ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Public are satisfied with David Cameron

A MORI survey of 2,078 adults finds that 31% of the public is satisfied with David Cameron's performance as Tory leader - 14% more than those dissatisfied.

The survey also shows that 52% are still to make up their minds.

As the table on the right shows, Mr Cameron's net satisfaction rating compares favourably with Tony Blair and his three predecessors at similar early stages of their leaderships.

Overall MORI finds the Tories are 2% ahead of Labour.

The LibDems on 17% are a full 6% below where they were on General Election day.

Crime/anti-social behaviour/law & order (36%) is seen as the top issue facing Britain.  Then come... NHS (30%) and schools and race relations/immigration (28%).

Prioritisation of defence/foreign affairs/terrorism has fallen substantially by 15% - to 26% - since November.

Day 2 of ConservativeHome's Appeal

Thanks very much to the eighteen people who responded to the new Appeal for funds.  Donations ranged from £3.30 to £150.

£517.55 has been raised so far.

Given that ConservativeHome received 9,224 hits yesterday I hope there are still many more of you waiting and wanting to give!  Here's the button...

All of the £3,300 we hope to raise will go to the running expenses outlined yesterday.

Huhne wants troops home by Christmas

When David Cameron made his tactically astute appeal to LibDem voters last month, one of the props for his appeal was the suggestion that the issue of Iraq should no longer separate Tories and LibDems:

“My Party and the Liberal Democrats were on different sides of that argument.  But I say to Liberal Democrats everywhere: we’re on the same side now.  We want to see the same things happen as quickly as possible: democracy established… security guaranteed… and our troops coming home, as quickly as possible.”

If Chris Huhne has his way, however, there could be a very big difference between the two parties on Iraq.  According to today's Guardian Mr Huhne believes that Britain "should plan for a complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of this year".  Mr Huhne - reportedly the most impressive LibDem leadership candidate in Tony Blair's eyes - also casts doubts on existing plans to replace Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent:

"By instinct, I believe in a minimum deterrent, but I cannot believe that we need a deterrent as powerful as Trident given that there's been an enormous change in the world since we actually introduced that, so 'no' to Trident or something of equivalent power... I think we need something which is more in tune with the geopolitical threats which we face today."

Mr Huhne has said that recent revelations by Simon Hughes have effectively made the LibDem leadership contest a two horse race between him and Ming Campbell.

Mitt Romney for President?

I have a bet with IDS that Hillary Clinton will be America's next and first woman President.  A combination of her ability to raise money and her celebrity status will, I fear, see her win through.  If she wins Iain has to buy me dinner at a top London restaurant.  If she loses I take him out for dinner and I would be happy to do so... it would be a celebration event. 

If Hillary is the clear favourite to be the Democrats' nominee the Republicans are struggling to find the right candidate.  Jeb Bush would probably stroll to the nomination if he wanted it but he has been categorical in saying that he does not want to run.  The highly-strung John McCain (so strong on Iraq and who recently praised David Cameron) is unpopular with the base of the party because of his support for Kyoto and for the way he attacked Christian conservatives in 2000.  Guiliani - the hero of 9/11 - is probably too liberal on abortion and gay rights.  Many fear that Senator George Allen  lacks charisma.  Mitt Romney is the candidate that some observers are beginning to take very seriously...

Romney is a conservative Republican and has been elected Governor of the very blue state of Massachusetts.  He is a fiscal conservative at a time when George W Bush has lost control of public spending.  He is a cultural conservative who opposes gay marriage and who believes that Roe Vs Wade was wrongly decided.  He is a hawkish conservative who supports George W Bush's approach to the war on terror.  And, as I learnt last night, he is a very articulate conservative.  I was at a dinner for 100 or so conservative Christians who were very impressed with this Mormon's grasp of policy and his speechmaking skills.  He might be my best hope for ensuring I buy Iain dinner in the second week of November 2008...

Cameron: Modern Conservatism

David Cameron gave a major speech today - entitled Modern Conservatism.  Extracts are posted below.  More analysis will come tomorrow [31/1: see Tuesday's newslinks]...

"Amongst the many things that the Thatcher revolution changed was the Labour Party. Gradually, the Labour leadership came to realise that the changes of the 1980s were irreversible, because people didn't want to reverse them. People didn't want to go back to Clause 4, class warfare and industrial strife. A more middle-class Britain wanted a middle-class lifestyle based on a prosperous market economy.

Tony Blair understood this - profoundly understood it. And people could see he understood it. So they could see that New Labour really was new. But there was something else that Tony Blair understood. He understood that some people had been left behind.

In point of fact, he wasn't the first person to understand that. Margaret Thatcher herself became increasingly worried that not everyone was participating in her property-owning democracy. She became increasingly worried that the new, open economy was not tackling problems of family breakdown, crime, poor schooling, drug dependency and the decline of respect in parts of our inner cities. She made a famous speech invoking religion as a means of enriching our sense of social obligation.

Her successor, John Major, was even more acutely aware of the problem of those left behind. It was he who sought to make Britain a nation at ease with itself. It was he who formulated the desire to make Britain a truly classless society - explicitly wanting to tackle the problems of an underclass of people left behind...

ConservativeHome appeal for £3,300

During the course of January ConservativeHome's daily hits have been rising steadily.  Interest spiked on the day that Charles Kennedy confessed to his battle with alcoholism.  It peaked again on the day I appeared on Newsnight and yet again for the results of the ConservativeHome Members' Panel.  Interest in David Cameron's gravitation to the political centre and the anger he is provoking on the right seem to be underpinning this blog's popularity. 

Running a blog like this isn't cheap, however, and this week I'd like to encourage you to make a donation to the site's costs.

Sam Coates recently became my Deputy and is writing occasional posts as well as sharing the task of compiling the frontpage newslinks.  The cost of buying a laptop for him to use and a twelve month mobile internet contract from Vodafone is £1,700.

Another big cost is the software and processing for the Members' Panel.  I'm also buying some viral email packages to advertise the blog to the many Tories who still don't know about ConservativeHome.

The total cost of these expenditures is about £3,300 and I'm inviting you to make a contribution towards that sum.  Every donation would be welcome.  All you need is a debit or credit card and you can give by pressing the button below and setting up a secure PayPal account...

'PayPal' is an internationally reputable payment service that provides you with complete security.  If you have concerns about paying online, however, please send a cheque to ConservativeHome, 16 St Ann Street, Salisbury SP1 2DN.  Cheques should be made payable to ConservativeHome.com.

I'll update you everyday on how the appeal is progressing throughout this week.  It would be great to get close to the target by Friday.  Please give generously...!

TIM MONTGOMERIE, Editor of ConservativeHome.com

Has Cameron spurned The Telegraph for the BBC?

One of the best columns in The Spectator was Stephen Glover's Media Studies.  Mr Glover has now taken his perspective on the press to The Independent and its Monday Media section.  It's always worth reading.

Today's column looks at the increasingly difficult relationship between right-wing newspapers and Mr Cameron.

Mr Glover thinks that the Mail may choose to live with Mr Cameron but he is less sure about The Telegraph:

"At the Telegraph, the opposition to Mr Cameron is more venomous. Its editor, John Bryant, is a pragmatic Cameroonian, but he is surrounded by men who are fiercely critical of the Tory leader: the neo-Powellite columnist Simon Heffer; the director of communications, Guy Black, who appears to have taken a dislike to Mr Cameron when they both worked for Michael Howard; and Jeff Randall, who has already had a pop at the Tory leader in his column in the City pages. The paper's chairman, Aidan Barclay, did not welcome Mr Cameron's recent unfriendly remarks about big business."

Mr Glover thinks that Mr Cameron - who won the leadership with next to no help from the so-called Tory press - thinks that he can live without the Mail and Telegraph as cheerleaders.  Much more important to him is fair coverage on the BBC.  The BBC is undoubtedly the dominant media influence in Britain but the Corporation often reports what exercises the newspapers and The Telegraph is a big influence on Tory activists.  Mr Cameron would be wise to avoid causing too much upset amongst the right side of Fleet Street.

Fat people produce fat government

I've been in Washington for three weeks now.  Spending time with Howard Dean's internet campaign manager (Joe Trippi) last week has been one of the highlights and I'll write more about that soon...  A lo-light was a two-and-a-half hour plane trip to Texas.  I was sat next to a very large American lady who needed a good very proportion of my seat space for her own considerable bulk.   America has a real obesity problem.  A recent report put the annual medical costs at $75billion.  Surveys have suggested the UK costs of obesity are at least £2bn pa - and rising.

One conservative American Governor - Mike Huckabee - has made the problem of excessive consumption a personal and political priority.  Governor Huckabee (of Arkansas) lost over 100lbs over the course of a year in his own war against flab (see above). 

Huckabee has also instituted a state-wide programme to cut obesity rates.  This is what he told yesterday's New York Times (subscription required):

"I don't want to be the sugar sheriff.  I don't want to be the grease police. That's not my job. But when I look at our state budget, and I see that every year our Medicaid budget is increasing by 9 to 10 percent, and I look at state employees' health plans and I see that those costs are escalating at double digits and twice the rate of inflation — as a fiscal manager, I have not only the right but frankly also the responsibility to see what can we do to improve this bottom-line cost."

Obesity is another very good example of how increasing demand for government is putting an ever higher floor under the size of our increasingly bloated government.  Small government fundamentalists object to any government programmes that, for example, attempt to tackle obesity or promote healthy marriages.  Calls for such modest programmes are drowned out by reactionary cries of 'Nanny state! Nanny state!'

But modest investment in preventative programmes (ideally delivered by third sector organisations) can save the taxpayer a lot of money in future years.  David Cameron appears to grasp this.  In his recent 'Nation of the Second Chance' speech he said the following:

"The average taxpayer now contributes at least £570 every year to the direct costs of family breakdown, but only 21p is spent on trying to save troubled relationships.  Paltry sums are invested in helping couples build healthy relationships in the first place.  Harry Benson of Bristol Community Family Trust... runs superb relationship courses in ante-natal clinics, civil registrars and prisons.  Everyone should be given the best opportunities to form stable, healthy relationships and, especially where children are planned, to develop happy, healthy marriages."

The road to a smaller state lies in healthier marriages, less obesity and more drug rehabilitation (among other things).  It is essential that small government conservatives find ways of delivering such social goods...

Tebbit attacks Cameron for trying to "purge the memory of Thatcherism"

It may be David Cameron's big speech day but Norman Tebbit is determined to grab a bit of attention for himself.

In a speech to the Bow Group the former Tory Chairman and self-appointed keeper of the Thatcherite flame will "compare the Tory leader to the communist dictator Pol Pot over the way in which he has tried to "purge the memory of Thatcherism"" (Telegraph).

This is the second time this month that Lord Tebbit - who backed David Davis for the Tory leadership - has questioned the new leader's strategy.  Lord Tebbit told today's Telegraph that UK elections "are won by the party that gets its own traditional supporters out and discourages those of the other parties from doing the same".  Lord Tebbit clearly believes that Mr Cameron's eschewal of tax cuts and refusal to talk about Europe, crime or immigration will demotivate the party's core supporters.

Lord Tebbit's wide-ranging speech will ask the following questions:

"Is he really 'New Labour Lite', a Tory wolf in Lib Dem sheep's clothing, or a Lib Dem sheep leading a pack of Tory wolves?  Or is he the partys Chairman Mao or Pol Pot intent on purging even the memory of Thatcherism before building a New Modern Compassionate Green Globally Aware Party somewhere on the Left side of the middle ground?"

Mr Cameron also comes under fire from the party's Europhile wing.  Edward McMillan-Scott, former leader of the Tories' MEPs, has told The Scotsman that "Mr Cameron seems to be working towards the centre at home and yet moving to the extreme right abroad as fast as he can."  William Hague will be visiting Brussels today as he seeks to implement his leader's decision to leave the EPP.  The decision may be controversial amongst the party's Old Europeans but it won the agreement of 76% of party members in last week's survey of the ConservativeHome Members' Panel.

Cameron ahead by 1% on eve of 'big speech'

An ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph shows little change from the previous survey in the series.  David Cameron's Conservatives remain 1% ahead of Labour and the LibDems are on 18% (just 1% off their December rating). 

80% of those sampled by ICM said that recent scandals had made no difference to whether or not they would consider supporting the LibDems in the future.  16% said it would make them less likely to vote LibDem; 2% said more likely.  My goodness, who are those 2%!

Today's Observer reports that Mr Cameron will make his most ambitious speech since becoming leader tomorrow.  The Tory leader will tell the left-leaning think tank Demos that Tony Blair had the "'profound' understanding that the changes in Thatcher's Britain in the Eighties were 'irreversible, because people didn't want to reverse them', as well as with 'making the aims of a stronger economy and more decent society most explicit'."  That is a direct quote from The Observer , which continues:

"But he will argue that New Labour has in the end failed to deliver - and that the Conservatives now are in a position to do so. Blair's government, Cameron says, 'has failed to maintain the competitiveness of our economy, and has failed to lift the excluded out of the trap of multiple deprivation'. It had provided 'neither economic efficiency, nor social justice'.  The speech will blame the government's failure on looking for short-term, headline-grabbing answers to serious problems, and on reverting to an emphasis on 'legislation, regulation and bureaucracy. That is the natural instinct of the Labour Party - and especially of Gordon Brown.'"

Three more Brown failures

Two weeks ago The Business newspaper revealed the devastating fact that the British tax burden (going up) was higher than Germany's tax burden (going down).  It was the clearest sign yet that the Brown-Blair axis was eroding the supply-side progress of the Thatcher years.  Today's Business newspaper provides three excellent more reasons why Gordon Brown does not deserve his reputation on economic competence....

Falling productivity - The Business:

"Britain's productivity growth has collapsed to its lowest rate since 1990, when Margaret Thatcher was still prime minister, according to an analysis of official statistics this weekend.  Output per worker increased by only 0.6% last year, the weakest for 15 years, in a devastating blow to Chancellor Gordon Brown, who has long emphasised that increasing productivity was his main economic objective."

Globally weak education standards - The Business:

"Great Britain is facing long-term economic decline and social chaos unless it urgently improves its schools, business leaders and economists warned this weekend after it emerged that children have suffered an unprecedented drop in reasoning ability.  Employers said a groundbreaking study of 10,000 children, which reveals that 11- and 12-year-olds are between two and three years behind where they were 15 years ago in terms of their ability to think and reason, confirmed their worst fears. They said that better skills are essential in the global knowledge economy and to compete against highly skilled workers from India and China."

Rising fraud - The Business:

"Fraud in Britain has risen to the highest level recorded since 1995, according to a new survey to be published on Monday.  The government and financial institutions are the main victims identified in KPMG’s Forensic Fraud Barometer which records big fraud cases heard in the UK.  It shows the figures jumped nearly three times from £329m (E481m,$583m) the previous year to £942m for 2005. More than 222 cases reached court over the course of 2005, up from 174 cases in 2004."

Sir Cyril Townsend 'outed' as LibDem

Former Tory MP Sir Cyril Townsend, who represented Bexleyheath from 1974 to 1997, secretly joined the Liberal Democrats last year.  His move only became public today when he announced is support for Sir Ming Campbell's leadership bid.

Sir Cyril used his endorsement to criticise David Cameron's consistency:

"David Cameron was the author of Michael Howard's illiberal manifesto just last May. If he believed what he wrote then, how can he believe what he says now?  And since he voted for the US invasion of Iraq, and has been continually Eurosceptic, what right has he to our respect for his international intentions?

I am supporting Ming Campbell's campaign to lead the Liberal Democrats - who I joined last year - because I admire his consistency and integrity, and I believe his distinct radical liberalism would be a breath of fresh air in British politics."

ROTW: Harper and Hague are this week's stars

Today ConservativeHome begins a new feature reviewing the political week.  The Review will appear every Friday or Saturday.

HOT TOPIC OF THE WEEK… Tax.  Britain is becoming increasingly burdened by Gordon Brown’s taxes and George Osborne used a speech to acknowledge the economic cost of this burden but he then put “stability” before tax relief in a speech that provoked a lot of energetic commenting on this site.

A GOOD WEEK… for political blogs.  Canada’s blogging Tories performed five main roles for the victorious Stephen Harper:

(1) They helped to expose the corruption of the Chretien/ Martin Liberal Party.
(2) They kept the corruption scandal in the news cycle when mainstream old media moved on to other things.
(3) They fact checked and fisked the outpourings of the mainstream media.
(4) They put out videos, cartoons and other campaign ads that were too edgy for the official Conservative Party but reached voters that tune out of more conventional messaging.
(5) They maintained activist morale.

A(NOTHER) BAD WEEK… for the LibDems.  It began with revelations about Mark Oaten’s use of a male prostitute and the News of the World’s suggestion of sex acts that were too lurid to print.  A LibDem candidate defected to Cam's Cons and then Simon Hughes was outed as having had homosexual relationships even though he had repeatedly denied that he was gay.  The week ended with the LibDems slipping to just 13% in the latest YouGov/ Telegraph poll.

TORY POLITICIAN OF THE WEEK… William Hague.  Members of the ConservativeHome.com Members’ Panel gave him a net satisfaction rating of +83%.  Just 4% of the Panel were dissatisfied with the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s performance.

PLAY OF THE WEEK… David Cameron at PMQs.  Sir Ming may have asked the most worthy question about the west’s failure to help the people of Darfur but the Tory leader delivered the memorable performance.  Cameron wins the Play of the Week for taunting Blair by saying that the CND member of 1983 had gone into politics to "soak the rich and ban the bomb" but had been "sucking up to the rich and dropping bombs" ever since.

EXTERNAL BLOG POST OF THE WEEK… Brendan Simms on the Social Affairs Unit blog – pointing out that David Cameron’s chair of the security policy group - 'Pauline Neville Chamberlain' -  was no neocon.

CONSERVATIVEHOME POST OF THE WEEK… We compared the policies of the AusCons, CanCons and USCons with the CamCons and found Britain’s Tories increasingly out-of-step with their English-speaking counterparts.  BBC World Service interviewed me about the comparison for the People & Politics programme.

THE POST THAT RECEIVED THE MOST COMMENTS...

• More tax anxiety (172)

THE POST THAT RECEIVED THE FEWEST COMMENTS...

• Remembering Darfur (3)

COMMENT OF THE WEEK... Simon C responding to the post on the Assisted Dying Bill.  This is one of four points he made:

"Contrary to their protestations, pro-euthanasia campaigners are seeking to impose their views on others: they are saying that in some cases an active intervention to bring a patient's life to an end months earlier than would otherwise have happened should be regarded as a positive & good outcome. They are saying that medicine is something that you can take to bring about the end of your life, not just to make you better. In short, they are imposing a view that would upturn the established principles on which our medical culture has been based for centuries. As a result people living with life-threatening conditions, who are fighting every step of the way, are having to read in the newspapers or see on television the view that it would be far more dignified of them to take the euthanasia route. There are other ways of dying in dignity. It is quite wrong for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to suggest that it has a monopoly on dignity by changing its name to "Dying in Dignity" and then applying for trademarks to claim exclusive ownership of that language."

Unhappy LibDem voters defect to Labour

If today's YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph is to be believed the LibDems are in serious peril.

Anthony King writes the following in his analysis of the poll:

"More than one in three of those who voted Liberal Democrat in last year's general election no longer support the party and a large majority of YouGov's respondents believes that the party is no longer - if it ever was - a credible force.  To some extent, the Liberal Democrats' problems are obviously their own fault. It would be astonishing if a party that within a few weeks lost its leader through alcoholism and its shadow home secretary through sexual impropriety - and then saw a prominent contender for the party leadership publicly contradict his own repeated denials of homosexuality - did not suffer a substantial loss of public esteem."

Professor King goes on to write that the LibDems' biggest problem is the revival of the Tories.  "The Liberal Democrats thrive when both main parties are unpopular," he writes - "Their fortunes flag when either the Tories or Labour - or both - revive."

The glass-half-empty Conservatives will be disappointed that the collapse in LibDem support has largely boosted Labour despite Mr Cameron's aggressive attempts to woo LibDems with pledges on the environment, poverty-fighting and civil liberties.  The glass-half-full Tories will know that this reduction in third party support - if sustained - will see a large swathe of LibDem seats return to the Tory fold at the next General Election.

Maggie Merkel - the new Thatcher?

This (not online) comes from Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal:

"When Chancellor Angela Merkel began her keynote address to the World Economic Forum, her first reference was to the 18th century philosopher from Koenigsberg, Immanuel Kant. Yet despite a Teutonic speaking style, Mrs. Merkel delivered the most American of speeches. I lost count of the number of times she used the word "freedom" sometime after the 10th reference. And that's to say nothing of her statement that "Christian values" were the foundation stone of her politics. No wonder George W. Bush likes this lady.

"Increasing freedom has always led to improvements in Germany," she said, citing the great free-market guru (and architcect of West Germany's postwar economic boom) Ludwig Erhard. She railed against the heavy hand of German bureaucracy on German innovation and entreprenuership. Computers were a German invention yet where, she asked, was the German equivalent to a Microsoft or a Google? She described German unemployment, which has hovered around 10% for more than a decade, as "terrifying." She was equally scathing of the political environment she's inherited. "We are paralysed by events and situations and don't seem to be able to overcome this," said Mrs. Merkel. "Each rule and regulation has a political lobby associated with it," she said, calling Germany's problems "self-inflicted."   On the solution side, Mrs. Merkel was clear in direction, if not in details. "We have to open the windows, breathe deeply the fresh air and see the opportunities rather than the risks and hazards," she said. Germany "must become more flexible, develop better benchmarking, become less rigid in its laws and above all tackle bureaucracy." She called for a "viable" tax system and reduced labor costs. She also urged free trade, lamenting the failure of the WTO talks in Hong Kong (thanks to French obstruction). The chancellor referred to Britain as a role model for economic reform, reminding her audience why she's known as "Maggie" Merkel."

This from BusinessWeek:

"Merkel's Davos performance was only the latest in a series of coups for the Chancellor. Since she was chosen in November to lead a coalition government of her Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats, Merkel has repaired relations with the U.S., strained by the Iraq war. She also has displayed a new toughness toward Russia by visiting human-rights groups during a trip in January to see Russian President Vladimir Putin."

This from The Australian:

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised a free-market revolution in Europe's biggest and most troubled economy, dismantling the mass of regulations that have been built up over recent decades.  She said Germany must follow the economic policies of Britain, earning loud applause from the audience of leading capitalists at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  Using language almost identical to that used by Margaret Thatcher when she was the British prime minister, the centre-right leader mapped out a U-turn in her country's treasured social model, repeatedly emphasising that Germans must stop fearing the world, embrace freedom and learn to take responsibility for their own lives instead of looking to the state. She said that rules introduced by previous governments to protect workers were strangling initiative, and had led to "terrifyingly high unemployment".

And the FT:

"Angela Merkel, the new German chancellor, enjoys higher approval ratings than her two predecessors ever achieved - and an important factor is the rebounding economy. The latest Ifo business climate survey shows that Germany has become an economy oozing with confidence, with the index back to levels last seen in 1999-2000."

Oborne recommends that Tories distance themselves from Bush

David Cameron is receiving conflicting advice on relations with America.  The anti-war Peter Oborne thinks that drawing closer to Bush's America is a big error on Cameron's part.  He writes this in The Spectator:

"David Cameron has ruthlessly dumped Tory baggage on almost every pressing issue: tax, the economy, the environment, health, education, welfare, the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. There is, however, one exception. On foreign policy he has moved surprisingly sharply to the Right. In Europe he has broken with the centrist EPP and placed Conservatives uncomfortably alongside a miscellaneous collection on the semi-fascist fringe. More notable still, David Cameron’s Tory party is moving fast to improve links with the White House and the Republican party."

If Mr Oborne is worried that Mr Cameron is too neoconservative, other observers are concerned that the Tory leader may be ditching his hawkish credentials.  A previous enthusiast for Mr Cameron's neoconservatism - Brendan Simms - has turned distinctly cooler.  In a blog (for the Social Affairs Unit) Mr Simms worries about the appointment of "Pauline Neville Chamberlain" to chair the security policy group (a worry shared by this blog).  Simms writes:

"Dame Pauline is closely connected with the failed "realist" policies of Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind in the Major government. As Political Director of the Foreign Office, and a classic realist, she was strongly opposed to intervention against Serb aggression in Bosnia. After the war, Dame Pauline represented Natwest Markets in the negotiations with the Yugoslav leader Milosevic over the privatisation of Serbian utilities. The ethical implications of this move, much discussed at the time and since, are neither here nor there; what is worrying is the flawed judgment that Milosevic was a reliable partner to do business with. Scarcely eighteen months later, we went to war with him over the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo."

In terms of rebuilding links with America Mr Simms recommends that Mr Cameron invests in the mainstream voices of American politics:

"Mr Cameron should seek alliances with the vast middle ground in American politics which supports the principles underlying the removal of Saddam Hussein, but is in no doubt about the shortcomings of the administration which effected it. A major speech at, say, the National Endowment for Democracy, where many have received Cameron's Foreign Policy Centre speech with enthusiasm, would send an unambiguous signal. It would enable him to set out his stall not only on the other side of the Atlantic, but on both sides of the partisan divide as well. Men such as John McCain, who will certainly be a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the senior Democrats Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman are Mr Cameron's natural allies."

Mr Oborne seems a bit behind the times.  The anti-Americanism that once kept the likes of Schroeder in power looks distinctly out-of-date.  The Daily Mail and other Michael Moore Conservatives once hoped that the defeat of José María Aznar in Spain would be the first domino to fall in the 'Iraq coalition of the willing'.  It didn't happen.  John Howard was re-elected.  Then Bush himself.  Then Blair.  Then Koizumi.  The White House has taken great pleasure in this week's defeat of Paul Martin (who ran a virulently anti-American campaign) and the arrival of Angela Merkel.  Washington's Republicans hope that the days of opportunistic politicians exploiting the difficulties in Iraq are nearly over.  Mr Cameron should ignore Mr Oborne's latest piece of advice but Mr Simms' suggestion of building bridges to a broad cross-section of US political leaders is wise counsel.

Simon Hughes: I've had gay sex

Simon Hughes has vowed to stay in the LibDem leadership race despite having been "outed" as gay.

Mr Hughes recently told The Independent that he was not gay after the newspaper asked him if he was homosexual:

"The answer is no, as it happens. But if it was the case, which it isn’t, I hope that would not become an issue.”

Today's Sun presented him with evidence that he used the ManTalk service - an "interactive telephone chat service for Gay men over the age of 18 who want to make new contacts."  Mr Hughes, 54, told The Sun:

“I am perfectly willing to say that I have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in the past.  I hope that does not disqualify me from doing a good job in public life and I propose to carry on doing that with the usual enthusiasm and determination.”

Mr Hughes' leadership rivals - Ming Campbell and Chris Huhne - told BBCi that Mr Hughes' sexuality was not an issue.

Many MPs are privately gay.  Politics seems to attract a disproportionate number of gay people.  The long, demanding hours are not always easy for busy parents.  My guess is that most voters couldn't care less about an MP's sexuality although most voters would like politicians to more actively support policies that help families with children and the aspiration to marry, in particular.  The And Theory is - as always! - very relevant here.  "A commitment to actively support the married family and fair pension and inheritance arrangements for gay adults" are perfectly compatible.  What we have in British politics is the political will to enact civil partnerships and accept private lifestyles (perfectly fair enough) but not to end the marriage penalty and therefore encourage the benefits that marriage brings children and wider society.

After tabloid outings of Oaten and now Hughes I expect other MPs are feeling vulnerable.  That's certainly Iain Dale's view.  Iain writes the following on his blog this evening:

"We also have to face the fact that if Mark Oaten hadn't been outed on Sunday, Simon Hughes probably wouldn't have been today. My great fear now is that the media smell blood. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were further revelations between now and Sunday. If I were an MP with a personal secret I don't think I'd look forward to answering my phone on Saturday."

Boris Johnson "inclined" to back Assisted Dying Bill

Tory MP Boris Johnson has used his Telegraph column to discuss Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.   Pro-life groups have produced excellent briefings against the Bill (see, for example, here) but Mr Johnson is minded to support the right-to-die at the heart of the legislation:

"The closer I study Lord Joffe's Bill, the more inclined I am to think it reasonable. It is full of restrictions - notably that death must be only a few months away at most; and all sorts of attestations are demanded from doctors and solicitors.  I can see all the disadvantages, and if the law were to be changed, then it would need careful review, to make sure that people were not coming under any pressure whatever to take their lives. But I think it might be better than seeing increasing numbers of British people forced to take their lives in a foreign country."

'WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A RELATIVE...'

Mr Johnson attempts to directly address the fear that a right-to-die might quickly become a duty-to-die:

"It is certainly possible to imagine that, if assisted suicide were legal in this country, then old, confused and pain-racked people could start protesting that they "didn't want to be a burden", and their exhausted and demoralised relatives could indeed begin to persuade themselves that this was the best solution.  That is the reason why many people will oppose the Joffe Bill on assisted suicide, currently in the Lords. I completely understand their reasons; and yet we should also be clear what we are saying to people such as Dr Turner, and the doctors who might be tempted to help them out of their misery.  Sorry, we say: you are physically incapable of taking your own life (an action decriminalised in this country in 1961), and therefore we must sentence you to whatever physical and mental tortures your mortal biology may send you, for the term of your natural life. If necessary, you must go on and on in unbearable pain, and any doctor who helps you to die will be liable to 14 years in prison."

The "unbearable pain" argument is hotly disputed by pro-lifers who point to significant advances in palliative medicine and Britain's globally-respected hospice movement.  Some of the best arguments against the Joffe Bill were put by Rowan Williams in a recent op-ed in the Mail on Sunday.  These were the Archbishop of Canterbury's main concerns:

• The end of the 'do no harm' principle: "If we say that people have a right to die in some circumstances, does this create a duty on the part of doctors and nurses to bring about death?"
• Conscientious objections: "What are the safeguards for the right of medical professionals to refuse [to end a patient's life] on conscientious grounds?"
• Patient-doctor trust: "What will be the effect of legislation be on trust in the medical profession?"
• A right-to-die becomes a duty-to-die: "Will there be a suspicion or fear that pressure will be brought to bear on those in terminal or extreme conditions to ask for 'assisted dying'?"
• Resource constraints lead to euthanasia: "Will individuals or their families - not to mention doctors and nurses - be able to cope with the feeling of unspoken pressure to save scarce resources?"  The Archbishop of Canterbury notes that elderly people are already moving away from Holland and Switzerland (where voluntary euthanasia is legal) because of fears of what might happen to them when they need medical care.
• Legal euthanasia reduces the incentive to invest in pain control and other medical research: "Can we be sure that high-quality research will continue into ageing, dementia and pain control, when there is a swifter and less costly option available in the form of 'assisted dying?'" and similarly, "Will this legislation undermine investment in palliative provision?"

During the run-off stage of the leadership election ConservativeHome asked the two candidates if they would support Joffe-type legislation.  David Cameron's answer was simple and direct.  He replied "no".

Cameron: We don't do flags on the front lawn

Later today David Cameron will present the Greatest Briton Award.  According to The Telegraph, contenders include Ellen MacArthur, the yachtswoman and Andrew Flintoff, the Test cricketer, in the sports category; Jamie Oliver in campaigning; and Jonathan Ive, the iPod designer, in creative industries (a very worthy candidate).

The Tory leader will take the opportunity to distance himself from Gordon Brown's recent remarks on Britishness in which the Scottish Chancellor encouraged popular flag-flying.  Mr Cameron will say that understatement and reserve are intrinsic characteristics of being British:

"We don't do flags on the front lawn."

I wonder if Liam Fox has seen Mr Cameron's remarks?  Only last October the new Shadow Defence Secretary was very enthusiastic about flag-waving:

"When I suggested recently that all schools in Britain should fly the Union flag as a symbol of what unites us I was told it was racist. By what possible stretch of the meaning of the word could even the most crazed member of the politically correct brigade regard flying your own flag outside your own schools as racist.  Let us send them a message: this conference will never be ashamed of the Union Flag."

My guess is that Liam hasn't seen the remarks (I've certainly had no contact with him or his staff).  I also wonder how much the shadow cabinet is being involved in all of David Cameron's first 100 days announcements on tax etc.  One member of the shadow cabinet and another senior frontbencher have described the power of the kitchen cabinet around Mr Cameron.  It's no big deal yet as both men (and they are men) are content with the direction of the Cameron leadership.  The power of the kitchen cabinet may yet become a source of concern for less contented MPs, however. 

Remembering Darfur

The International Development Committee of the House of Commons has just released a report on Darfur.  Its title is as depressing as it is stark...

"DARFUR: THE KILLING CONTINUES."

David Cameron highlighted the killing of up to 400,000 people in Darfur during his leadership bid but disappointed many ConservativeHome visitors by his answer to a question on the subject from this site (see here).  Yesterday Ming Campbell raised the issue at PMQs and received the following admission from Tony Blair:

"I think the international community is failing people in Darfur."

The media is also failing the people of Darfur.  This video exposes the failure of American TV.  The BBC has been much better but Britain's written press have been pretty dire.  I know The Times' Ann Treneman is a sketchwriter but did she really have to write that Ming's intervention on Darfur was "risk-free and dull"?

This blog is a useful way of keeping in touch with the situation in Sudan.

Low key affair in the Commons

Party leaders' topics:  David Cameron on independent trust schools and school freedom. He described the education reforms as 'vital', just as Murdoch did the other day, Menzies Campbell asked if Tony Blair would push to strengthen the African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, and increase humanitarian aid there.

Best joke: It was a dull question time apart from Cameron's gem about Blair coming in to politics to soak the rich and ban the bomb, but ending up sucking up to the rich and dropping bombs!

Best line: "Your first act as prime minister was to abolish grant maintained schools and your last act would be to re-establish them." - Cameron to Blair.

Biggest cheer of the day: Cameron quoting Prescott: "if you set up a school and it becomes a good school the great danger is that everyone wants to go there". Or Blair responding to  James Clappison who wanted a return of the UK theme to Radio 2: "My influence with the BBC is legendary."

Best behaved person of the day: The Tories and Labour on the LibDem leadership contest, the Oaten affair made it a no-no. The Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister were all exceptionally well behaved (none of them were there!).

Best putdown of the day: Cameron to the Labour backbenches who sniggered when he started asking a question about police force mergers. His tone gave him the moral high ground.

Missed topic of the day: They steered clear of the LibDem leadership contest predictably, although I expected some kind of metaphor with the deceased whale of the Thames!

Deputy Editor

What can the CamCons learn from the CanCons?

Following Stephen Harper's success in Monday's elections Michael Howard rushed to the microphone to draw parallels between the British and Canadian political situations:

"We are seeing a recognition across the world of the failure of the centre-left to deliver... The defeated [Liberal] prime minister is someone who was finance minister for a very long time, wanted to take over the top job much earlier than he was allowed to and, when he got the top job, proved to be a long way short of a success in it."

Mr Howard would be unwise to draw too many lessons, however.  The graphic below shows that David Cameron's Conservative Party is increasingly out-of-step with its English-speaking world counterparts...

I don't suggest that David Cameron would necessarily be politically wise to embrace all of the five positions outlined above...

But: Harper, Bush and Howard (John) have shown that traditional conservative fare is acceptable in three very different countries.  None of the three men are charismatic in the way that David Cameron is.  In the absence of 'stardust' they've focused on bread-and-butter conservative issues that appeal to the embattled victims of left-wing failure - the strivers.  For example...

• Stephen Harper emphasised modest tax cuts and increased defence spending in his attempt to unseat a corrupt Liberal establishment.

• George W Bush's tax cuts have powered the US economy (and Gordon Brown's) - his recent opinion poll rebound has reflected this and his unashamed defence of his administration's wiretapping of possible terrorist suspects (see graphic on right).  (Gordon Brown was emphasising homeland security in his criticisms of David Cameron yesterday).

• John Howard has consistently championed lower taxation and public sector reform and has emphasised opposition to uncontrolled immigration.

Newslinks to more analysis of the Canadian elections are on the frontpage.

LibDem candidate flies to Cameron's "positive, constructive and optimistic" nest

The Tory blogosphere has been alive with the possibility of LibDem to Tory defections for some time.  Iain Dale wrote about the possibility of David Laws MP crossing the floor.  Guido hinted at Mark Oaten MP defecting before Sunday's News of the World expose (an expose that Dominic Lawson suggests would have cost the NotW £20,000).

This morning Mr Cameron has finally won a defection and it's... Adrian Graves.

Yes.  THE Adrian Graves.

Described by The Independent as "a strategic public relations consultant", Mr Graves was LibDem candidate for Suffolk West in 1997 and 2005.  With these words in The Independent Mr Graves has defected to the Tories:

"The arrival of David Cameron at the helm of the Tory party has precipitated a shift in the direction and political atmosphere within the party.  Politics is suddenly dynamic and interesting again. Importantly, it now offers - arguably for the first time since 1997 - the only potentially achievable opportunity for "regime change" at the next election...

We need change at the next election: Liberal Democrat centre-ground politicians and thinkers need to consider those choices and opportunities - or live with the consequences. For me, the solution is quite obvious. David Cameron represents the positive, constructive and optimistic politics I believe in. That is why I am joining David Cameron's modern, compassionate Conservative Party. The time has clearly come for others to make the same choice."

If Mr Cameron is to win further defections it will be important that Mr Graves is treated well.  Tony Blair was careful to help defectors Shaun Woodward and Alan Howarth secure plum Labour seats.  Charles Kennedy elevated the treacherous Emma Nicholson and Hugh Dykes to the Lords.  Mr Graves is hardly in the same league as Woodward and Howarth etc but Mr Laws et al may be watching to see what kind of treatment he receives.  Mr Laws is professing his loyalty to the yellow flag at the moment but would he stay in a Hughes-led Liberal party?  Mr Graves describes a "nightmare scenario" where a "Hughes-led, left-leaning Liberal Democrat" party "props up" a "weaker Labour administration, led by Gordon Brown".  Such a Brown-Hughes coalition would do nothing to advance Mr Laws' Orange Book liberalism and Yeovil's MP might yet follow Mr Graves' example... Mr Cameron would be sure to give him a senior Tory position within months.

Is your glass half full or half empty?

Although a weekend poll for Mori put LibDem support at just 15% an ICM poll for today's Guardian puts them on 19% (albeit two points down from last month).  One-third of those who took part in the ICM poll were questioned after the Mark Oaten scandal broke.

The two main parties are unchanged over the last month with 'Cameron's Conservatives' maintaining a 1% lead over Labour:

• The glass-is-half-full Tory will welcome this - and enjoy the fact that the Tories have finally escaped the lo-flatlining thirties and appear sustainably competitive with Labour for the first time in many years.

• The glass-is-half-empty Tory will be disappointed - they'll say that David Cameron has enjoyed the best publicity we've had for a generation, we've surrendered supposedly right-wing policies on health, grammar schools and tax and yet we're only 4% up on where we were at last May's General Election.

More tax anxiety

Concerns about Tory tax policy are reaching a crescendo. Yesterday's ToryDiary post which highlighted concerns from other quarters attracted a one hundred-comment debate.

The Independent is not surprisingly portraying it as a split between right-wingers and modernisers.

The Times expresses consternation at yesterday's new 'stability' focused approach outlined in the Financial Times, highlighting dynamism as more important.

There were some positive aspects of George Osborne's speech, such as emphasis on reducing the long-term demand on the state, but nothing radical enough to satisfy most economic commentators.

The Telegraph has good reason to wonder what happened..

"While he was running for the party leadership Mr Cameron promised to lead a "crusade for capitalism"; his lieutenant, George Osborne, spoke enthusiastically of the flat tax. Once he had won, Mr Cameron announced he did not believe in "isms" such as "capitalism", and yesterday he and Mr Osborne ruled out the flat tax."

The bold policies may yet come as the economic competetiveness policy group was only launched yesterday, but there is only so long Cameron can go with "comfort conservatism" on tax. We will need to make the argument for lower taxes to reassure the grassroots, and win the argument for the future of our economy. Or as the TaxPayer's Alliance puts it:

"The stakes are high. The future of Britain's economic competitiveness is at stake. Whilst MPs and the media may take a while to appreciate the implications of Britain's growing reputation as "just another dysfunctional EU economy", it will not take long for serious international investors and high-tech firms to come to that conclusion."

Deputy Editor