ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Dan Hannan to be kicked out of the EPP for highlighting despotism in the European Parliament

This should be the last nail in the coffin for those still unsure about the principle of leaving the European's People's Party.

Last week Dan Hannan MEP wrote an amazing account of Hans Gert-Pöttering's (the already powerful President of the European Parliament) successful attempt to get the authority to interpret Parliamentary rules as he wished.

It's worth reading in full. 

Basically, about two dozen MEPs from across Europe, including British Conservatives and UKIP, decided to use two perfectly legal mechanisms to register their disapproval of the EU constitution: the right to call for an electronic vote so that you can see exactly who votes which way, and the right to talk for no more than one minute about why you voted the way you did. As Hannan says:

"Two dozen MEPs making a series of one minute speeches hardly constitutes a filibuster. At worst, we would have kept MEPs from their lunch for half an hour and perhaps delayed the start of the afternoon session. But even this is intolerable to the parliamentary authorities. Blinded by their resentment of “anti-Europeans”, which is in turn a surrogate for the fear and contempt they feel for their own electorates, they have abandoned any pretence at legality in order to prevent us making our point in the chamber. The very sound of someone calling for a referendum is offensive to their guilty ears."

In response to this little display of democracy, Hans Gert-Pöttering wrote an extraordinary letter to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, a German Socialist, requesting permission to be able to stop such procedures at his discretion. He actually put it in writing! His request was duly rubber-stamped. You can understand Hannan's temptation to compare it to Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act which gave him the power to override the German parliament and constitution.

This morning in the European Parliament, there was a vote on the Committee's proposals to grant Gert-Pöttering these powers even though the proposals hadn't even been distributed to members. In criticising this, Hannan paraphrased the argument in his blog post, pointedly saying that "a majority is not the same as the rule of law." EPP leader Joseph Daul then stood up irately and declared that he wanted Hannan out of his Party, saying with an air of great concession that he had "no problem with you people calling for a referendum in Britain but I will not have you doing it on the Parliament floor as a member of the group".

Astonishingly, Christopher Beazley - a Conservative MEP - apparently berated Hannan just before speaking this morning, also threatening to call for the EPP to remove the Whip from him if he dared to stand up and criticise the undemocratic motion!

'Dale confronted'

Earlier this week Iain Dale chose not to join blogs like ConservativeHome in criticising Derek Conway.  That was an honourable decision because, as Iain said at the time, he is a friend of Derek Conway and "Anything I have to say about his conduct, I will say to his face."  In the 'Heffer confronted' video above Iain's position has migrated and he's now defending Derek Conway - dismissing the thrust of the disgraced MP's errors as "administrative".  Iain must be one of the few people in the country who do not believe that Mr Conway's errors are much more serious than that.

One MP told ConservativeHome (rather too colourfully) that Derek Conway was like a suicide bomber in the midst of the parliamentary Conservative Party.  He hadn't only wrecked his own career but had badly contaminated the reputation of all Tory MPs and had gifted Gordon Brown his biggest break since Bottler Saturday.  Iain Dale is a great blogger but Simon Heffer gets the better of him in the exchange above.

What can the British Government do to persuade young Muslims that they should reject terror and fully embrace the British way?

The title of this post was the question asked by Paul Goodman MP within a speech he gave to the New Culture Forum on Monday night.

Mr Goodman, Shadow Minister for Social Cohesion, analysed three potential strategic answers to that question: appeasement, assimilation and integration.  We summarise the speech below and this PDF contains the full text.

Appeasement is a course that Mr Goodman quickly rejects: "If our armed forces withdraw from Afghanistan – the argument runs – if we simply let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without sanctions or resistance; if we actively seek the replacement of our allies in the Islamic world by Islamists, if we abandon our support for the existence of Israel and if we connive in Britain at special legal dispensations for Muslims, then the problem will go away... You don’t have to be a neo-conservative – as I am not – to dismiss this option with the contempt it deserves.  It’s hard to perceive how abandoning parts of Afghanistan to Al Qaeda could help weaken that movement rather than strengthen it; how writing special sharia provisions into British law could strengthen community cohesion rather than weaken it, above all, how knuckling under to extremism could possibly help mainstream Islam worldwide."

Paul Goodman also rejects assimilation: "At heart, this school of thought usually believes that Islam in particular, if not religion in general, is at the root of separatist extremism... If government is to hold that religion in general is a problem – a habit that, like smoking, is bad for your health, and is to be tolerated only in private, if at all – it must surely move towards, say, cutting off all state support from faith schools, removing all tax breaks from religious-based charities and, eventually, scrapping the Coronation Service.  You can make your own judgement about whether such courses of action are more or less likely to lower school standards, remove support from vulnerable people, offload new burdens on the taxpayer, damage civil society, harm the current quest for shared values and dent our common sense of Britishness.  I’ve already made mine."

Mr Goodman then devotes a large section of his speech to discussing whether Islam is different from other religions and deserves special prohibitions.  His strong conclusion is that there is enough hope within certain traditions of Islam to firmly reject the idea that Islam needs to be suppressed.  He focuses particularly on Sufism as catalogued by Bernard Lewis.

Derek Conway to stand down at next General Election

Mr Conway has just issued this statement:

"I have had tremendous support from my local party, my family and friends but have concluded that it is time to step down.
 
"I stand by what I have said in relation to the report by the Commissioner of Standards and do not wish to add to those comments at this time.
 
"Since joining the Conservative Party nearly 40 years ago I have had the privilege of serving in public office since 1974 and have done so to the best of my ability.
 
"I have advised the Chief Whip and the chairman of my local Conservative Association that I shall not seek to continue as the Conservative Party Candidate for Old Bexley and Sidcup at the next election.
 
"Though not an original supporter of David Cameron for the leadership of my party, I believe that he has shown he has both the ability and the character to be Prime Minister of our country and I do not wish my personal circumstances to be a distraction in any way from the real issues that have to be addressed."

Liveblog of PMQs

This week we'll be using the liveblog software that we used to cover the Despatches programme on Livingstone (watch a replay of it here).

Police, Cameron, Action!

There are many of today's front page stories that won't encourage the Tory leader.  The Mail, in particular, continues its pursuit of Derek Conway.  The Sun, however, does shine on David Cameron and with one of its memorable headlines...

The Conservative leader has given a big law'n'order interview to The Sun - one week after the newspaper launched a major campaign to 'mend Broken Britain'.

The meat of Mr Cameron's remarks is found in a commitment to expand stop and search.  This is what he says:

“Stop and search rules were put in place to protect young black and Asian British kids. Now it’s the young black and British Asian kids that are being stabbed and shot and the rules are getting in the way of protecting them... We need to see a culture where it is unacceptable to carry a gun or a knife.  We will scrap the rules of stop and search. We need more newer rules.  We need to work out whether it needs completely scrapping, or whether we need to replace the say-so of an inspector with that of a sergeant or lower. But those current laws, be in no doubt, have got to go.”

Derek Conway should now go quietly

Tim Montgomerie writes:

A final word on Derek Conway.

After turning down media for 24 hours I was happy to give a number of interviews this afternoon to welcome David Cameron's lunchtime decision and to contrast the actions taken by the Tory leader with Gordon Brown's indulgence of his many miscreant ministers.  One thing I said on the PM programme is, I think, worth repeating.  David Cameron has removed Mr Conway from the parliamentary party but has refused to rule out future rehabilitation.  "Never say never" the Tory leader told Radio 4.  Mr Cameron's reasonableness is understandable but Mr Conway really should do the decent thing now and tell Old Bexley and Sidcup Tories that he won't be seeking to be their candidate at the next election.

Voters understand what Mr Conway did and they really, really don't like it.  If he stands at the next election I wouldn't be surprised if he faced the kind of anti-sleaze candidate that Neil Hamilton faced in 1997.   Such a candidate might easily win the seat.  What's worse it would be a soap opera that would play throughout the next General election campaign.  Mr Conway should do his party one final service and move quickly to admit that his political career is over.

PS I can't say very much about Nigel Waterson MP for legal reasons but I'd ask all readers to give him the benefit of the doubt.  What I've been told about last night's incident has made me respect the man more than I have ever done before.  Please don't leave speculative comments in the thread below... I'd probably have to delete them.

Polish Law & Justice Party looks set to bolster Eurosceptic grouping

The Telegraph's Jonathan Isaby happened to bump into representatives of the Polish Law & Justice Party (PiS) yesterday, who were in Westminster for meetings with Hague and Cameron. Isaby says it looks likely that they'll join the Czech Civic Democrats and the Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces in the Movement for European Reform:

"From what I gather, it now looks like their party is extremely keen to sign up to the new group and I am led to believe that an announcement on this front should not be far off."

The socially conservative, fiscally centrist party is best known for the Kaczyński twins who for a while occupied the positions of President and Prime Minister between them.  They will be controversial allies for David Cameron.

Related links: Dan Hannan MEP offers seven reasons why we must leave the EPP and fellow MEP Caroline Jackson describes the search for new alliances as A Hopeless Quest.

Derek Conway loses the Conservative Whip

David Cameron says:

"The usual procedure in these cases is to leave the punishment to the House of Commons authorities, however, having asked the Chief Whip to speak again to Mr Conway and having personally reflected overnight I have decided to withdraw the Conservative Whip from Mr Conway."

This is the right action to take, and whilst it could have been taken yesterday Cameron has still been much more decisive on it than Brown was on Hain.

2.40pm: The Telegraph notes that Conway is likely to remain suspended permanently:

"Although the decision is technically a suspension rather than an expulsion, senior Conservative sources said it was unlikely that Mr Conway would ever return to the parliamentary party."

Cameron to call for preachers of hate to be banned from the UK

ConservativeHome has been given an advance copy of what David Cameron will say at the first meeting of the CDU-Conservative Party working group later today.

Responding to the news that Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be granted a visa, Cameron will call on Gordon Brown to act quickly and ban preachers of hate from entering the country.

Peter Cuthbertson made this point on CentreRight on Sunday.

We will be there to check against delivery and listen to the Q&A. As always if you have any good questions we will try to ask one on your behalf.

We've put the speech into bitesize chunks below.  Download a PDF of David Cameron's remarks in full.

Nick Robinson on why Cameron decided not to act against Conway

Nick Robinson's explanation of David Cameron's decision not to withdraw the whip gets, ConservativeHome understands, very close to the full truth: "Conway is a popular Tory MP who looked set to be his party's Chief Whip if David Davis had become Conservative leader. He was even talked of as a possible Speaker. Although David Cameron might be tempted to make an example of him he would be taking on a powerful coalition consisting of those who never wanted him to be leader plus the parliamentary old guard who regard questions about their allowances as challenging the assumption that all MPs are "honourable members" until proven otherwise."

11.15am: Simon Chapman asks three pertinent questions.

ComRes: Tories 8% ahead

A ComRes poll for tomorrow's Independent puts the Conservatives 8% ahead of Labour - in line with YouGov and more reassuring than ICM.  Full details in the morning; ConHome is off to bed.

8am, 29 January:

The Independent's coverage of its poll includes the following interesting breakdowns:

BY SOCIAL CLASS: The Tories lead by 47% to 26% amongst AB voters but by just 35% to 34% amongst C2s.

BY AGE: The Tories have a massive 50% to 28% lead among those aged 65 and over and the party also leads amongst 18 to 24 year olds.  Labour, however, leads among 25 to 44 year-olds.

BY REGION: The Tories enjoy big leads in the South East, South West, Midlands and Wales.  The party is neck-and-neck with Labour in the North.  Labour is only ahead of the Conservatives in Scotland (where it trails the SNP).

Cameron makes the wrong choice on Conway

The earlier thread on Derek Conway was very interesting.  There was an almost universal wish to see our party take firm action against him.  There was a yearning for the party to take decisive action against behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other walk of life.

Unfortunately the doves around the Tory leader have prevailed and the following statement was issued by CCHQ earlier this evening:

“Derek Conway has apologised fully on the floor of the House of Commons and the Whip has not been withdrawn. The appropriate punishment is being administered.”

CCHQ are identifying Labour MPs that have not had the whip withdrawn when they have been suspended by the House.  That leaves us on the same level as Labour then.  Great.

Ben Brogan, Political Editor of the Daily Mail, gets it right over at his blog:

"I defy anyone reading this report not to conclude that Mr Conway is guilty of behaviour that is incompatible with being an MP. MPs frequently complain when we report critically their habit of voting themselves pay rises and extra allowances. Yet here we have an example of MPs standing by when one of their number pulls a fast one on the taxpayer. I have reason to believe that the revelations about Mr Conway are about to get worse, which will then leave Mr Cameron facing some difficult choices."

The next time David Cameron rises at PMQs to attack sleaze within the Government Labour MPs will only have to shout 'Derek Conway' back at him to blunt his attack.  Unlike Brown Mr Cameron did not dither.  He needed just a few hours to decide what to do about Mr Conway.  He was decisive but decisively wrong.

Related link: Alex Deane over at CentreRight also supports decisive action.

8am, 29 January: When Ben Brogan wrote: "I have reason to believe that the revelations about Mr Conway are about to get worse," we now know what he had in mind...

Today's Mail suggests that Mr Conway may also have paid his older son from parliamentary allowances whilst he was at university.

Over at the Parliament pages we have published the full text of Mr Conway's apology to the Commons.

Ten day suspension likely for Derek Conway MP

Breaking news over at BBC Online: "A complaint that Tory MP Derek Conway wrongly paid his son MP allowances has been upheld by MPs on the Commons Standards and Privileges committee.  Mr Conway is accused of paying his son Freddie to work part-time as a researcher while at university.  The committee recommends that the MP is suspended for 10 Commons sitting days.  Mr Conway told the committee that his son worked an average of 17 hours a week for him and that he did not infringe the staffing allowance rules."

3pm: Robert Winnett explains how Google was used to find this out, and asks why Parliamentary authorities block access to details about MPs' staff.

It's 2008, not 1997

Last night's Westminster Hour on Radio 4 became the latest mainstream media outlet to discuss ConservativeHome's hares versus tortoises theory.  The Times' Danny Finkelstein (the newspaper columnist closest to the Osborne-Cameron circle) debated The Telegraph's Iain Martin.  It's well worth a listen.

Danny spent quite a bit of time knocking down straw men - the voters don't want large, unexplained spending cuts, he said (although noone is advocating them) and we can't refight the last two elections (who is suggesting that we do?) but his comparison with Blair in 1997 was most misleading.

Danny seems stuck in the mid-1990s.  We imagine him going home and watching This Life DVDs and listening to Portishead.  Like Blair in 1997, he said, we need to offer reassurance, reassurance, reassurance.

There is, of course, a lot of truth to what he said.  The reason we chose hares versus tortoises was because the reassurance or caution v boldness debate is real.  Although ConservativeHome favours a more hare-like approach we are willing to concede that the wait-and-see strategy has a lot of validity (and, as Danny says, the tortoise did win in Aesop's fable).

Using Blair's 1997 strategy to advocate caution on tax'n'spend and in other key policy areas is questionable, however, for two main reasons:

1. Voters were willing to accept large increases in the state in 1997.  Now they've seen massive increases and for little return.  Polling from the TaxPayers' Alliance points to the changed mood on tax and spend.
2. Labour only had to beat the Tories.  Blair was the principal beneficiary of anti-Tory sentiment.  The Conservative situation is different today.  We can't just rely on Labour failure.  We need something a lot more special because we also have to oust a lot of LibDems, overcome an electoral system that is tilted heavily against us and to energise the many voters turned off by the Blair years.  Reassurance alone won't tackle those factors.  Bolder initiatives like the IHT cut will be required.

Finally: Although Blair reassured on many economic issues there was also a boldness to his overall presentation.  Voters saw him representing something radically different from the Thatcher-Major Tories.  Social justice was core to the New Labour pitch.  Voters don't yet have a clear idea of what the Tories offer.  There's still time to develop a bigger narrative and bolder policies but let's discuss what they might be.

PS Iain Dale thinks that ConservativeHome may be setting up a false debate.  Iain should talk to his colleagues at The Telegraph. At that newspaper's highest levels there is a strong belief that the Conservative Party should be much bolder.  It is a live discussion amongst MPs.  I was careful last week to describe the debate as "gentle" and "not personal".  This isn't a split but a grown-up discussion about the pace of Project Cameron.  The debate is real and Iain of all people should support the grassroots joining in that debate. 

We don't want "massive spending cuts", Mr Osborne, just a little moderation

George Osborne was on Andrew Marr's programme earlier and quite rightly noted that Britain is one of the least-well prepared nations for the looming worldwide slowdown.  "Other Finance Ministers", to quote Mr Osborne, were discussing how to use their surpluses to help their economies negotiate the forthcoming turbulence.  That wasn't an option for Britain that ends its 'years of plenty' with horrendous levels of public and private debt.

Mr Osborne went on to defend the fact that the Tories are matching Labour on spending - at least until 2010/11:

"The options for dealing with the budget deficit in the short-term would either be massive public spending cuts or big tax increases and I don't think either of those are sensible given the economic downturn that the world is facing."

That's not a fair characterisation of the options.  Those of us wanting the Tories to constrain spending - like ConservativeHome, the IoD, the TaxPayers' Alliance and The Telegraph - don't seek "massive public spending cuts".  We do, however, believe that spending growth should be more modest.  Labour is planning 2% growth.  A 1.5% growth rate would at least create some possibilities for reducing borrowing and for economy-stimulating tax relief.

The growth of the state under Brown really has been "massive".  A table reproduced by Fraser Nelson over at Coffee House outlines its scale.  Britain's state has grown faster than every other OECD nation from 2000 until 2008, with the solitary exception of Korea.  Government spending as a percentage of GDP equalled 37.1% in 2000 and will be an eye-watering 44.8% this year.  If this spending had been used to lubricate necessary reforms to welfare or to our public services it would be half-acceptable but it hasn't.  We don't want "massive cuts", George - just a return to some moderation.  Is that so much to ask? 

Questions for you

It's that time of the month again when we poll readers of this site.  What questions should we ask?

Tories just 2% ahead in ICM poll (and 58% think membership of the EU is good for Britain)

An hour ago we reported the YouGov survey for The Telegraph and its 8% Tory lead.  We missed this ICM survey for The Guardian.  It gives the Tories a little less support and Labour a little more - both differences adding up to a narrow Conservative lead.  The survey was carried out before Peter Hain's resignation.

The poll also finds that 50% of voters do not believe that the Lisbon Treaty will make much difference to Britain.  28% think it will make things worse and just 10% think it will make things better.

58% say membership of the EU is good for Britain.  35% think it is bad.

The survey points to a slight shift in Tory opinion on the EU: "54% of those who voted Tory at the last election oppose membership but 52% of current supporters back it."

Public increasingly unhappy with Labour's economic performance

The Tory lead is down very slightly in today's YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph but the underlying numbers are much more worrying for the Government:

• 52% believe that Labour's handling of the impending economic downturn has been "poor" or "awful".
• 61% give the same verdict on Labour's handling of Northern Rock.

The Tories are also building tortoise-like leads over Labour on two of the three elements of the iron triangle of political success: Cameron leads Brown by 31% to 27% on the best leader for Britain and the Conservatives lead Labour by 34% to 30% on economic management.

Earlier this week this website highlighted the tortoise-versus-hares-debate amongst Tory strategists.  The erosion of Labour's economic standing may encourage the tortoises' wait-for-Labour-to-collapse tactics.  The Telegraph, however, makes it clear this morning that it wants more hare-like boldness from the Conservatives:

"In those areas where he has enunciated bold policies - inheritance tax, immigration, welfare reform - the public has responded warmly. But when it comes to education, for example, the Tories' sensible principle of expanding consumer choice has yet to produce proposals striking enough to (say) spark off a conversation in the pub."

In her column for the New Statesman Tara Hamilton-Miller seems to side with the tortoises when it comes to boldness on economic policy:

"The prediction is that interest rates will fall, so the Tories will be cautious. If interest rates are cut to below 4 per cent months before an election, the Tories would have to be prepared for the favourable reaction that would bring."

ON CONSERVATIVEHOME ON MONDAY: A PORTFOLIO-BY-PORTFOLIO GUIDE TO WHERE THE BOLDEST AND MOST TORTOISE-LIKE POLICY MAKING IS TAKING PLACE.

A video history of British Conservatism

This ten minute video emphasises the progressive character of conservatism.  It takes us right up to present day's Cameron-led party and the Built to Last values statement.  Thanks to Louise Bagshawe for alerting us to it.

Steve Richards asks Ken Clarke about the hare versus tortoise debate

Yesterday we noted the hare versus tortoise debate amongst Conservative strategists.  Ben Brogan noted it on his blog and Steve Richards asks Ken Clarke about the tension for this weekend's GMTV Sunday Programme.  The former Chancellor manages to mangle the debate as being between a hare and a rabbit!

Steve Richards: Can I finally ask you – there’s an interesting debate on conservativehome, one of the websites, I don’t know if you visit it…

Kenneth Clarke: I don’t know it. I’m not a blog man.

Steve Richards: Full of Conservative party members blogging on and some of them raising quite interesting questions about the style of David Cameron, some saying should he move faster, is he being a bit too cautious, others questioning the soundbite approach, arguably, at Prime Minister’s Question Time.  I just wonder, as someone who’s been on that Front Bench, in front of that box, albeit not at leader level but at just about every other level, what do you think about the style?

Ken Clarke: I’ve known a journalist trying to describe to me this week as the hare versus rabbit theory…

Steve Richards: That’s the thing going on.

Ken Clarke: I thought that listening to this I was probably a hare, if he got it the right way round.  I think what David needs to do… He has the opportunity to be Prime Minister and the public are looking to him as a possible Prime Minister, that’s a huge advance, but they’re not certain yet, and because he’s new, he’s inexperienced, they’re getting to know him, I think he’s capable of doing it myself, what he needs to approach everything with is a statesmanlike attitude of thinking what am I going to do in government.  He is doing the work on policy that we did when Margaret was our leader - you’ve really got to know what the devil you’re going to do when you take over, if you take over.  It requires a lot of work.  But you must only commit yourself to things you’re going to do.  You must look and sound like a Prime Minister.  A combative one.  One who can score points off your opponent.  One who can get into the headlines sometimes.  But what people want to see is someone who they think’s going to grow into being a Prime Minister in two or three years’ time.  Now, insofar as I understand, this bizarre argument about which particular pet you are, I think that makes me a hare rather than a rabbit.  Don’t panic, you got two…

David Cameron's reaction to Hain's resignation

David Cameron's reaction Peter Hain's resignation:

"It's the right decision, but it shouldn’t have happened in this way.  I said some time ago the Prime Minister should have said to Peter Hain you’ve got to give a convincing explanation of your situation or you can’t stay in the Cabinet, instead we’ve had a long delay where one of the most important departments in Government hasn’t been led properly , and I think that was wrong.  The Department of Work and Pensions is one of the most important jobs in government. It is one of the highest spending departments: responsible for pensions, responsible for benefits and welfare reform. It is a huge department and a very big hole will be left by Mr Hain’s departure, which the Prime Minister will have to fill. The Prime Minister should not have allowed this to go on for so long."

Earlier this afternoon Chris Grayling said: “Peter Hain’s resignation was inevitable and the right thing to do given the Electoral Commission’s decision.  What is important now is for Gordon Brown to take rapid action to restore effective leadership to a department that has clearly been distracted by the events of the last few weeks.”

4.15pm: Chris Grayling's statement on James Purnell's appointment as Hain's successor: "“I hope he will be able to take a firm grip on a department that is clearly losing its way, with revelations in the last two weeks alone that National Insurance numbers have been issued to illegal immigrants and personal data has been left on the roadside.”

5pm: The man the Politics Editor of The Daily Telegraph thinks might be the next Labour leader - Andy Burnham - is the new Culture Secretary. His old job, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is filled by Yvette Cooper. Caroline Flint is the new Housing Minister.

6pm PlayPolitical: Watch Peter Hain resign

The tortoises versus the hares... How bold should the Tories be?

In a piece for today's Telegraph Iain Martin urges David Cameron to be bolder.  In The Spectator's Politics column Fraser Nelson touches on similar themes - believing that Labour is exhausted and now is the time for the Tories to seize hold of the economic agenda.

'How bold should the Tories be?' is the big question now being asked at the very top of the Cameron project.

The argument is gentle.  It doesn't have the intensity of wets versus drys or modernisers versus traditionalists.  It's not a personal dispute but it's a serious debate.  It's tortoises versus hares.

Leading the cautionaries - or tortoises - is David Cameron himself.  The cautionaries believe that Brown is finished.  They believe that Northern Rock, in particular, is fast eroding the Prime Minister's reputation for economic competence.   They do not want to risk the Tories' strong position in the opinion polls - with the latest ConservativeHome poll of polls giving the party an 8.4% average lead.

The hares - wishing the party to be bold - are hoping to be led by George Osborne.  The importance of George Osborne to the Cameron project is difficult to understate.  Last summer he took much of the initiative in rebalancing the Conservative project away from the uber-modernisers.  He recruited Andy Coulson and won the argument for the inheritance tax cut.  At the end of last year he noted the drift in the Boris campaign and took the decisions that have now produced a team around the Mayoral hopeful that might deliver victory in the most important contest this side of the next General Election.  Osborne is now said to be "on manoeuvres" again - listening carefully to those who think the Tories need to move up a gear.

The bold camp note that the Tories need a seismic shift in order for the party to form a parliamentary majority but that opinion polls point to a defeat for Labour rather than a much larger shift.   They say that the Tories need to give electors some big reasons to vote for them rather than the LibDems.  They worry that support for the Conservatives is widening much faster than it is deepening.   They worry that the party still lacks a defining theme or two that will energise the people who don't float between the parties but who float between voting and not voting at all.

The cautionaries worry that the 'time-to-be-bold' camp are being impatient.  They want to delay any big decision on strategy until after May's election results.  The depth of Brown's problems and the extent to which Clegg will have revived the LibDem vote will then be clear.  They also fear that the Tories may define themselves premmaturely.  They remember the rush to talk of a 'recession made in Downing Street' during the Hague years.  They worry that a too downbeat assessment of the British economy may be at odds with the 'sunshine image' that David Cameron has largely championed.

ConservativeHome believes that it's time to be bold.  Last November we argued that Britain is in decline again - that Britain doesn't need a change of management but a real change of direction.  We've argued that that should start with a promise to slow the growth in public spending.  Only yesterday David Cameron emphasised his cautionary credentials by saying that he may well extend the commitment to match Labour's plans (which continue the biggest peacetime increase in the size of the British state).  This is such a contrast with France that has just announced a five year freeze on public spending.  All of the hard work of the 1980s and 1990s by the Thatcher and Major governments is being undone.  Britain as the enterprise capital of Europe is no more.  Boldness on economic policy could not be more urgent.  If George Osborne really wants to lead the bold camp he should start with his own brief.

Live PMQs blog from noon

EDITORIAL VERDICT: "Emphatic victory for David Cameron. He talked about the big issues of the week - Northern Rock and economic weakness. He made the Prime Minister look evasive because he failed to answer questions about taxpayer exposure. Nick Clegg even helped the Conservatives by implying that Brown hadn't nationalised the Rock because he was running scared of the Tories.  Who's the real opposition now then, Mr Clegg?"

Highlights, not verbatim:

12.17pm: In response to a question from Ken Clarke Gordon Brown states that he inherited "very difficult" economic circustances from him!  The Tory benches erupt into laughter.

12.13pm: Nick Clegg accuses Gordon Brown of fleecing the taxpayer by privatising the profits but nationalising the risks. He says that Brown is running scared of the Conservative Party by not pursuing the short-term nationalisation of Northern Rock - the only sensible option.  Brown says that nationalisation is an option but the Government is determined to do the best for all those involved, including the shareholders and depositors of Northern Rock - as well as the taxpayer.

12.10pm: David Cameron challenges Brown to admit he was wrong to fly to China on a jet plane with one of the principal bidders for Northern Rock, Richard Branson.  He says that Britain enters a difficult economic period with the biggest budget deficit in Europe.  The Prime Minister is a ditherer who hasn't prepared Britain for difficult times.

12.08pm: Gordon Brown accuses David Cameron of wanting a fire sale of Northern Rock's assets by supporting administration. David Cameron replied by saying that the Prime Minister doesn't know the difference between administration and liquidation.  Cameron compares  Labour to now being in administration. After the next election it will be in liquidation.

12.06pm: David Cameron compares the Prime Minister to Del Boy.  He's like a used car salesman who won't tell the purchaser about the car's price, mileage or warranty. This is a subprime deal from a sub-Prime Minister.

12.05pm: Gordon Brown says that the spending is secured on Northern Rock's good asset book and accuses the Conservatives of inconsistencies.

12.03pm: David Cameron asks about the taxpayers' total exposure to Northern Rock.  Is it £55bn, he asks?  Every taxpayer in the country has been landed with a second mortgage.

12.01pm: Good opening question from Stephen Crabb about the Home Secretary needing an armed escort to go and buy a kebab.

11.40am: David Cameron must surely focus on the economy and contrast the hyperactivity on the other side of the Atlantic with the inactivity here?  Although there's always the retreat on ID cards.

David Cameron declines to condemn 'faith school fakes' in wide-ranging Times interview

In an interview today David Cameron makes a direct attack on the Prime Minister as that "strange man in Downing Street".  The Times chooses to splash his remarks about non-believers going to church in order to get their children into church schools.  The Tory leader refuses to condemn parents that the newspaper describes as 'faith school fakes':

“I think it’s good for parents who want the best for their kids. I don’t blame anyone who tries to get their children into a good school. Most people are doing so because it has an ethos and culture. I believe in active citizens.”

Melanie Phillips is unimpressed:

"For a politician who aspires to lead his country to endorse lying and cheating is to give the public the message that he himself is not to be trusted. The implication that ‘active citizenship’ means securing advantage by not telling the truth is deplorable. It is possible to acknowledge the fact that so many parents are driven to play the system in this way by the appalling standards in our schools, and to decry the pressures that drive them to do this, without endorsing systematic deception. If Cameron has indeed crossed that line, this will be held against him by a public which already suspects that he is not a man of principle, and taken as proof that their instincts are correct."

Some other highlights from David Cameron's interview with The Times:

The top Conservative team is excelling: "You still see the contrast between our two teams: William Hague, David Davis, George Osborne all are doing well and being seen to be doing well. One can imagine them doing the jobs that they are shadowing far better than the minister they are shadowing.”

Brown sees everything in political terms: “I am afraid that he sees [42 days' detention without trial] as a totally political weapon: let us try and make the Tories look soft on terror. That is my problem with our Prime Minister: he looks at every single issue from the point of view of what is the right dividing line that divides me from my opponent, not what is right for the country, and I think that is what he is doing here.”