A Conservative source tells the Daily Mail's James Chapman that the Tories are planning "a genuine radical ideas blitz" over the summer months to prove that there is real substance to the Cameron project and to provide a contrast with Gordon Brown.
The Mail highlights the recommendations of Ken Clarke's democracy taskforce (highlighted in the graphic on the right) which promise to win back the public's faith in politics and restore the standing of parliament - reduced to "poodle status" under Tony Blair.
The Mail believes that David Cameron will embrace the former Chancellor's proposals.
It is not clear if Mr Clarke will make any recommendations on state funding of political parties. Extra state funding of politics is very unpopular with grassroots Conservatives and many MPs. Ken Clarke's 2005 campaign manager, Andrew Tyrie, was the architect of David Cameron's plans for state funding.
The next three months will see all of the major policy groups report. Key tensions to look out for:
- Tensions between the quality of life and international development policy groups. John Gummer's quality of life group want to reduce the environmental impact of food being flown around the world whilst Peter Lilley's international development group is more minded to open up our markets to third world farmers.
- Iain Duncan Smith's social justice policy group making recommendations on family and drugs that could potentially alarm the party's social liberals.
- An emphasis on the importance of lower taxation within John Redwood's economic competitiveness report.
I am not a great fan of Kenneth Clarke but I have read these proposals with an open mind and find nothing that raises even one hackle for me.
I have long said that we pay for too many MPs as none are permitted individual freedom to represent their own constituents or their own conscience.
I think that there are over 100 Ministers of some kind or another at present. Some have a portfolio so obscure that it comes as a shock when one of them appears as an Education or Transport Minister. It has been said here that experienced civil servants should perform those functions and I am sure they would do a better job as they would not be switched every 6 months or so.
If Prime Minister's Questions cannot be made into a purposeful debate it should be scrapped. The Leader of the Opposition askes some question designed to embarrass the PM who replies by sneeringly spitting out a torrent of statistics whilst the backbenchers, well marinaded, indulge in a chorus of yobbish cheers or jeers. The most cringeworthy occasions of the year are the sycophants rising to congratulate the PM on the increased standard of pavement repair under New Labour compared with the dreadful Thatcher years when no single paving stone was ever repaired or replaced. All I can think of as I witness that nonsense is that I wish the "questioner" would crawl back under one of the stones.
Perhaps the Speaker team should also be civil servants with special training.
Posted by: Victor, NW Kent | June 06, 2007 at 15:07