A third of Conservative Party members want an electoral pact with UKIP in 2015

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

They divide a third, a third, and a third in our latest survey, issued last Friday morning, about whether to treat UKIP as a friend or enemy when the general election comes in 2015.

The question was

• 34% believe that the party should form a pact with UKIP for the poll.

• 33% believe that it shouldn't.

• And 33% want to wait and see.

Asked if they believed that such a pact will be formed for 2015, 10% of Tory member respondents said Yes, 53% said No and 37% said that the leadership will wait and see.

Understandably, the leadership's position is that there should be no pact with UKIP (or anyone else). So only a third of members are lined up behind it.

To write that this evidence suggests that there's a big gap between Downing Street's views and those of Party members would be an understatment.

Daniel Hannan has long urged a pact. So recently has Michael Fabricant. I'm opposed to one, though I've suggested a new "safe space" in which both parties' activists could meet.

Just under 1850 people responded to the survey, of whom over 800 were Conservative Party members. The figures above are taken from the latter's views.

How the Conservatives and UKIP can kiss and make up

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

The next general election will not be concentrated in the counties, but it will decide the government.  For this reason, voters will return to the two major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, one of which must lead in forming an administration, if not win outright.  Turnout will rise, UKIP's share of the vote will fall, and the best course that David Cameron can take, in the meanwhile, is to hold his nerve, build on his recent conference speeches, and promote a strong, mainstream, sensible programme, for government and for the future.  In short, no single, silver bullet will slay the Farage werewolf.

Such a programme would be a conservatism for Bolton West, as I've put it: reducing net immigration, tackling welfare dependency, holding fuel and electricity bills down, showing leadership at home by bringing the deficit down further, boosting job security and helping to keep mortgage rates low.  All this is the conventional wisdom, and it's true as far as it goes.  I started to look at UKIP and what drives its vote relatively early, and noted that EU policy is not the main factor: immigration and crime are bigger factors.  Above all, UKIP's support is driven not so much by ideas as by anger - by the urge to put two fingers up to the entire political class.

Continue reading "How the Conservatives and UKIP can kiss and make up" »

A Prime Minister and a Party that are still in Thatcher's shadow

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

David Cameron's well-judged tribute to Margaret Thatcher won't make the coming days any less difficult for him.  For although he will have a certain ceremonial position during the coming week, and a certain status as the leader of the party she once herself led, he also has certain difficulty: namely, that he is dwarved by her giant shadow.  This would be true of any imaginable Conservative leader.  But it is accentuated by a single fact.  She won three elections.  He hasn't - yet - won one, and it may never happen.

However, the Prime Minister's problem with Mrs Thatcher, as I will always of her from her great days, is less than the Conservative Party's.  Very simply, it has yet to come to terms with living in that shadow, either, or fully recognising that the age of Thatcher - like the lady herself now, alas - is dead.  It must seek to value what she handed on, like some precious family heirloom, while recognising that families themselves change over the generations.  And it has not yet fully recovered from the wound in the family made by the coup that overthrew her.

Perhaps this will change with her death, immensely sad as it is.  Writing on ConservativeHome this morning, Owen Paterson becomes the second Cabinet Minister, after George Osborne, to offer his own tribute - and suggests how her inheritance can, to use a very Thatcherite figure of speech, be invested and made profitable.  How right he is to look forward to a happier future for our party than the past it has endured since she left office.  It is one for which Cameron himself, amidst the tensions of Coalition, must himself struggle.

The next manifesto. The '22s policy committees start work. But where do they fit in?

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

The intention had always been that, at some point mid-Parliament, these committees would "go live" - in other words, start receiving submissions about what should be in the next manifesto.  Next, those committees will consider what they've received.  And finally, they will draw up manifesto recommendations, which will be presented to Oliver Letwin (or someone else, if Letwin's not in charge of the manifesto at that point).  There are five of these backbench policy committees, and the subject areas they cover are divided up as follows:

The Economy: John Redwood.

Home Affairs and the Constitution: Eleanor Laing.

Public Services: Steve Baker.

Foreign Affairs: Edward Leigh.

The Environment and Local Government: Neil Parish.

Tim Montgomerie recommended the '22 raise money and fund its own policy unit.  Senior figures on the committee felt that to so would be like creating a party within a party, and thus didn't.  However you feel about the matter, it highlights the unusual nature of the next manifesto process.  Because the party is in coalition, it can't rely on the Downing Street policy unit (which in any event is largely staffed by civil servants: a mistake).  The '22 groups will thus be short of staff to back up their work, which helps to explain why some are talking to think-tanks.

I gather that the Centre for Policy Studies and Civitas are among those showing an interest, and that some of the '22 groups have begun talking to senior party members about drawing on the views and talents of the voluntary party.  This raises the question of how the groups will dovetail with the Conservative Policy Forum, which is already doing its own policy work on the next manifesto.    ConservativeHome work on its own Strong and Compassionate manifesto project continues.

The traditional centre right press has probably been lost to the Tories. Forever.

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Some think that newspapers don't matter much anymore. One of those people was once David Cameron. He was elected Tory leader without the support of a single traditional centre right newspaper. He stormed to victory over David Davis because TV's Tom Bradby and Nick Robinson - the long-serving political editors of ITN and the BBC - gave his 2005 speech to the Blackpool Conference such heady write ups. Number 10 do not disregard the press quite so much today. They still think broadcast is dominant but they know that newspapers have played an important part in creating discontent on the Right of politics. They've also understood that the newspapers are an important part of the media food chain. Broadcast journalists often take their lead from newspaper investigative reporting, exclusives and columnists. Readership of newspapers is declining but it's also changing. Some newspapers are investing heavily in digital and hope to prosper in a coming age when it will be hard to distinguish between the TV in your sitting room and the portable communications device in your ruck sack. In this age it will be hard to distinguish between a newspaper and broadcaster.

That, however, is for the future (albeit not-so-distant). The immediate future as far as Cameron is concerned is 2015. An endorsement from the five traditional centre-right-ish daily newspapers on the eve of election day would be useful but what he really needs them to do is to change gear soon, if not now. He needs them to stop attacking his administration over the next 18 to 24 months and start attacking Ed Miliband.

Looking back over the last few days Fleet Street has provided him with mixed signals. The newspapers have certainly increased their attacks on Labour. The Mail - after likening George Osborne to Margaret Thatcher- has unleashed both Max Hastings and Simon Heffer against Ed Miliband since Wednesday. Today's Times (£) has questioned whether Ed Miliband has any kind of economic plan. The Sun has noted the unpopularity of Ed Balls. The Express has, perhaps, been most positive of them all, choosing "Cheers! Budget Boost For Millions" as its Thursday frontpage. Overall, however, the newspapers remain suspicious of Cameron - and in the week that he largely surrendered on Leveson you can easily understand why. The Mail has ran repeated hard-hitting stories on what it sees as the Coalition's unfair policies towards stay-at-home parents. The Telegraph has run four successive front page stories worrying about the childcare policy, a "housing boom", the Coalition's "war on the countryside" and, today, further cuts to the police and armed forces (see side image).

Continue reading "The traditional centre right press has probably been lost to the Tories. Forever." »

Five MPs support Conservative Grassroots - which meets at today's Spring Forum

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

They are Peter Bone, Douglas Carswell, John Glen, Anne McIntosh, and Bob Stewart.  The new group was formed in the aftermath of the same-sex marriage bill second reading vote.  The video above is introduced by my former constituency Chairman in Wycombe, Bob Woollard, who says that "it seems as though a cohort of moderniers have got the Prime Minister's ear and, frankly, I think it's time these modernisers packed their bags and went."  Here are some quotes from the MPs:

• Peter Bone: "The leadership seems to be disconnected with the grassroots."

• John Glen: "We must reconnect before the general election in two years time."

• Douglas Carswell: "It's fantastic that this initiative is being launched, and I'm fully behind an initiative that brings in and support our grassroots."

• Anne McIntosh: "We want to be as welcoming as we possibly can to represent all the views expressed in the Conservaive Party."

The film's talking heads place a very heavy stress on the same-sex marriage bill, confirming that by pushing the measure without a manifesto commitment - and in the absence of any substantial public pressure - the leadership made a major strategic blunder.  Voters may have forgotten about the issue by 2015, but many activists who opposed the measure won't have done.  And the party needs a strong presence on the ground.

Continue reading "Five MPs support Conservative Grassroots - which meets at today's Spring Forum" »

Yesterday's Conservative Policy Forum conference and the next manifesto. Verdict: Keep it snappy.

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter

What should a manifesto be?  Should it be an impressionistic sketch - all ideals, values, and themes, but with little hard policy? Or should be a detailed blueprint - a mass of whirring policy wheels and cogs?  This was one of the questions that a panel of Mark Littlewood of the IEA; Paul Maynard, the MP for Blackpool North, and Sean Worth - the former senior Downing Street staffer who's now at Policy Exchange - and I grappled with yesterday.  We did so at the invitation and in the company of the Conservative Policy Forum, the Party body charged with helping to draw up the next manifesto, under the charge of Oliver Letwin.

About 80 party activists were there, including Dr Spencer Pitfield, its Director, and Fiona Hodgson, one its two Vice-Chairs and a force behind the CPF's revival.  The conference was, I would say, younger, less male and less white than is usually the case at party gatherings.  It looked rather southern-flavoured to me - but then again, we were meeting in Bristol.  Since the gathering contained a fair sprinkling of councillors, a lot of those present will have knocked on a lot of doors, and thus were well aware of the difference between having a policy that looks good on paper, and having one that will sell on the doorstep.  The panel's brief was to lead a discussion on the next Conservative manifesto.

Continue reading "Yesterday's Conservative Policy Forum conference and the next manifesto. Verdict: Keep it snappy." »

Cameron focuses on NHS at start of his "no turning back" Conference

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Abortion: Day one of the Downing Street grid for party conference week did not have "abortion row" written on it but that's what Cameron has got. New Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has repeated his view that abortion should be restricted to a 12 week limit. This is what he has supported and voted for in the past. He has repeated that view in an interview with this morning's Times (£). The Today programme is leading on the issue this morning. I can hear the groaning from inside Number 10.

NHS: What Team Cameron wanted the media to be focused upon was Cameron's restatement of his commitment to the NHS. At a Tory Conference six years ago, Mr Cameron - seeking to emulate Tony Blair - suggested that his priorities were not three words but three letters: N-H-S. In opposition he erased Labour's advantage on the NHS. It was probably the Tory modernisers' single biggest political accomplishment. All that has sadly been reversed because of the NHS Bill controversy. In the start of a fightback Mr Cameron writes for the Daily Mail, restating his personal commitment to the health service's values and also promising a new £140 million fund to tackle the red tape that entangles nurses and doctors. The 'NHyes' campaign is about to be relaunched by the party.

Europe: Tory supporters wanting a more Eurosceptic party leadership in Birmingham look likely to be disappointed. The Foreign Secretary gives an interview to The Daily Telegraph in which he appears to downplay the possibility of a referendum on Britain's future relationship with the EU. He implies that the "fresh consent" referred to by David Cameron last week could easily mean a general election mandate. "I haven’t seen anything as Foreign Secretary that shows we should be leaving the European Union,” Mr Hague tells the newspaper. “I see many difficulties, I deal with hundreds of them every day but I support being in the single market …I remain a supporter of our membership of the EU.”

Continue reading "Cameron focuses on NHS at start of his "no turning back" Conference" »

Tory MPs shouldn't vote for more state funding of party politics

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

On Telegraph blogs yesterday Ben Brogan suggested that David Cameron might try to resurrect the boundary reforms by offering the Liberal Democrats a deal on party funding. This might, for example, involve extra state funding for political parties in return for a cap on big private and union giving. The Tory leader might have a double motivation for this. The latest Electoral Commission figures confirmed rumours that the Conservative Party is finding it much harder to raise funds. The steep decline in Tory membership is also a problem for Tory coffers.

I don't, however, think this is even a starter. Nick Clegg has been very clear that his party won't now support boundary reform. This is partly because of petulance at the Tory Lords rebellion but also because boundary reforms will hurt Lib Dem MPs. As many as five LIb Dem MPs may lose their seats because of changes to constituency boundaries. I doubt that Cameron could get Tory MPs to vote for more state funding of political parties either. The rebellion might not be as big as against the Lords Bill but I wouldn't be surprised if it was very substantial.

If Britain did embrace greater taxpayer subsidy of political parties it would probably introduce a per-vote-grant. This would mean, for example, that parties would get an annual sum for every vote they got at the previous election. If it was £1-per-vote the Tories would get £10,703,654 per year. If it was 50p-per-vote it would still be over £5 million. In a time of austerity are the British people going to support that? The other objection to this model is that it entrenches incumbency. It gives existing parties an advantage over new, insurgent parties. That's a barrier to entry that Conservatives should oppose. And who gets the money? Every party or those just with MPs? If it's every party then the BNP could get a big public subsidy.

Continue reading "Tory MPs shouldn't vote for more state funding of party politics" »

Osborne, May, Lansley, Hammond, Mitchell and Greening all suffer big losses in association membership

By Matthew Barrett
^{Follow Matthew on Twitter}

Last week we reported on the decline in Lib Dem membership figures, which are down by 20% since the Coalition was formed. Notable amongst those findings was the fact that membership is falling fastest in seats held by Government ministers. ConservativeHome has now seen figures taken from association statements of accounts published by the Electoral Commission - provided by the Independent on Sunday's political correspondent, Matt Chorley - for membership in Conservative seats.

Although we don't have a full picture of all seats, or all Conservative-held seats, there is a sizeable number of seats' data, and some individual constituency figures worth noting.

The Cabinet members with the worst decline in membership are Andrew Lansley (-28%), Philip Hammond (-24%), Andrew Mitchell (-23%), and Theresa May (-20%). These figures are amongst the worst for all seats we have data for, although the five worst declines occurred in Stirling, Welwyn Hatfield, Thornbury and Yate, Bedford, and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. The decline of 37% in Welwyn Hatfield - Grant Shapps' seat -  is not great for a man tipped as a likely new Party Chairman.

Continue reading "Osborne, May, Lansley, Hammond, Mitchell and Greening all suffer big losses in association membership" »