude disruptive pupils.

11.45am: Link to speech on Michael Gove's website