ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Is Britain a right-wing country?

In this morning's Independent Steve Richards notes that some Cabinet ministers think Britain is essentially a right-wing country whilst some Conservative MPs - defeated three times in a row - believe that Britain leans left.  A YouGov opinion poll does place the British people - very narrowly on the right.  Left-of-centre parties - the Liberal Democrats and Labour - have nonetheless won well over 50% of the vote for the last two decades and more.  Although that same YouGov opinion poll suggests that many people who have voted for Tony Blair probably see him on the right of the political spectrum.

When it comes to crime, immigration and Euroscepticism the British people increasingly share the views of the conservative press although being sceptical about Europe isn't necessarily a right-wing view.  But right-and-left may not mean so much anymore.  ConservativeHome's dictionary notes that the real divides are increasingly between localists and centralists... security hawks and civil libertarians... social permissives and moral conservatives... multilateralists and active interventionists...

Related link: Morning in America, Mourning in Britain

Telegraph becomes the Torygraph again?

ConservativeHome has already noted The Telegraph's increased friendliness to Project Cameron.  New Editor Will Lewis put a much more positive spin on a recent YouGov poll than his predecessor, for example.  Stephen Glover, writing his regular media column for The Independent, made similar points on Monday.  Mr Glover puts much of it down to a recent visit by David Cameron to the Channel Islands home of The Telegraph's owners, the Barclay brothers.  Mr Cameron is publicly critical of Simon Heffer but is apparently more concerned at the negativity of Jeff Randall, The Telegraph's respected Business Editor.  Mr Randall knows David Cameron from his time at Carlton, selling ITV Digital and does not remember him fondly.  He recently derided the Conservative leader as Camera-on.

The last two days appear to confirm the ConservativeHome/ Glover view.  On two successive days the leader columns have been very generous towards the Tory leader.  Today the newspaper described Mr Cameron's warning of a snap general election as "deft."  "The Tory leader has picked his moment well," the newspaper continued.   Yesterday's rather dull report from the security report apparently evidenced "intellectual clarity and an assured geopolitical grasp."

The re-emergence of the Telegraph as the Torygraph comes at a time when the Daily Mail has also been more positive.  It gave a strong welcome to last week's Tory report on marriage although Mail insiders tell ConservativeHome that Editor Paul Dacre's fondness for Gordon Brown will mean that the newspaper will always host decent opportuinities for the Chancellor to reach its readers.

The political mood over at Mount Murdoch remains difficult to read but the Conservative leadership will be pleased that the traditionally right-wing press may be beginning to shift a little more Torywards.

The Observer's Ned Temko recently analysed David Cameron's relationship with the right-wing press.

John Redwood calls for an end to 'big money politics'

There's a good article from new blogger John Redwood in today's Telegraph calling for an end to big-money politics.  Like ConservativeHome (but unlike Lord Ashcroft) the former Welsh Secretary agrees with the idea of a cap on individual donations and he opposes state funding compensating for the end of Ashcroft/ Sainsbury-size donations.  Some commentators - like my good friend Iain Dale - oppose a cap on individual donations because they do not think that small, retail funding could ever cover the lost money from big donors.  I'm not so sure about that in the long-term but I've always thought that political parties spend wastefully and do not need to raise as much money if they were more disciplined spenders.  Mr Redwood lists some of the parties' existing favourite spending projects and is sure that we could do without them.   He and ConservativeHome agree that there are big advantages in stopping all big state/ big business donations so that political parties are forced to reconnect with smaller individual donors.

There are two areas where ConservativeHome and John Redwood disagree:

1. John Redwood calls for a £7.5m cap on general election expenditure.  I disagree with this limitation although it will probably be some time before any party has a retail funding operation that could raise such a sum.  I believe that parties should be free to spend as much as they wish if they can raise it from a diverse number of UK voters.  The incumbent parties - through existing Short money funding and MPs' annual allowances - already have huge sums of money available to them to entrench their positions.  If an insurgent party could raise more than £7.5m from the electorate they should be able to spend that money on toppling the established parties.
2. John Redwood puts the retail fundraising emphasis on recruiting more members.  That's fine but is unlikely to be adequate.  The 'Bowling Alone' generation isn't going to join political parties in large numbers anymore but they will back individual candidates and single-issue campaigns on a more ad hoc basis.  These campaigns can and should be internet-based.  It is one of the disappointments of Francis Maude's time as Party Chairman that CCHQ has not delivered this fundraising operation.

Tories at 40% in ICM poll

After last week's Populus poll giving the Tories a slim 1% lead CCHQ will be relieved to read this morning's Guardian and its news of an 8% Tory lead.  The Tory lead in the ConservativeHome poll of polls is unchanged at just 3%, however.  That's because this ICM poll for the Guardian replaces an ICM poll for the News of the World (which recorded the same Tory lead).  PoliticalBetting.com - which puts a lot of faith in ICM (despite its relatively small and phone-based samples) - believes that this poll puts the Tories "in majority government territory."  The up and down numbers in the graphic above reflect changes against the NotW/ ICM poll and not the last Guardian/ ICM poll.

There are other encouraging findings within the ICM numbers according to The Guardian's Julian Glover:

"Only 12% of voters now think that the Conservatives will never win again, compared to 37% who think the party will win the next general election. When ICM last asked the question in July 2002, only 19% of voters thought the Tories would win next time.  Crucially, Conservative voters are now enthusiastic about their party's chances, with 67% saying they believe that Mr Cameron is on course for victory. That may encourage them to turn out and vote. By contrast, 29% of Labour supporters think that their party will lose to the Conservatives."

Mr Glover also attempts to pour cold water on fears that Tory voters might defect to UKIP.  He notes that only 14% of Tory supporters said that they might back UKIP.  That does not seem an insignificant number to ConservativeHome.   Only a much smaller proportion of defections could frustrate the party's ambitions for a majority.

£645 for changing 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister' sign to 'Deputy Prime Minister's Office'

Just received from CCHQ: "Parliamentary Questions, buried by John Prescott and yet to be published in Hansard, have today revealed that Prescott has spent £645 of taxpayers money on a new sign for his office – replacing the previous “Office of the Deputy Prime Minister” sign with a new “Deputy Prime Minister’s Office” sign. A further £726 was spent on business cards for the new department."

Oliver Heald commented:

"John Prescott is costing the taxpayer over £2 million a year despite being handed the political equivalent of a P45 and losing his job. At a time when savage NHS cuts are being imposed by Gordon Brown, burning cash on a vanity department is a scandalous waste of time and money.  Prescott’s department was described by his staff as a ‘pantomime horse’. The Whitehall farce is continuing with taxpayers’ money being wasted on a pointless new sign for pointless new department that faces the chop when Tony Blair finally leaves Downing Street.”

Tories and LibDems prepare for 'honeymoon election'

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are preparing for the possibility of Gordon Brown calling a snap General Election should he become Labour leader and enjoy a honeymoon boost in the polls (BBC).  On Classic FM yesterday, David Cameron said:

"Tony Blair said at the last election he would serve a full term, so when he goes, no subsequent Labour prime minister can really in their heart claim to have a mandate from the British people.  So it would be right actually to hold a general election as soon as is reasonably possible, because the British people thought they were electing Tony Blair.  He's off. Someone new is coming. They need a mandate."

Ming Campbell, meanwhile, has conducted a mini-reshuffle of his frontbench team and has put Steve Webb in charge of drawing up a manifesto.  Mr Webb wrote a thoughtful essay on family policy for the Orange Book and the LibDems are today promising a Couple's Premium to address the unfairnesses that people on low income can face when they move in together.

Last September a GFK/NOP survey for The Observer revealed that 56% of voters would like to see Gordon Brown go to the country within six months of becoming Labour leader.

The Conservative Party has chosen over 100 candidates for some of its most marginal seats and is probably financially better-equipped for a General Election than Labour.  Or, perhaps, that should be less indebted!

Related link: David Gauke MP - Why Gordon Brown will call a snap election (10 April 2006).

Widdecombe supports Mark Harper's campaign to Save Harriet (The Cow)

This from the Western Daily Press: "Tory stalwart Ann Widdecombe has joined the battle to prevent the slaughter of a West pet cow suspected of being contaminated with BSE.The Conservative MP for Maidstone has become the second MP to join the campaign to save Jersey cow Harriet from slaughter.  Harriet, whose cause is also backed by Tory MP for the Forest of Dean Mark Harper, allegedly shared feed with an animal that went on to contract Mad Cow Disease.  But straight-talking Miss Widdecombe said that was not a good enough reason to cull her. She said: "I am not silly and sentimental - if an animal is contaminated then it should be prevented from entering the food chain.  But it seems to me that there has been quite a lot of conflict of interest.  If she will never enter the food chain then it seems reasonable to keep her alive."

See more on Mark Harper's website.

LabourDoNotDo.com: The mishandling of Foot and Mouth

'Red light zones would cause prostitution to rocket'

When Robert McIlveen proposed the legalisation of prostitution on ConservativeHome's 100policies.com, the idea was rejected - but only narrowly.  The topic is, of course, back in the news following the series of Ipswich killings.  Two of Britain's leading conservative female columnists tackle the issue today - Melanie Phillips and Janet Daley.

Referring to an article in favour of red light zones (in yesterday's Observer by Katherine Raymond), Melanie Phillips rejects the idea:

"[The proposal] was binned because it was rightly thought that, rather than reduce the harm done by prostitution, such ‘zones of tolerance’ would increase it by becoming magnets for sex tourism and trafficking.  Countries that have gone down this route, such as the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany, have seen a vast increase in prostitution — and worse still, child prostitution — which has helped fuel the stupendous rise in global people trafficking.  It is also hard to see how this policy would prevent such murders from occurring. Even Glasgow’s ‘tolerance zone’ did not prevent a murder from taking place there."

Phillips rejects the idea of legalisation of prostitution or drugs: "The idea that legalising drugs would get rid of crime is simply risible.  Legal drugs would always be undercut — both by lower prices and higher strengths — by a black market. The only way to eradicate such an illegal trade would be to supply unlimited quantities of all drugs totally free of charge."  She favours the Swedish model: "[Sweden] has criminalised both drug-takers and those who use prostitutes.  The result is that Swedish drug use is a fraction of our own, while in Stockholm street prostitutes have been reduced by two-thirds and the number of men using them has dropped by some 80%."

For Janet Daley, writing in The Telegraph, the Victorians provide a model for us:

"They formed temperance associations to combat the destructive power of drink. They went out into the streets on voluntary missions to rescue young girls, and they formed community self-help organisations and co-operatives to keep families out of desperate hardship so that they might not lose their daughters to vice. The churches ran relief programmes, and wealthy benefactors set up educational schemes whose object was self-improvement. And none of this was inconsistent with that notorious Victorian "moralising". It was all of a piece. The moral strictures that they preached were the principles from which their charity (in every sense of the word) sprang. What they wanted for everyone – including those unfortunate women – was a chance to lead a decent and wholesome life."

David Cameron expected to embrace call for US-style National Security Council

Bruce Anderson gives a warm welcome to today's interim report from the Conservative Party's study group on security.  The Independent's Mr Anderson sees Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' report as a bold attempt to consider Britain's foreign, defence and security policies within the same context and, in future, to see that policy progressed under the direction of a new US-style Security Council, to be chaired by the Prime Minister.  Mr Cameron should not be surprised to find Dame Pauline, a former Whitehall mandarin, recommending a new Whitehall structure to deal with a problem.

To ConservativeHome, the rest of the report also appears to be largely procedural and underwhelming.   The Telegraph notes that it "calls for a fresh drive to build a more stable Middle East by working in partnership with countries in the region."  Wow!  It continues (according to the FT): "We should recognise that we will find it difficult to serve our interests, or those of America, if we are regarded as their mute partner in every foreign undertaking."  It also makes now familar criticisms of the Iraq war and reaffirms the existing Tory policy of a Cabinet-level minister for homeland security.   The Tories have a homeland security spokesman - Patrick Mercer - although, strangely, he sits outside of the shadow cabinet.

There may be more to come at this lunchtime's announcement of the report's main findings but the headline recommendations appear to have been trailed already.  ConservativeHome's top three hopes for future recommendations are: (1) A clear call for much greater resourcing of Britain's over-stretched armed forces; (2) Acceleration of moves towards missile defence; and (3) A policy of zero tolerance towards domestic Muslim extremism including an end to public funding of any groups with Islamist connections and close supervision of foreign funding of UK mosques.

***
In yesterday's Sunday Times Labour's Alan Milburn argued that Labour enjoyed the upper hand on issues of national security: "Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid have given Labour the upper hand on issues of national security: identity cards, Trident missiles, Asbos and curfews may smack of the big clunking fist but these policies tend to enjoy popular support. By opposing ID cards and anti-terrorist laws, the Conservatives’ purported aim is for a less authoritarian position. Cameron believes the only way back for his Tories is to hug a hoodie and praise a Polly; so blame is out, love is in. His gamble is that while traditional supporters may find the journey uncomfortable, they will not seek another destination and that by changing track he can get enough disaffected and floating voters to join his centre-bound cavalcade."

3.30pm: Full paper from Dame Pauline's group (pdf)

Pretty boy Dave set for victory over ugly mug Brown

Forget the need for a watertight manifesto or for a hi-tech get-out-the-vote operation.  No need for a shadow cabinet of all the talents or a leader who can perform in parliament.  All floating voters want is an attractive appearance.  I exaggerate, of course, but a Stirling University study quoted in The Sunday Times does suggest that recent outcomes of elections could be predicted by a superficial beauty contest.  Once the faces of respective party leaders had been 'anonymised' the participants in the Stirling University experiment chose Major over Kinnock, Blair over Hague and Bush over Kerry.  The study also found that voters prefer "well-scrubbed" Cameron to "rumpled" Brown.

If appearance is king it's probably time to go the whole way and install David Beckham as Tory leader... or are there limits to this theory?  I hope so!

Explosive 'Downing Street memo' suggests that abandoning Brown may be only way of saving Labour from defeat

Christmas has come early for David Cameron...

1. Labour's standing is so low that the party's only hope of recovering may be to abandon Mr Brown and 'move to a new generation' by picking a much younger new leader - though it warns of the perils of being 'disloyal' to the 'greatly respected' Chancellor.
2. The public believes the party is riven by 'internal conflicts' and shows a 'lack of grip and competence on key issues' such as Iraq, the NHS and immigration.
3. People who voted Labour at the last Election 'are moving across' to the Conservatives and Labour is floundering 'on every major issue'.

These are the findings of a memo that the Mail on Sunday claims has originated from Downing Street.  It states that "We have lost control of the big issues and are not delivering."  The memo appears certain to set off a new round of Labour infighting.  It describes Gordon Brown as "unpopular" and blames him for fanning the flames of the loans-for-peerages row.

A Labour source has challenged the veracity of the MoS story.  "This is not a Downing Street memo," the source says: "It was not written by any of the Prime Minister's staff and it most certainly does not reflect his views."

11.15am update on 17/12: Reading between the lines of Labour's denial, Iain Dale concludes that it was written by Philip Gould.  The crucial ingredient missing is the date.  If, as is now being suggested, it was written in September, it puts a different gloss on things.  That was before Project Cameron started to splutter a little and was in the immediate aftermath of the acrimony caused by the Brownites' successful ousting of Blair.

Blair's banana republic 1; British rule of law 0

It's not often I find myself in complete agreement with The Guardian and the Liberal Democrats but I do today.  The Blair government's decision to stop the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into suspected Saudi/ BAe corruption is, as Oliver Kamm writes in today's Times, the lowest of many low points of this Blair government.  According to The Guardian the SFO were about to get hold of a Swiss dossier that contained print-outs of BAe's recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi middlemen.  The Guardian continues:

"The SFO believed the banking files could unlock the answer to three questions: Were members of the Saudi royal family receiving secret British pay-offs? Were offences committed under UK law? And had BAE lied to the Department of Trade and Industry to get insurance cover when the company recently claimed it had cleaned up its act and got rid of its confidential Saudi agents?  But the events of the next 48 hours ensured that the SFO would not be allowed to collect those files. Instead came a sudden harsh lesson in the realities of power and politics in Blairite Britain."

Here are a few reasons why I object to Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's decision to halt the SFO investigation:

1. Tory Dominic Grieve said that “On the basis of the Attorney General’s comments about the highly speculative nature of the inquiry, and that any final prosecution was unlikely, the decision to discontinue the investigation in view of the potential damage to our national security was inevitable and the only sensible course of action."  I'm sceptical that Lord Goldsmith made his decision for entirely legal reasons.  The  Attorney General has 'form' in terms of giving legal advice and it is clear from all reports that the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Downing Street were all involved in the lobbying/ decision-making process.  The Prime Minister declared himself responsible for the decision.  This was clearly politicised.  The SFO should have been permitted to conclude its investigation without political interference.
2. Saudi Arabia recently warned that the Eurofighter contract with Britain was at risk if the SFO investigation went on.  The Saudis know that the British establishment is weak.  They prevented Death of a Princess from ever being rebroadcast and they have now appeared to succeed in blackmailing Britain over an SFO investigation.
3. The worst reason for surrendering to Saudi blackmail was that we needed support from the desert kingdom for the war on terror.  If we had continued with the SFO investigation there were warnings of no more intelligence sharing and, worse, Saudi support for Sunni fighters in Iraq.  What kind of signal does this send to every Muslim nation?  Threaten to join the wrong side in the war on terror and you'll get what you want.
4. If Saudi Arabia is an ally in the war on terror then God help us.  This is the nation that has funded the most militant expressions of Islamism all around the world.  The kingdom's human rights abuses include execution of homosexuals and zero tolerance of conversion from Sunni Islam.  No Jews of any nationality are permitted to enter Saudi Arabia.
5. There is terrible hypocrisy here.  It is a core of UK development policy that African and other developing nations must have zero tolerance of corruption but it now appears that the British state is willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi corruption.

If Labour comes out of this affair badly then so do the Tories.  Dominic Grieve's line is unbelievable.  MPs Gerald Howarth and Michael Jack - both with big BAe-related constituency jobs - lobbied to stop the investigation.  Edward Leigh defended the decision on Any Questions - joining Charles Moore and Peter Oborne in embracing the Government's 'realpolitik'.  Bernard Jenkin told the BBC that "The SFO should not be tempted to go on these fishing expeditions unless prosecutions are likely and these prosecutions are in the national interest."  Worst of all was Jonathan Aitken's suggestion that  even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.  I hope the human rights charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide is reconsidering having Mr Aitken as their president.

Final word must go to 'Russell' who made this brilliant comment on Danny Finkelstein's blog:

"The rule of law having been dismissed, and the public interest having been equated with the Government's interests (for which Blair takes "full reponsibility"), the Attorney General can now step in to halt the cash for honours enquiry. Not in the public interest, you see. While we're at it, why not arrest DC Yates for conduct prejudicial to national security?"

Related links: Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism and Tories launch first human rights report

How are we doing in local by-elections?

Last week was a bad one for Conservative local government.

We lost control of Gosport after the council leader resigned over parking charges, were left with a minority administration in Dover District Council after a defection to the Lib Dems, Labour took over the council at the Vale of Glamorgan after the Conservative administration mishandled its social services budget, and worst of all we lost control of Crawley Borough Council - the most marginal parliamentary seat in the country - after another defection to the LibDems.

There was consolation on Thursday however with a successful by-election giving the Conservatives overall control of Epping Forest council.

Sean Fear estimates that since the start of September the Conservatives have made a net gain of 5 seats from 74 principal authority local by-elections, and that the national equivalent vote shares are Con 39%, LD 30%, Lab 24%.

We still have over 8000 Councillors and are the largest and most effective party in local government, but hopefully we will fare better in upcoming by-elections.

Deputy Editor

How stupid can you get? As stupid as UKIP

John Redwood has a blog.  One of his first posts takes on UKIP.  Here's a key extract:

"The last three General Elections have shown that neither the Referendum Party nor UKIP can win a single Westminster seat, however strongly and fiercely they put their case for disengagement or withdrawal from the European Union.  They have also shown that by putting some of their better candidates and strongest efforts into opposing Eurosceptic Conservatives in seats the Conservatives can win, they may give us  more federalist MPs by tipping the balance in favour of the pro-EU Liberal Democrat or Labour candidate.  How stupid can you get?"

Cameron says voluntary sector can help defeat postcode lottery

David Cameron recently admitted to The Telegraph that he was frustrated that his big idea of social responsibility hadn't really taken off.  The Tory leader had another go at explaining the idea yesterday - in a speech to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.  Although the speech was focused on his wish to deliver a shift from state welfare to social welfare he spent some time explaining that he had no intention of dismantling what most voters see as the benefits of state welfare:

• "Universal education" and "universal healthcare" were "great steps forward", he insisted, and they "must never be reversed".
• There would be no cut-price welfare, either: "With a Conservative government, spending on public services will rise. We will share the proceeds of growth between lower taxes and more public spending."
• Mr Cameron also reassured people that there would be no retreat from state provision until the voluntary sector was ready to take its place: "Our motivation is not simply an arid desire to roll back the frontiers of the state. It is a mission richer and more rewarding than that: to roll forward the frontiers of society. To empower - and, yes, to fund - more social organisations in the work they do. Not to force new work on voluntary bodies - but to give them a "right to supply" where they can do a better job than government."

David Cameron also offered four reasons to discount the objection that voluntary sector provision would produce a postcode lottery with very different service standards across the country:

1. There already is a postcode lottery despite the existing centralisation of services and he pointed to inequalities under the NHS.
2. The freedom and innovation produced by a vibrant social enterprise sector will not just raise standards but it will eliminate the worst forms of inequality as social entrepreneurs freely transfer good practice across the country.
3. Expert commissioning of services will ensure consistency and improvement.
4. Basic standards for outcomes and access will still be set by the state and he cited Service Level Agreements and Public Service Agreements as models.

The speech contained some hints of policy direction.  Mr Cameron promised less stringent reporting requirements for small voluntary organisations and measures to ensure full cost recovery.  He also said that matched funding might be one way of reducing the danger that public funding of voluntary organisations leads to them losing their independence and distinctiveness.  ConservativeHome notes a few ideas here that might stop free charities from becoming functionaries of the state.

Webcameron: David Cameron discusses his speech

Year2(12): Frame the next General Election as a choice between Labour and the Conservatives

Recommendation 12: I've saved what I think is ConservativeHome's most important recommendation for last... It is very difficult to see the Conservative Party winning a parliamentary majority without reducing the number of Liberal Democrat MPs.  There is little sign of the Conservative Party unseating the fifteen to twenty-five LibDems that is probably going to be necessary.  That is not to say that David Cameron hasn't done a number of things that will make the task easier.  Candidates like Philip Morton and Jesse Norman are being selected early in LibDem-Tory marginals.  The gentler, greener Conservatism of David Cameron will reassure those 'Waitrose voters' who left the party for the LibDems.  Lord Ashcroft's marginal seats operation will ensure  better targeting of limited resources.  But I still do not think that this is going to be enough.  The best way of defeating the LibDems will be to convince the electorate that (1) only a Conservative government will rid Britain of Labour and (2) that Labour deserves to be ousted.  Any vote for another party - be it the LibDems, the Greens or UKIP - will risk Labour staying in office or could result in a messy hung parliament.  'A Liberal Vote Is A Wasted Vote' was one of the Conservative Party's most powerful slogans in the 1960s and 1970s.  We need a modern , creative equivalent of that message and it needs to feature prominently in all of our election literature, party political broadcasts and emails.

Year 2(11): David Cameron should do less

Recommendation 11: David Cameron is making a number of speeches and announcements every week.  This devalues his status.  'Less is more' is the right maxim at this stage of the parliament.  An announcement from the Conservative Party leader should not be routine - it should be an event.  David Cameron already appears in election mode with a visit, a press conference and a major speech all in the last few days.  If he stands back a little some of his shadow cabinet colleagues can step forward and voters can evaluate the team around him.  It will also mean that when he does speak the quality of the product will be that bit more special.

Year 2(10): Establish a northern HQ

Recommendation 10: The Conservative Party needs a powerful campaigns and policy centre in the north of England - perhaps Leeds.  Functions from CCHQ that do not need to be in London should migrate there.  The northern HQ should coordinate regional media and be headed up by a charismatic, political figure.  It should have the special task of recruiting talented new candidates and developing policies for urban Britain.  It mustn't be just a campaigns centre but a genuine home for thinking about the challenges of England's northern cities and local governments.

The final two recommendations will be posted tomorrow.

Year 2(9): Management of the Policy Group reports

Recommendation 9: It is vital that the party anticipates the difficulties that are going to be presented by the gap of time between the Policy Reviews reporting and the leadership deciding which recommendations to embrace.  Team Cameron have reacted quickly to the Tax and Social Justice reports – shunning one and embracing the other.  Will they be able to react so quickly in future?  If not, how will they deal with the Labour offensive against more controversial policy group recommendations that may need some defence?

Year 2(8): Anticipate difficult results in next year's Scottish and Welsh elections

Recommendation 8: Next May’s Scottish and Welsh results are likely to be very difficult for the Conservative Party.  David Cameron has improved the party's opinion poll standing but progress in Wales and Scotland, in particular, is very limited and the party is unlikely to make significant gains.  There is a danger that there may even be some defeats in Scotland.  The party must act now to be able to show that it is making progress in parts of England where there will need to be progress at the General Election.  That means targeting special resources on a few English councils where success can be celebrated on the morning after polling day.  The model is Ken Baker's 1990 tactic of focusing upon winning Wandsworth and Westminster boroughs in an otherwise difficult election year.

Year2(7) Strengthen the press operation

Recommendation 7: George Eustice currently coordinates media for David Cameron but he is having to do so with a much smaller team than his predecessors.  The lack of a broad and experienced team has meant certain storms have not been brought under control quickly enough.  The Polly Toynbee and Tosser affairs should never have been allowed to grow so big but the incident that has caused most upset amongst MPs was the hug-a-hoodie debacle.  The appointment of a senior communications executive at CCHQ and a stronger team for the regional media are both essential.

Year2(6): Swap Hague and Osborne

Recommendation 6: George Osborne’s pro-American, Eurosceptic and hawkish views will make him an ideal Foreign Secretary.  If Hague can become full-time after his much-anticipated Wilberforce book is finished he’ll be a reassuring Shadow Chancellor opposite Brown's likely successor, Alistair Darling.

Year2(5): Put a grassroots favourite in charge of CCHQ

Recommendation 5: 32% of Tory members are dissatisfied with David Cameron and the party leader desperately needs a party chairman who can energise activists by explaining the leader's ambitions to Associations  throughout the country.  Francis Maude was the right man to oversee the A-list and the reforms to CCHQ but his negative approval ratings mean that he is not the Chairman to take the party up to the next General Election.  The party needs a grassroots favourite in the hotseat at CCHQ.  Someone who can address the fact that some of the party's best known right-wingers are outside of the shadow cabinet.  ConservativeHome does not suggest that Francis Maude should be removed from the frontbench but his modernising mission at CCHQ is on its way to being accomplished.  Mr Cameron now needs a different Chairman.

Year2(4): Abolish the A-list

Recommendation 4: I hear the A-list has been topped-up again and, of course, a few A-listers might soon be culled but isn't it time for it to be scrapped?  It has succeeded in increasing the number of female candidates but only at the expense of creating a large number of disaffected activists and of dividing Associations like Tynemouth.  My guess is that its tutorial effect will continue after it has been abolished.  Associations understand the leadership's desire for a more representative party but they also know that the A-list only offers a face-deep diversity.  It includes very few people with public sector backgrounds and is heavily skewed to the south east of England.  Given the A-list's recent successes it would be an apposite time for it to be abolished without too much negative PR and then relations between the centre and local associations could start to heal.

Year2(3): Neutralise Brown

Recommendation 3: According to yesterday's Times 66% of voters do not believe that David Cameron has put a stop to “the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster: the name-calling, backbiting, point-scoring and finger-pointing”.  Part of the reason for this might be the fact that both David Cameron and George Osborne have been guilty of some pretty obvious 'Punchy and Judy' politics (see here and here).  The Tory leadership need to be above personal attack and handwriting analysis.  More attention needs to be focused on the Chancellor's dismal record (economic competitiveness, the tax burden, social justice and waste).  Going forward Gordon Brown is likely to emphasise security, The Union, housing and skills.  Two of David Cameron's most capable frontbenchers hold the housing and skills portfolios - Michael Gove and John Hayes.  Strong policies in both of those areas  will be vital to neutralising Brown's likely appeal.