ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Forget Waitrose voter and Essex man... it's Robinson man who counts at CCHQ

At the end of David Cameron's day - as recently recorded on his 'One Day in History' blog - he crashes in front of Newsnight with a cold beer.  It's just another indication of the importance of the BBC within Team Cameron's thinking.  At the recent Tory conference in Bournemouth Mr Cameron gave more than half-a-dozen big interviews to BBC journalists.  A team from the Ten'o'clock News followed him around all day for a fly-on-the-wall feature.  The Cameroons will never forget the roles played by the BBC's Nick Robinson (and ITN's Tom Bradby) in applauding their man's speech to the 2005 Tory conference and damning David Davis' next day effort.  Both political editors regularly comment as well as report.

Team Cameron believe that the traditional Tory newspapers played almost a zero role in the election of David Cameron and they believe that the broadcasters - and the dominant BBC in particular - hold the keys to victory at the next General Election.  They fear that a hostile BBC could be deadly.  To Team Cameron's credit, however, this has not produced soft-pedalling on issues of BBC reform (see here and here, for example).

Noone is more important in the party's outreach to the BBC than its political editor Nick Robinson.  The Tory treasury team was delighted at Nick Robinson's reaction to Thursday's tax announcement and had carefully prepared the way for that reaction by providing a special briefing to the former Clarke-ite Tory.

The party's outreach to the BBC matters because the BBC is hardly representative of modern Britain.  Traditional Tories, Eurosceptics, rural Britons, Christians and friends of America and Israel have long known this but the BBC itself has now admitted the problem according to today's Mail on Sunday.

Cameron bids to woo 'grey vote'

According to the Mail on Sunday the Tory leader is going to make a bid to win over the grey vote in a major speech to Age Concern tomorrow.

Up until now the Tory leader has focused on younger voters - not least via stunts such as his meeting with rapper Rhymefest a few days ago.  Tomorrow Mr Cameron will reject Tony Blair's Cool Britannia notion that Britain is a "young country" and say that Britain is an "old country - with our best years ahead of us."

He will say that it is too simplistic to view older people as a cost to society.  He will say that they can also be a great benefit.  The MoS:

"If people over 50 who wanted to work could find jobs it could boost the economy by up to £30billion a year, he will say, adding that unpaid work by the elderly, such as picking up grandchildren from school or voluntary work, is worth another £24billion a year.  And he will argue that older people are often more 'future-oriented' than the young, who are obsessed with the present, saying: "Older people think about their grandchildren and their community, and how to improve it.""

Older voters are the most likely group of society to vote and have traditionally been most inclined to vote Conservative.

Related link: Tories for Older People

Tory members deserve a little more respect from Tory MPs

I debated with John Bercow on this morning's Radio 4 Week in Westminster programme.  The debate was about tax and you can listen again by clicking here at any time over the next seven days.

I admire John in many ways - not least for the role he has played in encouraging our party to champion the world's poorest and most neglected people (especially Darfur) - but his attitude to the rank-and-file Tory membership is disappointing and all too typical of many Conservative MPs.  We grassroots members shouldn't quickly forget that two-thirds of Tory MPs voted to stop us - the members who selected them - from having any direct say in the election of party leader.  In the WiW interview Mr Bercow conceded that he was not preoccupied with the views of Tory members - who accounted for a "tiny" proportion of the electorate.  What matters he said was not what Tory members thought but the people who weren't voting Conservative.  He went on to say that it was vital that Tories did not appear "like a bunch of fire-breathing dragons preaching the mantra -  the moral case for low taxation".  That's a classic case of demonising your opponents without really engaging with their argument.

I have some questions for Mr Bercow about his attitude to Tory members:

• Did you win your Buckinghamshire seat because of your innate qualities or because you stood on the Conservative platform?  Who has kept the Conservative Party alive over the last few years?  Isn't it in large part the members who fundraise, deliver leaflets and help run councils?
• Who is more representative of modern Britain and more in touch with its hopes and fears?  The male-dominated parliamentary party - heavily concentrated in southern and rural Britain and mainly from legal, financial and political backgrounds?  Or is it the rank-and-file party membership?   Although it is older and wealthier than the country at large aren't the grassroots at least exposed to the real world in ways in which MPs with their protected pensions are not?
• Are there any polls that suggest that Tory members have very different views from the voters at large?  Didn't a recent ICM/ Sunday Telegraph poll actually suggest that, if anything, Tory supporters were more inclined to support economic stability over tax cuts than all voters? 

I don't seek to increase tensions between members and parliamentarians -  most of our MPs are excellent representatives of the Conservative cause - but a little more respect for members would be welcome.

Conservatives have "died off" in the North

Research of political party memberships conducted by the liberal Unlock Democracy campaign shows how uneven Conservative Party membership is across the country.

Approximately 20% of Conservative Associations have less than 100 members, with many northern Associations having less than 50 members, whilst 97% of constituencies have more than 100 Labour Party members.

Quite encouragingly however, the Conservatives are better off when it comes to money - the percentages of party associations with less than £5000 (just 7p per elector) were: 34% Conservative, 50% Labour, 73% Liberal Democrat.

Some efforts have been made to revive the Party structurally in the North - Liverpool and Manchester have voted to amalgamate their respective city associations and Shadow Cabinet members have been assigned to oversee mostly northern cities.

The lack of northern candidates on the A list is undoubtedly a problem, although David Cameron has denied that candidates aren't applying in the North. The proportion may be equal to how many there are on the candidates list but if we have to have a list that prioritises certain candidates then being local or at least regional is a far more important quality in the eyes of the electorate than skin colour or gender.

In terms of national party workers and active members, the Party is still overwhelmingly southern English. If this should be changed somehow, how?

Deputy Editor

Tory report recommends fiscal independence for Scotland

Earlier today a Policy Group established by the Scottish Party reported its findings.  Those findings will be debated at a special conference next Friday.  At the heart of that debate will be the Group's suggestion that Scotland embraces 'fiscal autonomy'.

The report unpacks the problem of fiscal accountability as six bullet points:

• "the major disadvantage of the current devolved financial arrangements is that politicians in the Scottish Executive are not responsible for raising the money they spend;
• because the bulk of our taxes are sent to the UK exchequer, there is no link between the taxpayer and the money spent by the Executive, and there is no direct link between the politicians and the tax raised;
• the Scottish Parliament lacks the powers necessary to encourage fully the development of a successful Scottish economy;
• only the levels of council tax and business rates (non-domestic rates) are determined, raised and retained in Scotland;
• the current devolved financial arrangement does not adequately fund our public services, but is capable of delivering a windfall, e.g. the proceeds from the recent increase in National Insurance Contributions;
• whatever money comes to Scotland by way of block grant has to be spent, which has led to an increase in unplanned expenditure."

Possible solutions to this are set out in four bullet points:

• "the direct link between the taxpayers, the politicians and the money they raise and spend should be restored, retaining the taxes raised in Scotland;
• the Scottish Executive should then set tax rates consistent with the needs of the economy and with regard to the optimum levels of public expenditure necessary to fund the public services;
• lowering tax rates would result in higher tax income and encourages investment and innovation;
• the tax proceeds from the economic growth should be retained in Scotland and not retained by the UK exchequer, as at present."

Will this be another Tory report that is quickly spurned by those who commissioned it?  In any case... what do you think about this recommendation?

That's a porky pie, Mr Osborne

Dominic Lawson, former Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, has written an excellent article in this morning's Independent in favour of Lord Forsyth's Tax Reform Commission.  It's behind the Indy's subscription wall so you'll have to buy a copy of the newspaper to read Mr Lawson's whole argument.

Before the article gets to the Tax Commission Mr Lawson pens these telling few paragraphs on the way in which the Tory leadership is misrepresenting Margaret Thatcher's 1979 manifesto:

"In his characteristically good-humoured way George Osborne recently chided me for something I wrote about him in this column. I had argued that he was talking nonsense when he claimed that Margaret Thatcher "did not promise tax cuts" in the 1979 election manifesto. The shadow Chancellor insisted that there had indeed been no cast-iron pledge to cut the overall tax burden in Thatcher's first manifesto as Conservative leader, and that he had considered asking Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson to back him up on this.

So in the same friendly spirit I now draw George's attention to the following letter in the most recent issue of The Spectator: "Pressed to promise tax cuts during the recent Conservative Party Conference, both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were anxious to point out that Margaret Thatcher didn't promise tax cuts in 1979. What the 1979 Conservative Manifesto actually said was 'We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success.' I hope we can now take it that the same non-promise will feature in the next Conservative manifesto. Yours sincerely, Nigel Lawson."

Nevertheless, George Osborne, David Cameron and Francis Maude, the Tory party chairman, have continued, if only in this matter, to follow Josef Goebbels' dictum that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

This particular porky is not for the benefit of the people as a whole. It is designed only to appease traditional Conservatives who have grown increasingly restless at the absence of any tax-cutting agenda on the part of the new leadership of their party; but such Tories would need to be not so much traditional as senile, to fall for this peculiarly shameless rewriting of history."

Lord Harris of High Cross has died

John Blundell of the Institute of Economic Affairs has issued the following statement:

"I am very sorry indeed to inform you that Lord (Ralph) Harris died suddenly at his home in north London this morning.  An ambulance was called at 8am but he could not be revived at hospital and a heart attack is suspected.  At this point we have no other details but we will be sure to inform you as and when."

Ralph Harris was one of the great thinkers behind the Thatcher years and Britain's economic renaissance.  He will be sadly missed.

4.15pm update from Eamonn Butler on the ASI blog: "Together with Arthur Seldon and John Wood, Ralph Harris built the Institute of Economic Affairs into a power-house of free-market and classical liberal ideas, and for many years Ralph was the IEA's public face. This work was marked by the peerage which came soon after Mrs Thatcher's election in 1979. True to his principles, however, he allied himself with no political party, and sat on the cross benches in the House of Lords."

Danny Finkelstein (5pm): "I owe a great deal to Ralph Harris and the late Arthur Seldon, the men who founded the Institute of Economic Affairs and were tireless campaigners for liberty. Their greatest achievement in the as to promote the idea of free market reform when it was deeply unfashionable. By changing the mind of a few individuals in the Conservative Party they changed the world."

New Tory policy on tax

I've just listened to Radio 4's World at One (Wato) and heard George Osborne's emphatic insistence that the Conservative Party will promise no unfunded tax cuts at the next General Election.  That concession amounts to a huge ideological victory for the political left.  The Conservative Party's Treasury spokesman has effectively abandoned any attempt to persuade voters of the dynamic or supply side benefits of lowering taxation.  The promised reductions in business and family taxation will all be paid for by higher green taxation.  Environmental economist Professor Stephen Smith told 'Wato' that it is unlikely that green taxation will yield much more than £2bn to £4bn in extra revenue without becoming very regressive.  That leaves little room for any significant reductions in the tax burden on pressurised families.

The real question on tax is not whether we can afford to cut taxes (we can given the waste in the public sector, the supply side benefits of lower taxation and the possibilities for reducing the demand for government) but whether we can afford not to match competitor nations' lower tax regimes.  Lord Forsyth has just told Wato that his Commission's £21bn tax relief package only reverses one year of Gordon Brown's tax rises.  The Taxpayers' Alliance says "if all the report’s proposals were implemented tomorrow, the tax burden would still be higher than in 2003".

Mr Osborne's decision to rapidly distance the party from the Commission's recommendations also raises questions about the Tory leadership's willingness to embrace equally serious recommendations from the other policy groups.  What is the point of appointing these commissions if their results are so quickly disowned?

>>> For a more positive view of Tory tax policy see Watlington on the SAU blog.

BBC website reveals hunger for tax relief

BBC Online is asking 'Is it time for tax cuts?'  The vast majority of people leaving comments appear to believe that it is.  What a time for the Tories to accept Labour's framing of the tax debate!

Here are a few of the comments:

"im only 22 and renting with my brother... i see it like this

earn your wage and pay tax
get a mortgage and pay tax
buy your house pay stamp duty
when you die u pay tax
private pension, pays tax
savings, excluding some, pay tax
shares pay tax

i feel sick thinking about how much i'll pay in tax over my lifetime! u?  so anything which make me pay less tax im for!  am i wrong?" - Matt, Norwich

"Tax cuts sound wonderful. At the moment it feels as though we are being taxed to within an inch of our incomes and that it is all going into a blackhole. None of the basic services are improving, so where is it going? As long as the economy is not jeopardised, I say bring it on!" - Beth Baker, Stroud, United Kingdom

"No matter the amount we pay the government will waste most of it, I would much rather we pay lower taxes than pay higher and have the same effect. We pay one of the highest rates in the world, we need them lowered." - Simon, Hampshire

We did not lose the last two elections because we promised tax cuts

Two of the most threadbare arguments are being wheeled out by opponents of the Tory Tax Reform Commission's recommendations:

1. The Tories would be foolish to offer tax cuts as they didn't win the last two elections; and
2. The kind of tax cuts recommended by the TRC will only benefit the wealthy.

THE TORIES WOULD BE FOOLISH TO OFFER TAX CUTS AS THEY DIDN'T WIN THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS

Rebuttal points:

• The Conservatives lost the last two elections for all sorts of reasons but tax policies were not the lead factors.  In 2001 voters were still ready to give Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt and in 2005 Michael Howard's pitch was too unbalanced.  Mr Howard offered a thin manifesto and emphasised 'core issues' like immigration too much and did not talk enough about the justice and quality of life issues that David Cameron is rightly championing.
• It was too early to sell lower taxation in 2001 and to a lesser extent 2005.  Voters were still ready to believe that extra taxes would produce commensurate improvements in schools and hospitals.  In 2006 - and certainly by 2009 - voters are more open to the idea that their taxes have been wasted and they deserve a refund from Labour salesmen who promised too much and reformed too little.
• The Tories played a very uncertain trumpet on tax before the last election.  'You cannot fatten a pig on market day' was Lynton Crosby's famous advice but that is what the Tories attempted to do with their eve-of-election tax plan.  Only months before the General Election Oliver Letwin - then Shadow Chancellor - was telling the Tory Conference that he wouldn't make promises of tax cuts that voters wouldn't believe.  When, a few months later, he did say he could afford £4bn of tax cuts it was no surprise that unconvinced voters remembered his earlier hesitancy.

THE KIND OF TAX CUTS RECOMMENDED BY THE TAX COMMISSION WILL ONLY BENEFIT THE WEALTHY

Labour are saying that only a third of Britain's poorest citizens will benefit from the TRC package while Britain's wealthiest people would benefit by at least £1,000 each year.  This analysis ignores the dynamic effects of the tax package recommended by Lord Forsyth's team.  Some of the taxes that are least socially just - like council tax - were outside the TRC's remit. The main focus of the TRC was on business and other forms of taxation that - when cut - can boost the economy.  Until the dynamic effects of tax cuts have been considered - on higher growth, job creation and extra long-term revenue for the Exchequer - it is difficult to say whether the TRC package is regressive or progressive.

GEORGE OSBORNE'S RESPONSE

Interviewed on this morning's Today programme the Shadow Chancellor made it clear that he would not be diverted from his existing position on tax.  He would take no risks with peoples' mortgages or with the nation's public finances and there would, in consequence, be no unfunded tax cuts.  All tax cuts, he continued, would have to be paid for by other tax increases.  He highlighted environmental taxes which, he promised, would rise as a percentage of revenues under a Tory government.  He questioned the focus on tax cuts as a way of boosting the economy.  He argued that low interest rates and low inflation were the basis of a strong economy although he accepted the case for simplification of the tax system and had invited Price Waterhouse to investigate reform options in this area.

The leader writers in this morning's Daily Mail offer some comfort to the Shadow Chancellor:

"While we applaud Lord Forsyth for identifying some eminently sensible areas of fiscal reform, it could be that Mr Cameron is wise to avoid committing to tax cuts.  He can be certain, after all, that Labour - and unfortunately a majority of the British public - will construe these as cuts in public services, most particularly the NHS."

Tory Tax Commission recommends £21bn in tax cuts

Lord Forsyth's tax report recommends tax cuts of £21bn (BBC) over the course of the next Parliament - apparently to be funded by growth.  ConservativeHome publishes the report now - download a pdf here.

This £21bn of relief includes a reduction in the basic income tax rate from 22% to 20% and the lifting of 2.5 million low earners from paying any income tax.  The Tax Reform Commission also recommends the abolition of stamp duty on shares (already supported by the Tory Treasury team) and lower business taxation to make the British economy more internationally competitive.  If the Commission had its way inheritance tax would also be replaced by a 'capital gains tax on death'.

Labour's Ed Balls found the report whilst surfing this afternoon.  Apparently it had been premmaturely posted on the Tax Commission CCHQ website.  Mr Balls said that the Tax Commission's prescription would leave a black hole in the public finances:

"The scale of the tax cuts is huge. The problem is there is no indication here at all as to how it will be paid for.  David Cameron has denied he would cut public spending. The hole in the finances that this would create is dangerous for the economy."

Journalists are telling me that Labour are genuinely excited by this opportunity to paint David Cameron as at odds with his own Commission.  Yesterday Gordon Brown highlighted the Tory leader's alleged unfunded promises.

George Osborne has also reacted:

“The Commission have given us a menu of options that merit serious consideration.  Some we will accept, some we will modify and others we may reject. But the framework of our tax policy is now set.  Sound Money means that stability will always come first before promises of tax cuts. We will not be promising up front, unfunded tax reductions at the next election.  We will, however, rebalance our tax system. Green taxes on pollution will rise to pay for reductions in family taxes. This Report sets out some options for doing that.  And we will also embark on a major simplification of business taxes that will pay for a significant reduction in our business tax rates. This report represents a major step in that direction.  The battle for a simpler, fairer and more competitive tax system has begun.”

Related link from earlier today: Cameron should embrace Forsyth

THIS SUBJECT WILL BE THE LEAD TOPIC ON 18 DOUGHTY STREET TALK TV AT 8PM.

Maude welcomes funding review

According to BBC Online Sir Hayden Phillips - commissioned by the Government to look into the funding of political parties - has set out four scenarios for the future of public funding:

1. minimal change
2. increased transparency
3. a cap on donations and
4. greater levels of public funding.

Francis Maude's response focuses on Labour's union dependency:

“We agree with the direction of Sir Hayden Phillips has set out thinking and will consider his options with care.  It’s clear that, if public funding for political parties is to increase, political parties must tackle the perception that donations can buy influence or favours. That’s why we support a cap on donations. The ball is now in Labour’s court.  For years the public has suspected that trade union cash buys Labour policy. It’s now time Labour severs its financial links with the trade unions.  Tony Blair’s position is so weak he cannot do this. So the pressure is on Gordon Brown to decide what is more important: cleaning up politics, or keeping the trade union bosses happy and Labour’s coffers full?”

All of the political parties are facing serious financial problems and are going to take any taxpayers' money they can to ease their financial problems.  Most voters object to any more state funding of political parties - particularly if it reinforces the detachment of political elites from grassroots members and local voices.

At PMQs Ming Campbell questions Cameron's Iraq credibility

David Cameron challenged Tony Blair on Iraq policy at PMQs.  The Tory leader accused Mr Blair of saying one thing about Iraq while General Sir Richard Dannatt was saying another.  A little later in PMQs Ming Campbell expressed his disappointment at David Cameron.  "I can't help making the point that complaints about the Government's Iraq policy would be more acceptable from those who opposed the policy in the first place," the LibDem leader said.  Sir Menzies went on to say that Britain should leave Iraq or radically change strategy.

Tony Blair was uncompromising in his position.  He said that it would be disastrous to withdraw from Iraq "before the job is done."  No quarter would be given, he said, in standing with moderates in Afghanistan and Iraq against the extremists.  He continued:

"If we desert the Iraqi Government now, at the very time when they are building up the forces, so that the Iraqi forces can take over security, (it) would be a gross dereliction of our duty to them."

David Cameron went on to warn that scrapping the Post Office card accounts could deal a "fatal blow" to rural and other sub-post offices.  Prime Minister Tony Blair said that "all options" except more government subsidy were on the table in the Government's controversial review.  See related BBC report.

Cameron should embrace Forsyth

Martin Vander Weyer has written an excellent article for today's Daily Mail (not online).  He reviews Gordon Brown's great tax squeeze on Britain's middle classes and the declining tax competitiveness of British business.  He provides a reminder of the extent of Labour's tax grab:

• The fact that our tax burden is rising faster than any other EU nation and has just exceeded that of Germany;
• The £5bn-a-year raid on pensions that has reduced the value of retirement funds by at least £100bn; and
• The failure to raise tax thresholds in line with inflation so that 1.2 million more people have been caught in the 40% tax bracket and that inheritance tax cuts in at £285,000 when indexation to house-price inflation would have put it at £430,000.

The article could also have mentioned soaring council tax and the many other stealth taxes that Gordon Brown has imposed.  Steadily and surely Gordon Brown is undoing the good of the Thatcher years and a sharp change of course is needed if we are not to return to our high-tax and high-waste past.

Taxes from Whitehall and regulations from Brussels are sending Britain further and further down the competitiveness league table.  It is extraordinary that Britain's Conservative Party chooses this time to stop talking about tax and Europe in any meaningful way.

I hope it's not too late for David Cameron to change emphasis.  Later today the Tory leader is giving a speech on tax simplification.  I hope the speech moves beyond generalities and embraces the thrust of Lord Forsyth's Tax Commission and the imminent publication of its findings.  If the Conservative Party is to avoid a dangerous challenge from a low tax party at the next General Election - perhaps birthed on the internet - it needs to listen to Lord Forsyth.

Related links: Will the Forsyth Commission water down its report? and Charles Elphicke and Stephen Hammond MP on Taxcutters versus stabilisers?

Our charitable Tory MPs

MPs don’t get much respect these days. So it’s good to see their work with charities recognised in the ePolitix.com Charity Champion Awards. It’s also good to see Conservative MPs nominated in so many categories – thereby challenging a few stereotypes.

Among the Conservative nominations this year are Greg Clark (nominated by the Association of Garden Trusts for his high profile campaign against ‘garden grabbing’), Ed Vaizey (nominated by YoungMinds as “Children and Youth Champion” - also see his 'homeless project diary'), Jeremy Hunt (nominated by the Multiple Sclerosis Society) and Bill Wiggin (nominated by the RSPCA for his work on animal welfare).

Other Conservative nominees include David Cameron, Ann Widdecombe, Sir Patrick Cormack, Roger Gale, Angela Browning, Grant Shapps, Richard Benyon and John Bercow.

Friends of the Earth have jointly nominated Oliver Letwin and Norman Baker for their bi-partisan work on climate change.

Good to see that voting in these awards is comparatively open and democratic. Anyone with a Parliamentary e-mail address can vote here.

Tory report questions downgrading of cannabis

A report from the Conservative Party's Social Justice Policy Group lists no fewer than four hundred different scientific studies that point to the links between cannabis and various forms of mental illness and destructive behaviour.  According to a report in The Daily Mail the report highlights the fact that "heavy cannabis users make up the vast majority of new patients with a serious mental illness... Eight out of ten of those experiencing the first episode of psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia or similar mental breakdowns are habitual users of the drug."

Drugs is one of five main themes of the Tory social justice review.  Other themes include family structure, employment, education and debt.  The review aims to find ways of helping vulnerable people succeed in each of these five areas of life.  This behavioural approach to poverty-fighting is inspired by William Galston's famous observation that only 8% of Americans who finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20 are poor. In contrast, 79% of those who fail to do these things are poor.

Added to the five themes is David Cameron's commitment to build the nation of the second chance:

"But we all know that however much we do to help people forge paths out of poverty, some will be left behind.  We must never say to those people - "You've had your chance and you must live with the wrong choices you made".  I want to build a nation that never writes any one off. A nation that says that it's never ever too late to start again. Never too late to realise those dreams you once had."

Building 'the nation of the second chance' is the subject of a policy subgroup chaired by former Tory candidate Orlando Fraser.  The group is examining how to strengthen the voluntary sector's innovative and independent character.

Should Scotland's Tories declare independence?

David Cameron is in Scotland today in advance of next May's Scottish Parliamentary Elections which could see big gains for the SNP at the expense of the ruling Labour-LibDem coalition.  Some polls suggest that the Tories might go backwards in the elections and there have been grassroots anxieties over the performance of Annabel Goldie and other Tory MSPs.

Writing for the Direct Democracy website Brian Monteith (an MSP who had to quit the Tories last year for his part in ousting David McLetchie) has called for the Scottish Tories to become independent of the London Tories and form a relationship not unlike that between Germany's CSU and CDU:

"A truly independent party could still take the Conservative whip at Westminster, helping to form a government and provide ministers just as the Bavarian CSU does in Germany. It could develop its own policies, manage its own affairs and win the trust of the Scottish people.  So tainted is the Scottish Tory brand that it needs to have a complete relaunch, with new rules, new policies and new personalities - and a new name to emphasise the change."

Earlier this year a ConservativeHome poll found that members were evenly divided on the idea that the Scottish party should enjoy "complete freedom for Scottish Conservatives to form their own manifesto at the next General Election."  39% said they 'should'.  39% said 'should not'.

Related link: BBC on Cameron's Scottish visit

David Cameron: Non-workers are key to immigration challenge

Few Tories question David Cameron's much-needed attempts to put environmentalism and social justice at the heart of the Tory mission.  Much more questionable has been his decision to stop talking about some of the issues most associated with the Tories in recent years.  46% of Tory members recently surveyed by ConservativeHome agreed that "David Cameron’s decision to downplay issues like tax, crime, Europe and immigration is demotivating some of the Conservative Party’s traditional voters and he needs to change quite soon."  His timing has certainly been unfortunate:

• The decision to stop talking about lower taxation*, for example, coincided with Britain's economy-hurting tax burden rising past that of Germany;
• The unwillingness to talk about Europe just as - today - an ICM/ Open Europe survey of 1,000 CEOs "found that a majority wanted Britain to renegotiate its membership of the European Union and regain powers from Brussels" (Reuters);
• And the downplaying of immigration policy although it has become the issue dominating the front pages of newspapers.

Today, however, the Tory leader is set to begin to address the immigration issue during a visit to Scotland.  According to The Scotsman, Mr Cameron will tell Disability Scotland that our society's failure to bring many sick and disabled people into society has caused the hunger for overseas workers:

"[There are] five million people, many of them disabled, who could work but are not working. As we write off our fellow citizens from participating in the workforce, other countries' citizens come to take their place... The gaps in the labour market are, very naturally, being filled by migrant workers... Our response to the numbers of disabled people who are not working is straightforward. For the sake of the people who are locked into welfare, for the sake of taxpayers, and for the sake of our economy, we have to bring them back into the mainstream - into work."

Related link: John Hayes MP sets out options to address Britain's skills crisis

* It appears that Cameron-loyalist Bruce Anderson has sympathy with this position.  In today 's Independent he writes: "While sticking to the line he has taken on fiscal responsibility, [Cameron] must do more to offer the hope of tax cuts. Above all, he should tell the voters what they all know already: that this government is wasting a great deal of their money, because it never took any interest in obtaining value for money. There is nothing wrong with spending a lot on health and education, as long as the result is world-class services, not world-class waste."

Censorship on YouTube?

There's some pretty offensive stuff on YouTube as well as some great stuff but how much longer will YouTube allow conservatives to publish edgy material?

I ask the question because Michele Malkin's 'First, they came for...' video about the dangers of Islamic extremists has been banned by YouTube.  This has happened at the same time that YouTube has been hosting videos of US troops under attack in Iraq.

It's easy for conservatives to be conspiratorial/ paranoid about this.  It might simply be the case that MM's video essay was banned because "YouTube pulls videos if enough users flag them as inappropriate [and] lots of it people who can't stand Malkin flagged it, and it was automatically removed" (Blue Bayou).

There is a long-term trend here that should worry conservatives and it's spotlighted by Robert Cox in The Examiner:

"According to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.  But it’s not just Google’s media and financial muscle that benefits the left. Liberals run the leading blog search engine — Technorati. They run the leading blog software manufacturer — Six Apart [who host ConservativeHome]. They invented two of the most important blogging technologies — Podcasting and RSS. The list goes on and on... Malkin may have been the first casualty in the coming information war but she certainly will not be the last. Yet online conservative elites seem not to care. They fail to realize that voters are increasingly accessing news and information from these new media sources and that these sources are using their editorial discretion to publish and promote a liberal — not conservative — agenda."

Food for thought.  In the meantime (at least until the censor strikes...) 18 Doughty Street Talk TV has its own YouTube page.

A video tribute to Eric Forth

Produced by Paul Osborn.

Ann Widdecombe calls on passengers to vote with their purses against British Airways

Interviewed on Sunday AM, UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP thinks that British Airways appears ashamed of Britain.  First they dumped the Union Flag for those tailfins that Mrs Thatcher famously covered with her handkerchief.  They then led calls for early British membership of the euro.  Now they have suspended an employee who wears a small, silver cross.  I wonder if they'll ban David 'Crusader' Beckham for travelling with them in future?

Ann Widdecombe is furious and told this morning's BBC1 Heaven & Earth show that if BA is ashamed of Christians then Christians should be ashamed of BA and boycott the airline.

Archbishop Cranmer lists the religious symbols and clothing that BA does permit.  Double-standards?  Undoubtedly, yes.

David Davis plays catch up on multiculturalism debate

In a carefully-written article for The Sunday Telegraph, David Davis has joined the growing number of Labour MPs who are raising concerns about the failure of many Muslims to integrate into British society.  In this week's Spectator Fraser Nelson, Political Editor, had already noticed Labour's initiative in this area:

"Tensions over multiculturalism are rapidly growing and Mr Straw has raised an issue more real to the British public than any soap opera being played out in Westminster. Mr Brown and Mr Reid both understand the power of this subject — hence their interest in (respectively) Britishness and controlling immigration. Everything may be going wrong in government, and the Tories may be gathering strength. But for a beleaguered Labour government, declaring such a cultural war might just provide the perfect diversion."

Mr Davis is now playing catch-up.  He says that Jack Straw was right to recently identify the communication barrier presented by the Muslim veil but he also agreed that neither he nor Labour's Leader of the House would legislate to prevent someone from choosing to wear the veil.  The excited popular response to the veil debate reflected, the Shadow Home Secretary thinks, a fear within Britain that our nation is becoming an increasingly divided society:

"What is important is the greater issue of social division. At the starkest level, we may be creating conditions in the recesses of our society that foster home-grown terrorism. The vast majority of British Muslims lead lives that are practically identical to the lives of everyone else living, working and playing in the same places. But we may be allowing the radicalisation of a few young Muslims.  At its very least, there is a growing feeling that the Muslim community is excessively sensitive to criticism, unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Much worse is the feeling of some Muslim leaders that as a community they should be protected from criticism, argument, parody, satire and all the other challenges that happen in a society that has free speech as its highest value."

Mr Davis goes on to make a number of criticisms of how the Labour Government has responded to recent episodes where radical Muslims have clashed with wider British society.  He accuses Labour of dithering in response to the Danish cartoons protests; weakness in delaying prosecution of Abu Hamza and other preachers of hate;  of attempting to bring in a religious hatred law that would have "imposed the biggest restriction on free speech in peacetime in this country"; and of careless initiatives in the wake of 7/7.

Mr Davis offers little new in the article in terms of solutions but he has at least joined a debate that Labour politicians were beginning to dominate.

Related Platform links: Imtiaz Ameen on 'Straw is wrong on the Muslim veil' and Ali Miraj on 'Straw's comments raise deeper questions about the place of Muslims in British Society'.

What blogs should I be reading?

The first week of 18 Doughty Street Talk TV has drawn to a close and I hope some of you have managed to tune in and have enjoyed the output.  Please visit our Watch Again page to catch up with some of the week's highlights...

• My exclusive interview with Australian Prime Minister John Howard;
• Iain Dale chatting to Ann Widdecombe (my highlight of the week);
• Our Culture Clash team discussing Oliver Stone's World Trade Center movie and Michael Gove's Celsius 7/7;
• Alan Mendoza's WorldView programme's debate on neoconservatism;
• James Frayne leading a discussion on tax; and
• Jesse Norman's Ideas Show explores the strengths and weaknesses of the 'prisons works' policy.

From the feedback received so far it appears that the programme you most enjoy is The End Of The Day - our unrehearsed look at the following day's newspapers.  My own Up Front programme is likely to evolve into something more like The End Of The Day but with a focus on blogs and websites - rather than the dead tree press.  I'm in the process of drawing up a list of blogs that I'll search every day.  Which blogs would you recommend that I visit for sharp reporting and opinions on politics, crime, the economy, foreign policy, religion and other major current affairs stories?  I'd be very grateful for your help...

Balls' protest kicked back

Ed Balls was one of four Labour MPs who legally appealed against boundary changes which would hurt their careers - his seat of Normanton will no longer exist. The High Court has rejected their appeals and awarded costs to the Boundary Commission.

These changes are a modest attempt to address the fact that the Conservatives need about a 10% lead over Labour in terms of votes, to return the same number of MPs.

Oliver Heald, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, made the point that this would further increase the unlikelihood of Brown calling a snap election:

"This is a major blow to Ed Balls' attempt to allow Gordon Brown to call a snap election on out-of-date and unfair Parliamentary boundaries. We are pleased that the High Court has seen through a clear attempt to delay the independent Boundary Commission's proposals."

With Murdoch sticking his oar in, no money in the Labour bank, and repeated opinion polls putting Brown behind Cameron - a snap election can't be on the cards at this stage. That is, if Brown wins...

Deputy Editor

Overstretch is real problem for British armed forces

General Sir Richard Dannatt's interview with the Daily Mail's Sarah Sands has been greeted with excitement by the anti-war press and it certainly offers ammunition to the critics of the Iraq operation.  Sir Richard worries that British troops might be exacerbating the security situation (but only in certain parts of Iraq), he complains about the treatment of injured soldiers and reflects on inadequate post-invasion planning.  He also casts doubt on the central Bush doctrine that democracy can be successfully planted in inhospitable terrain.

At the root of Sir Richard's interview appears to be the simple truth that Britain's armed forces are being asked to do too much with too little.  There are certainly criticisms of the Iraq operation in Sir Richard's remarks but his main concern appears to be the mounting consequences of overstretch.  He is concerned for his troops as every military leader should be.  Overstretch has been a long-standing concern of Liam Fox.

Earlier this week the Tories launched a campaign against NHS cuts.  A campaign to rebuild Britain's armed forces might be more appropriate given the global security perils.