ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Does the Conservative Party have a Clause IV?

David Cameron has given some comments to the Evening Standard on the opposition to his education reforms. None of them stand out, he says that those who seek to "perpetuate a pointless debate", and who are "splashing around in the shallow end of the education debate", need to "rise above that attitude".

But there is also a brief quote from a "senior supporter" saying that Cameron "see's it as his Clause 4 moment".

If you had to pick out one Clause IV-esque policy shift that has already happened or will feasibly happen in Cameron's Conservatives, what would it be?

Deputy Editor

FOI Amendment Bill debated in the Commons

MPs have been debating Conservative MP David McLean's amendment this afternoon, which in essence seeks to exempt them from the Freedom of Information Act. It passed its Third Reading by 96 to 25 two minutes ago, although almost all speeches in the chamber were in opposition to it.

The bill supposedly aims to protect the privacy of correspondence between MPs (but not assembly members, councillors, etc!) and their constituents but the Data Protection Act seems to cover that adequately as the Information Commissioner has never had a complaint about it.

Jonathan Djanogly, Shadow Solicitor General, spoke briefly to set out the party's position on the issue: "Let me say from the outset that the Conservative Party remains neutral on this bill". Justice Minister Bridget Prentice effectively gave tacit support to the bill by her neutrality and periphrastic speech.

Labour's Mark Fisher spoke powerfully, articulately and politely for some time against the bill that addresses "a problem that doesn't exist except in the minds of the Hon Gentleman and a few people who he has spoken to in private". He criticised how debate at committee and in the third reading "had been hugely curtailed", referring to it as "29 lines of legislation throwing away 20 years of consideration over freedom of information". He went on to say that the MPs "ought to be ashamed of ourselves" and hope that the House of Lords would "throw this discreditable and squalid little bill out". Fisher is Chairman of Parliament First and outlined his opposition to the bill in yesterday's Independent.

The unlikely duo of Richard Shephard and David Winnick also spoke passionately about how Members should be taking a lead in society rather than trying to remove the House of Commons as an accountable public authority.

Triple crown of Plaid, Tories and LibDems set to govern Wales

Radio 4's World at One has just reported that a Plaid-Tory-LibDem coalition is "90% likely" to govern Wales.  If this emerges both Wales and Scotland will have nationalist first ministers.  Welsh Tory leader Nick Bourne (who blogs here) has long hoped to put his Tory group into a grand coalition but that hope only became feasible when Mike German AM pulled out of talks to put his LibDem group into coalition with Rhodri Morgan's Welsh Labour party.

Nick Bourne issued the following statement:

"I can confirm today that an approach has been made by Plaid Cymru for preliminary discussions about the possible form of the next Assembly government.  I can also confirm that preliminary talks have already taken place. The stability and credibility of the Assembly, and the delivery of policies that will make a positive difference to the lives of people across Wales remain our key concerns.  Welsh Conservatives have always said that we would be willing to work in government with parties other than Labour to achieve that."

The Conservatives have 12 AMs, Labour 26, Plaid 15 and the LibDems 6.

Heffer spikes Michael Howard's grammar schools article

Rumours around the Westminster village yesterday suggested that today would see an article appear in The Telegraph in which Michael Howard would question the new Tory policy on grammar schools.  I was told that The Telegraph was "excited" by the piece. 

A member of Michael Howard's office confirmed the existence of the article yesterday morning.  When David Cameron's office heard the same rumours they rushed to persuade Mr Howard to dilute the article.  The operation was so successful that Simon Heffer has declined to publish it.  The episode is only the latest example of the difficult Telegraph-Cameron relationship - brought into focus again yesterday by WebCameron's attack on the "near hysterical" Telegraph.

A YouGov poll in this morning's Telegraph found that 49% of voters support a mixture of grammar schools and secondary moderns.  Support increases to 71% amongst Tory voters - a figure nearly identical to ConservativeHome's January 2006 finding that 73% of members oppose David Cameron's 'no more grammars' pledge.

The Times notes that David Willetts sought to defuse MPs' anger by offering to "repeal laws that allow parents to vote to scrap existing grammar schools".

Is Mrs T the greatest living Briton?

In this week's Spectator Fraser Nelson offers his readers a funny little insight into 'Operation Humanise Gordon Brown':

"It is rumoured that his aides have littered little ‘smiley’ stickers throughout his paperwork, and inside his car, reminding him to grin at every occasion."

But as, I think, William Hague has said: Brown is learning how to smile but not when to smile.  In yesterday's cliche-laden acceptance speech Labour's great clunking fist grinned at nearly all of the wrong times.  One political leader who did not have smiley faces in her paperwork was Margaret Thatcher.

In today's Sun, Trevor Kavanagh makes the case for Margaret Thatcher to win ITV1's search for the Greatest Living Briton.  Here are some highlights from his article:

"17 years after she left Downing Street, her name is still invoked with awe by every rising politician across Europe.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel and new French President Nicolas Sarkozy are both hailed as the new Margaret Thatcher."

"Her reforms turned Britain painfully but triumphantly from the “Sick Man of Europe” into one of the world’s strongest economies.  They ended the tyranny of militants and Marxists such as Arthur Scargill, who tried to destroy her elected government.  She gave union members a choice on whether or not to strike — and mostly they didn’t. She gave council house tenants the chance to buy their own home — and overwhelmingly they did... We take these things for granted today. Labour would like to give the impression they nodded along with approval.  But they opposed her every inch of the way — because they loathed everything she stood for.  The fact is that if Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Neil Kinnock had their way, we would still be at the mercy of union militants."

"I travelled with her as she broke new frontiers around the world.  She was the first foreign leader to visit parts of the Communist world — at the invitation of leaders who gained kudos from her presence at their side.  She can claim credit for standing up to the Soviet Union and, along with US President Ronald Reagan, helping to bring down the Iron Curtain.  Russians queued for a glimpse of her as she dazzled leaders including Mikhail Gorbachev."

"Political journalists knew where she stood before she opened her mouth. She was straight as a gun barrel."

Related link: Mrs T is top PM says BBC's History magazine

Cameron attacks the 'bring-backery' of The Telegraph

David Cameron has just responded to the grammar schools row on WebCameron:

"I announced over a year ago that the party would not go back to a policy of opening new grammar schools or introducing the 11 plus and so am slightly surprised that the press has got so excited about this clear pledge being given all over again by David Willets.

The Telegraph coverage and comment is near hysterical. They simply don’t understand that the idea of introducing a few extra grammars says nothing to thousands of parents worried about children languishing in failing schools. In many ways, “bring back grammars” is a meaningless slogan, as the reason the 11 plus went in so many parts of the country is because it was so unpopular with parents. It is a classic example of fighting a battle of the past rather than meeting the challenges of the future. And it is politically naïve as it just says “we’ll help a few more escape failing schools rather than turn them round for all children.” The way to win the fight for aspiration is to put those things that worked in grammars – aggressive setting to stretch bright pupils, whole class teaching, strong discipline to name but three – in all schools.

What is sad is that the commentators miss all the things we’d do that would help standards and aspiration for all – synthetic phonics at primary school, zero tolerance of bad behaviour, unchallengeable rights for heads to exclude difficult pupils, enforceable home school contracts, saving special schools, setting and streaming, and expanding academies, allowing churches, voluntary bodies and others to open new schools.

Perhaps if I put the words “Bring back” in front of some of these policies they might just get it."

That use of 'bring back' makes me slightly suspicious.  The last time  I read that phrase used politically was when David Willetts used it in a June 2005 speech: "We mustn't drift into lazy 'bring backery' - the political equivalent of comfort eating."  It's just possible that Mr W helped Mr C with his drafting!

It's another sign of the strained Telegraph-Cameron relationship.  CCHQ were furious at The Telegraph's initial reaction to Gordon Brown's Budget.

Talking of The Telegraph - I understand that former grammar schoolboy Michael Howard is writing about Tory education policy for tomorrow's paper.   I'm told not to expect anything controversial, however.

PS If any candidates learn anything interesting from this evening's conference call with David Willetts - you know where to find me!

David Cameron's message to the Police Federation

In a speech to the Police Federation today, David Cameron sets out some of the key themes in his approach to restoring order to Britain's streets: social responsibility, 'tough-on-the-causes-of-hoodies', elected police chiefs and reform of police working practices.

Fighting crime isn't just the role of the police: "Crime, anti-social behaviour, disorder and incivility on our streets: these are the consequences of a breakdown in society – of a collapse in social responsibility.  In the home.  In schools.  In our culture and values.  And ultimately it is you, the police, who have the responsibility of picking up the pieces of our broken society.  But if we actually want to reduce crime - instead of just responding to it - we can’t go on just picking up the pieces.  We have to mend our broken society.  And that is not your responsibility.  We broke our society – all of us, as parents, as citizens, as members of society – we broke it, and we have a shared responsibility, with government, for fixing it.  If we sit back and expect the police to do all the work, we will forever be managing the social problem of crime, rather than solving it."

Hug-a-hoodie and all that: "A year ago I made a speech about young people and crime.  Yes, the one about hoodies.  It has been more misunderstood and more misrepresented than anything I’ve ever said.  In fact it was three words I never said.  So let me try again.  Aggressive hoodies who threaten the rest of us must be punished.  They need to know the difference between right and wrong, and it’s our job to tell them.  But what do we really want, a society where more and more kids are out of control, a rising tide of crime and punishment?  Or do we want those kids to behave properly in the first place? If we do, we’ve got to stop the problems before they start, and that means making sure every child grows up in a stable loving home.  That’s not soft – it’s serious.  Politicians who attack me for saying it, even though they privately agree with me, are not tough – they’re cynical, short-term and profoundly wrong."

Who should Cameron visit next?

In the last ten days David Cameron has spent time as a classroom assistant and with a Muslim family in Birmingham.  What would he benefit from doing next?  Sensible suggestions preferred!

CCHQ was worried that they'd struggle to win headlines during the early days of Brown's leadership campaign

Headlines from today's newspapers (from top): The Sun, Guardian, Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph and Daily Express.

Willetts' rebuttal to the CPS

This is the response of David Willetts' office to the Centre for Policy Studies' criticisms of his grammar schools speech, submitted exclusively to ConservativeHome:

"Ideally, we would do research on grammar schools from the older data when grammars were about and we saw them abolished to look at the discontinuities across time and between regions.  The 1958 and 1970 cohort studies would be perfect.  They are, alas, no use for us.   (A. Manning, J. Pischke, Comprehensive versus Selective Schooling in England & Wales: What do we know?: "We conclude that we probably do not know very much about the effect of comprehensive schooling in Britain, or elsewhere for that matter").   

We can, therefore, only look at current grammars.

• First, grammar schools are socially selective

This is confirmed by the aggregate data on grammar schools. The CPS critique claims that this selection is all because it is only in leafy areas that these schools exist. 

This is wrong.  As the CPS later says, the Sutton Trust has shown how the catchment areas for grammars are indeed leafier (12% FSM as against a national average of 14%).  However, the grammar schools themselves only admit 2%. The selection is internal to the schools.

Dr Leon Feinstein has researched this effect.  At the age of 11, a child is not tabula rasa.  High ability kids from low income families will be beaten in tests by low ability high income kids.  The intervention comes in too late. (L. Feinstein,"Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort" . Economica, 70, (2003) pp 73-97).  This is supported by work by the Nobel laureate James Heckman which shows that interventions can only be cost-effective if they take place in the early years.  By that point, it is too late.

1922 meeting goes badly for David Willetts

I've just received a couple of reports from tonight's 1922 meeting of Conservative MPs.  One contact described it as "the stormiest meeting" he could remember.  Ed Vaizey and Ian Taylor defended David Willetts but a dozen other MPs - led by Salisbury's Robert Key and joined, surprisingly, by Hugh Robertson - condemned today's grammar schools announcement.  A number of MPs said that they were at breaking point in their ability to swallow any further modernising measures.  I'll blog later if I learn any more.

Gordon Brown almost certain to be unopposed

At the time of writing Gordon Brown needs the backing of just one more MP to be certain of succeeding Tony Blair as Labour leader and our Prime Minister.  The BBC asks if that is good or bad for him.  My hunch is it's bad.  He's not going to get the coverage a horse race contest would have generated nor will he be seen to crush the left and, in the process, style himself as the defender of Middle Britain.

Update: It's now certain. John McDonnell has conceded and will be on Newsnight tonight.

David Willetts to ConservativeHome readers: The headlines don't tell the full story

"Thanks to everyone for your comments.  I'm certainly under no illusion how strongly people feel about grammar schools, and I must emphasise we are not launching an attack on those that still exist.  It’s precisely because we care so much about unblocking stalled social mobility and giving kids from poorer backgrounds the educational opportunities they deserve that we’re backing a massive expansion in Academies, rather than proposing more grammar schools.

There is new evidence on grammar schools, which I present in detail in my speech today, that shows that what we might have believed for many years – that grammar schools would offer poor kids a ladder out of deprivation – is no longer true.

If we really care about helping poorer kids get on in life then the right thing to do is accelerate Tony Blair’s reforms in a more imaginative way than Gordon Brown could ever really deliver, and that’s exactly what I’m announcing today. The best way of opening up opportunities for poorer children is to make it easier to create good schools in the state sector, to raise standards and enable all pupils to benefit from the tried and tested teaching methods that have increasingly become the preserve of grammar schools and the independent sector.

This means setting and streaming in all schools - so that pupils can have the benefit of being taught at the level of ability that suits them;  it means greater use of whole-class teaching; and it means a firm discipline policy, so that a small number of pupils cannot disrupt the learning of the majority.

I do urge you to read my speech and then comment on it, rather than going on headlines which don’t tell the full story. I think that every true Conservative will find the arguments persuasive."

5pm updates:

• Telegraph host a debate on the issue between David Willetts and Simon Heffer
• Mark Field MP has now written for ConservativeHome arguing that the problem with grammar schools is that there aren't enough of them

Grammar schools policy is "unforgivable" and a "bleak moment" for Conservative Party

There's real fury about today's grammar schools policy amongst the MPs who I have spoken to today.  Roger Gale MP has just been on News 24 describing the policy as a move from Conservatism to socialism.  A bit much, Mr Gale, but I have been interviewed for BBC1, Radio 4, Sky News and Channel 4 and journalists I've been speaking to, whilst doing those interviews, genuinely can't understand what Cameron-Willetts are trying to do.  And now The Spectator's Matt d'Ancona has joined the chorus of concern.

Matthew is regarded as something of an enthusiast for Project Cameron.  These concluding words from his editorial in this week's Spectator can't be easily dismissed therefore:

"Mr. Cameron is desperate to avoid the impression that the Tories are an elitist or ‘restorationist’ movement, bringing back old privileges and divisions. But the grammar schools were the enemy of such division. The best thing the Tory leader could do to head off the charge that his party is now in the grip of out-of-touch toffs is to promise to less wealthy pupils the advantages that he was lucky enough to enjoy at the most prestigious school in the world. His decision to do exactly the opposite is a bleak moment for his party and the country."

Lord Blackwell of the Centre for Policy Studies echoes d'Ancona's warning about the privileged pulling up the ladder after them:

"A Conservative Party committed to social mobility should champion free, academic schools which give the poorest children the chance to get the best education the state can provide, giving them a ladder to climb out of deprivation and reach the top of their chosen career. This is what past generations had, and it is unforgivable that we should deny the current generation that same opportunity."

The attached pdf from the CPS (just released) sets out the case for the positive impact that grammar schools have on social mobility.

Related link: ConservativeHome's earlier post on this subject.

5pm: Related link: Mark Field argues we should be building more grammar schools.

PMQs: Prescott's Last Stand?

Tony Blair is on his farewell visit to Washington so John Prescott is, perhaps for the last time, standing in for him. William Hague takes David Cameron's place and Vincent Cable Ming Campbell's. The encounter takes place in a chamber full of MPs wearing big yellow ribbons in support of the McCann family.

William Hague's first subject: William Hague asked Prescott about the recruiting system for junior doctors. Prescott responded by ignoring the thrust of the question and resorted to attacking the Conservative party and William Hague in a typically incomprehensible manner.

William Hague's second subject: Hague asked Prescott whether he would be supporting the Conservatives this afternoon in opposing Home Information Packs. By this time Prescott had found the right page so he started talking about junior doctors. When Hague said that Gordon Brown would not be "the change this country needs" Prescott seemed to confirm it when he said that Brown has been responsible for "an awful lot" of the Government's record.

Vincent Cable's subject: Cable asks Prescott about his environmental record. He asks Prescott whether he, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have the same "talent of the Conservative leader for making environmentally friendly but empty soundbites".

Line of the day: Hague referred to Gordon Brown's love of invisibility but said that at his leadership launch "making himself invisible was taking think a bit too far".

Andrew Burkinshaw

Cameron as a classroom assistant

David Cameron spent Monday and Tuesday working as a classroom assistant at a school in Hull. It did not get off to a good start:

"The day starts badly, for me at least. Helping register a class of 13 year olds, no-one – and I mean literally no one – has even heard of the Conservative Party. Using “hangman” on the smart new interactive whiteboard we get to “Conser_ati_e party” before any one gets it."

I know we have been in opposition for ten years but it is a bit worrying when a class of 13 year olds can't name the Conservative party when "Conser_ati_e party" is written in front of them!

During his time at the school David helped with the English and history classes as well as supervising lunch and playground duty. He says his visit was to observe and learn rather than the usual “here's a visiting politician” thing but unfortunately when you watch the videos (see below) it does look like the usual "visiting politician" thing: asking questions of the children and the teachers, being interviewed by students. Not the life of your everyday classroom assistant!

However the visit did impress on him the problems that teachers face when attempting to maintain order. He spoke to teachers and pupils who talked of the impact that behavioural problems in a small number of children can have on the whole school. Two of the teachers he spoke to favoured a zero tolerance approach to poor behaviour and bad language. He dismisses the current system which means that schools are fined if they exclude pupils and says:

"Change in our society – big, long term, substantial cultural change - is needed. And we should start by making every school head the absolute captain of their ship, able to maintain discipline and exclude poorly behaving pupils without being second-guessed or penalised for doing it."

When David Cameron so clearly recognises the urgency of combating growing behavioural problems in schools, something supported by the vast majority of teachers, parents and pupils it's a shame our education policy seems dominated by opposition to grammar schools.

Andrew Burkinshaw

Cameron and Willetts say no to new grammar schools

It's the main story on this morning's Today programme and features in many of this morning's newspapers: David Willetts' belief that grammar schools don't help the poor and that we'd be better to increase the number of City Academies.  A leader in The Telegraph is pretty mean about the speech - accusing 'Two Brains Willetts' of having at least one overheating brain.

In a speech that focuses on reversing the decline in social mobility Mr Willetts will say that grammar schools are no longer very effective in helping poorer children to succeed.  He presents a number of statistics to back up his argument.  Read a pdf of his 7,000 word speech here.  Mr Willetts will advocate five alternative policies:

• Removal of the barriers that make it hard for social entrepreneurs to set up new state schools;
• Encouragement of more schools to become Academies by ending the requirement for sponsors to contribute £2m;
• "A single Academy contract for multiple schools to make it easier for outside providers to run nationwide networks of schools within the maintained sector";
• A new emphasis on whole class teaching, streaming, setting and robust discipline "so we can show that even in our toughest areas, traditional teaching works";
• Experimental teaching methods are examined more rigorously before becoming accepted in a large number of schools.

Speaking to ConservativeHome this morning the Shadow Education Secretary admitted that the policy was "untidy".  Existing grammar schools would face no threat from a Conservative government and would be allowed to expand.  What would not be permitted, however, in a policy that contradicts the party's emphasis on localism and choice, would be for social entrepreneurs to set up a new grammar school in a poorer area.  Norman Blackwell of the Centre for Policy Studies, interviewed for this morning's Today programme, said that he deeply regretted the new Tory policy.  The former Head of the Downing Street Policy Unit, Lord Blackwell said that there was strong evidence that high ability children fare much better in the selective system and there should be more opportunities for high ability kids from poorer backgrounds to be able to attend grammar schools.

A poll in January last year found that 73% of Tory members disagreed with their party's opposition to new grammar schools although 49% understood that it might be good politics.

Where ConservativeHome can welcome the Tory leadership's approach to social mobility is in its emphasis on the family.  Here is a key section of Mr Willetts' speech:

"We all talk about family breakdown as if somehow it is evenly spread.   We are not being honest with ourselves.  The evidence assembled so powerfully by Iain Duncan-Smith’s Social Justice Commission, is that poorer families are far more fragile.  Meanwhile, middle-class parents invest far more effort in raising their kids than they did a generation ago.  My parents didn’t spend time driving me around to tennis coaching or music lessons (and I didn’t love them any the less for that).  Nowadays, middle-class kids get all that and more, and probably extra tuition to help them do well in the exams at 11. This growing difference between families is a theme to which I will return in a speech next month."

If ConservativeHome is disappointed at today's announcement, we'll try and be more positive about next month's speech on the family.

The BBC's champagne socialists

In an unguarded moment the BBC Radio Five Live's Jane Garvey remembers how the BBC greeted Labour's 1997 victory with champagne.  Listen here.  And courtesy of Biased BBC, here is the transcript:

"Ah, well - I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time - it was a bloke called Peter Allen so - I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into - we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London - all very upmarket in those days - and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles - I will always remember that (Allen laughs) - er - not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing - 'no, no, no, not at all') - and actually - I think it's fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be - um - but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkoes who couldn't wait for Labour to get back into power - that may have been the case, who knows ? but as I say I think there've been a few problems along the way - wish I hadn't started this now..."

And we shouldn't take any comfort from the fact that the BBC has apparently "fallen out of love with Labour".  Any falling out reflects BBC employees' anger at the Iraq war - not a return to Reithian standards of impartiality.

Related link: The BBC refuses to answer Robin Aitken's critique

Tory lead trimmed to 4%

This morning's Populus poll for The Times suggests a similar narrowing of the Tory advantage of Labour as was indicated by Sunday's YouGov survey.  The Blair resignation effect has so far overwhelmed the halo effect of the Tories' local election results and the Conservative lead is halved to 4%.

The bad news for Gordon Brown is that the Tory lead widens to 10% when he is named against David Cameron in a head-to-head.  The better news is that voters think he is a slightly better leader than David Cameron (by 5.0 to 4.95 on a unique Populus scale).  The Times' Peter Riddell and Philip Webster write:

"Mr Brown also comes out well ahead of Mr Cameron when voters are asked which leader is strong, by 34 to 19 per cent. But the Conservative leader is well ahead on charisma, by 28 to 9 per cent, with Mr Blair top on 31 per cent. Mr Cameron also leads Mr Brown on caring about the problems of ordinary people, likeability and being in touch with modern Britain. The two tie on having what it takes to be a good prime minister."

It will be sometime after the autumn's party conference season before we can fully assess the impact of Gordon Brown on the political landscape.  Only then will opinion polls be free of the distortive effect of the Labour leadership election and voters will have started to get the measure of a Gordon Brown premiership.

And how do you rate the Conservative Party's out-of-Westminster leaders?

We've already published the results from the April survey that showed rising member satisfaction with David Cameron and for most of the shadow cabinet.  We also asked what you thought about the three people who lead the Conservative Party in Europe, Scotland and Wales: Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Annabel Goldie MSP and Nick Bourne AM.

Nick Bourne AM, leader of the Welsh Tories since 1999, was least known by respondents.  71% said they did not know enough or anything about him.  Of the 29% willing to express an opinion 22% were satisfied and 7% dissatisfied.  There had been speculation that Mr Bourne might face a leadership challenge after delivering what some thought were below-expectation gains in the May elections but his likeliest successor - Jonathan Morgan AM - told Wales on Sunday that he was 100% behind Bourne's continued leadership.

55% were don't knows about the leader of the Conservative MSPs, Annabel Goldie.  35% were satisfied (10% very) and 10% were dissatisfied.  Ms Goldie hopes she will soon have the opportunity to implement some Conservative manifesto promises.  Refusing to enter any formal pact with any party she has long promised to work with a minority administration - including Alex Salmond's SNP - on implementing Tory manifesto ideas.  Ms Goldie reiterated that promise for yesterday's Scotsman.  Ms Goldie's trickiest decision will be whether or not to proceed with a more separate Scottish party.  In yesterday's Herald, Political Editor Douglas Fraser agreed with ConservativeHome's belief that "splitting could help Tories find their way back from the political wilderness".  Indications are that organised resistance from former Conservative Scottish Secretaries has cooled David Cameron's initial enthusiasm for the split.

Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Tory MEPs, has a similar dunno rating to Annabel Goldie (56%) but of those willing to express an opinion it is much more negative.  29% are dissatisfied (17% very) and just 15% satisfied.  Awareness of this level of member concern about MEP performance motivated the MEPs' successful attempt to severely limit member involvement in readoption.  ConservativeHome has twice attempted to ask Timothy Kirkhope to answer questions from members but hasn't received any reply.  He is the only elected Conservative to ever decline an opportunity to be accountable to members through the interviews blog.

We'll ask these questions again on occasions.

Labour leadership nominations open

Nominations for the Deputy Leader open this afternoon and close on Thursday lunchtime. Peter Hain, Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears have already published at least the required 45 nominations, but Alan Johnson seems to be biding his time - he may have almost double that number. Jon Cruddas and Hilary Benn are still holding out for enough nominations.

Nominations also opened for the leadership of the party today but the only interesting aspect to that is who Meacher and McDonnell decide should challenge Brown. The procedure for both contests starts with the lists of backers being posted on Labour's website, then the candidates attend ten hustings before the vote begins between MPs/MEPs, party members and affiliated unions. The victors will be announced in Manchester on Sunday 24th June (Blair stands down on the Wednesday).

Blears (pictured at her launch outside Parliament) summed up well the lack of policy substance so far:

"We have a real sense among us that this campaign has to be about talking about the issues the public are really concerned about."

An important question is whether the deputy race will divide the party or invigorate it. Which Deputy Leader would you vote for?

Deputy Editor

A new name for Islamism please?

Yesterday ConservativeHome readers reacted excitedly to David Cameron's suggestion that  it might be time to find an alternative to 'Islamism' as a way of defining the current terror threat.  Melanie Phillips has described the Conservative leader's remarks as "soft brainlessness" and Stephen Pollard has described Mr Cameron's intervention as a "dangerous... attempt to woo trendy opinion".

Regular readers of ConservativeHome will know that this site is pretty hawkish when it comes to the war on terror.  It's not for reasons of weakness, therefore, that I am happy to defend yesterday's remarks by David Cameron.  It's not a 100% defence.  In a second post Melanie Phillips correctly castigated the Conservative leader for comparing Islamist terrorism with IRA terrorism.  They are of very different natures.  The IRA bombed (successfully) in order to win a place at the table for their nationalist demands.  As Senator Joe Lieberman recently wrote, the terrorists killing men, women and children in Iraq do not want a place at the table - they want to blow it up.

I do not criticise commentators' use of Islamism - it's an academically-established description of the interpretation of Islam that poses an existential threat to western civilisation.  The trouble is, as David Cameron understands, it is a term that is most certainly open to misinterpretation.  Most thoughtful people understand that there's a difference between Islam and Islamism but there must be a danger that the term will be misunderstood by moderate Muslims in Britain and overseas particularly when used by western politicians.  The academic interpretation of Islamist is not universal either.  The main Turkish Islamic party is named 'Islamist'.

So what alternatives might be possible?  Here are some suggestions and I'm sure you could do better...

• Islamic-fascism: This is the term ConservativeHome has tended to use.  The term acknowledges that the terrorist threat is somehow connected with Islam but is a political interpretation of it.  Although some will see not like the retention of the word Islam within the description it remains my favoured term (and, certain to damn it, George W Bush's).
• Jihadi terrorism: This, already in existence, may be just as offensive to many Muslims.  For many Jihad refers to holy struggle rather than violent militarism.  For Shia Muslims, Jihad  is a central component of the faith.
• Wahhabism is the ideology that motivates al-Qaeda but it is a Sunni phenomenon and would not, for example, describe the threat posted by the Iranian regime and the terrorist groups sponsored by Tehran.
• Qutbism.  This refers to Sayyid Qutb - the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, "the man who's ideas would shape Al Qaeda" and who defined the now popular understanding of Jihad.  It's not a term that will be readily understandable but that may be something of a virtue.  Educating people about the term might also educate people about the underlying nature of the enormous threat we all face.

For the moment I still intend to use Islamo-fascism.

Related link: Islamism - from analysis to action (by Paul Goodman MP)

Vote now for your favourite Conservative blogs

Last week we nominated three blogs for six awards categories.  Before voting you might like to remind yourself of the nominees by clicking on the links below:

• Best Parliamentary Blog - Nadine Dorries MP, Dan Hannan MEP and John Redwood MP
• Best Young Conservative Blog - Mark Clarke, Matthew Sinclair and Birmingham CF
• Best Anonymous Blog - Watlington, Archbishop Cranmer and Mr Eugenides
• Best Local Government Blog - All Saints Gazette, Iain Lindley and Maida Vale Conservatives
• Best Newcomer Blog - PragueTory, New Culture Forum and Croydonian
• Best Conservative Blog (overall) - Dizzy Thinks, Iain Dale and Burning Our Money

Click HERE to vote and for information on the pub get-together we'll be holding.

Tagging isn't working

Grant Shapps MP has compiled a short report on the increasingly ineffective tagging scheme:

“Far from saving money, the fact that 1 in 9 of those wearing tags re-offends means that the social cost of the Home Detention Curfew programme is much higher than had originally been thought. It’s now very clear that the prison population crisis has led to thousands of additional crimes by prisoners who have been selected for electronic tagging and thereby released too early from prison."

Parliamentary Questions revealed that the reoffending rate of "taggers" has quadrupled in the last five years, with 4000 offences being committed by those on Home Detention Curfew in since 2005 alone, the brutal murder committed by Danny Cann being the most high profile in recent years. Hardly "prison without bars".

The Ministry of Justice say the increased reoffending rate is because they are putting prisoners on the scheme earlier and therefore for longer, which is hardly an excuse. According to this factfile by the Prison Reform Trust, the prison population is predicted by the Home Office to reach 106,550 by 2013 yet it is only planning to add another 8000 places to the current 70,000+ by 2012. It's a shame the once effective HDC scheme is failing at such a time as this. Grant Shapps is calling for a review:

"Electronic tagging should be used as an addition to prison, not simply as a cheap alternative as a result of the Government’s monumental failure to address the chronic lack of capacity in Britain’s jails."

This is the fourth report that he has written in the last couple of months, and published on his excellent website.

Deputy Editor

By sixteen-to-one Tory members think Brown will be a less effective leader than Blair

Are Tory members complacent or are they justified in their overwhelming view that Gordon Brown will be a less effective leader than Tony Blair?  By sixteen-to-one (64% to 4%) those Tory members surveyed by ConservativeHome thought that the Chancellor would be a less effective leader than the outgoing Prime Minister.

Other findings:

• 24% believe that the Labour leadership election will keep the party in the headlines and give Gordon Brown an opinion poll boost but 70% do not believe that Gordon Brown will provide Labour with any long-term boost in the opinion polls.
• 38% think that the Labour leadership contest will be divisive and voters will see the old Labour left reasserting itself.
• 28% think that David Miliband should have challenged Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership.

Here are some of your verbatim observations attached to the survey:

• "David Miliband does not want to be the captain of a sinking ship. When Gordon Brown explodes or implodes, Miliband will step in as its saviour."
• "Gordon Brown will have no honeymoon at all. We will have a Callaghan-like three years with a failing Labour administration clinging on until the last moment."
• "There will not be a resurgence of the Left (as an identfied political force) for two decades, but its insidious influence (eg institutional egalitarianism and redistribution of rights) will remain."
• "The rump of 40-50 hard left MPs, all in safe seats, will be shown up as the potential power brokers in a Labour minority or coalition administration."
• "The Tories will see a dip in the polls because we won't have publicity... This will lead to plotting against DC, wasting our chance to consign Labour to opposition for a decade..."
• "GB is not new; any bounce will be minimal; he is the co-architect of New Labour and cannot see why it has gone wrong."
• "There should be a general election, NOT an internal Labour party election, or automatic handover."
• "Gordon Brown has no mandate over English issues."