ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Will The Sun give Mackenzie full backing?

Surprisingly, there's barely any mention of Kelvin Mackenzie's candidacy in The Sun today, despite it being an idea supported by Rebekah Wade and Rupert Murdoch himself (it started off as a dinner party joke). Mackenzie - who failed to unseat a Conservative at the last local elections - said he was 90% certain of standing.

Davis' confirmed rivals so far include the OMRLP, the Miss Great Britain Party and a local fruit-n-veg trader. Whether The Sun throws its weight behind its former editor or not, the Conservatives - especially Davis - have lost favour with the paper recently. One story it does cover today is Dominic Grieve's remarks shortly after 7/7:

"The new Shadow Home Secretary sparked fury after the 7/7 attacks – saying he understood terrorists’ anger. Dominic Grieve said a month after the London bombings – which killed 52 people – that he found it “totally explicable”. And the barrister claimed the Iraq War was partly to blame. Details of his offensive remarks re-emerged yesterday in a fresh embarrassment to David Cameron."

As we noted yesterday, "one of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism".

Cameron "delighted" at Irish "no"

You bet he is.  Ireland's "no" means he's off the hook - at least for now - on the whole post-ratification referendum debate.  The Conservative leader's full statement is published below the smile.

“I’m delighted with the news. People in Ireland have sent the clearest possible message. They do not want this treaty, they do not want this Constitution and by all rights now it should be declared dead. The French said no to it, the Dutch said no to it and it was brought back and the only people who’ve been given a chance to pass judgement on it, the Irish, have now said no to it.

“I think the elites in Brussels have got to listen to people in Europe who do not want endless powers being passed from nation states to Brussels. They do not want these endless constitutions and treaties.

“And I have to say it is the height of arrogance for Gordon Brown and our Government to press ahead with ratifying this treaty and flying in the face of public opinion. The Prime Minister should come to the House of Commons on Monday and explain in a statement what he proposes to do. Part of that statement is that if this is not dead, we must be able to have a referendum in this country so that we have the chance to pass judgement on this treaty.”

Let's not forget that we have a new Shadow Home Secretary

The shock of David Davis' resignation and the joy of Ireland's "no" has distracted us from paying sufficient attention to what is very significant news in its own right.  The Conservative Party has, of course, a new Home affairs spokesman, Dominic Grieve.

Over at The Spectator's Coffee House, James Forsyth hasn't missed the significance of the appointment and has listed five reasons why he is worried.  James fears that...

• DG unbalances the frontbench and tips it away from the C2s,
• Is a passionate supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights,
• Is not above threatening to resign,
• Is weak on Islamic extremism, and
• May not be a strong enough media performer to channel public anger on crime.

ConservativeHome knows Dominic Grieve to be intelligent and one of politics' gentlemen.  Few have done more to build better relations with minority communities but we worry with James Forsyth, in particular, about his views on the ECHR.

One of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism.  David Cameron made an excellent speech to the Community Security Trust in March.  Dominic Grieve needs to revisit the themes of that speech and make it clear that, unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will not allow extremists to enter Britain and will ensure no public funds go to extremist organisations.  Mr Grieve must also make it clear that he shares Dame Pauline Neville Jones' view that the Conservative Party does not approve of many of the attitudes of the Muslim Council of Britain.

> Mr Grieve recently gave a speech on Britishness.

The only nation that had a chance to vote on Lisbon, has voted "no"

Thank you Ireland.  Thank you.

12.52pm: Douglas Carswell MP on CentreRight: "Ireland has benefited from Euro squillions.  Her political / media establishment, like our own BBC, was almost universally behind the well-financed "Yes" campaign.  Yet still the Irish have said "no"."

1.07pm: Open Europe live blog: "Mark Mardell reports that the no are winning on News 24.  He says Brown phoned Sarkozy to say that he would press ahead with ratification in the event of a NO. That would be total madness - surely? But lets not count chickens here - still think its going to be a yes."  What arrogance!

1.25pm: EU Referendum has a very good live blog.

1.26pm: Hilarious exchange on Five Live between Open Europe's Neil O'Brien and Europhile Denis MacShane MP.  Neil kept asking MacShane if Labour would now withdraw the Lisbon Bill from its last parliamentary stages.  Refusing to answer the question he launched attacks on Neil O'Brien as a "fanatical" Eurosceptic!  He stormed out of the studio.  Bad loser, Denis.

1.39pm: Congratulations to the people of Ireland, who have struck a blow for Europeans everywhere. Despite what the “yes” campaign said, Ireland is now closer to the heart of Europe than ever: never has it been so popular.  Congratulations, too, to the friends of Irish democracy from outside Ireland who supported the “no” campaign and made it impossible for the other side to argue credibly that a “no” would leave Ireland isolated. ConHome can now reveal that the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, was behind the embassy vigils throughout Europe, which saw crowds assemble at 40 Irish embassies and consulates across the continent to urge a “no” vote. Daniel is quite a veteran of European referendums, having campaigned for “no” votes in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, France, Malta and Estonia, too.  He and other Euro-sceptic MEPs contributed to a series of fact-sheets in Ireland about the Lisbon Treaty, whose aim was not to tell people to vote “no”, but to disseminate information about its content and so depreciate the turnout on the “yes” side. It seems to have worked!  Read Dan's blog of today's result.

3pm: Global Vision's Ruth Lea has sent us this statement:

"If, as seems likely, the Irish vote “no” to the Lisbon Treaty it confirms the extreme unpopularity of this treaty with the people of Europe. We should also remember that both the French and the Dutch voted against the Constitution, effectively the same as the Lisbon Treaty, in 2005. Surely it is time the British people were allowed their say on the treaty.

It is clear that the EU’s integrationist project is fatally unpopular and, hence, fatally flawed. The EU should have a major rethink on the future of the EU. It needs to embrace a more modern, looser approach and be prepared to accept that some countries, whilst happy to have a relationship with the EU, do not wish to be part of ever-closer political and economic integration. Britain is clearly one such country."

5.25pm: William Hague has issued the following statement:

"“The Irish people have spoken and they have made clear that they do not want a Treaty that takes so many powers from the countries of Europe and gives it to distant institutions in Brussels. Despite all the threats that have been made they have had the courage to make their own decision. They deserve Europe’s admiration and congratulations.

“Alone in Europe they have had the chance to make their views known. If democracy in the EU is to mean anything their decision must be respected. The Republic of Ireland’s voters must carry no less weight than the Dutch and French.

“The British Government must respect the Irish people’s verdict. Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Parliament must be stopped immediately.

“The renamed EU Constitution should now be finished. But, as we know from last time, even after two ‘no’ votes the original Constitution was brought back under another name. And there are now no excuses left for denying the British people their say. So unless it is agreed that this Treaty is dead and buried it is essential that the British people have their say. There is no justification for the Irish people being allowed their say while the British are denied theirs.

“Gordon Brown must now come to the Commons on Monday to make a statement on what the Government will do next.

“This is a great day for Britain and the peoples of Europe. Now is the time to end the old top down Europe which the Irish have so decisively rejected. It is time to renew the European Union on respect for its peoples’ wishes.”

8.30pm: No flags!  Earlier this afternoon the EU flag that normally flies on the EU Parliament's building in London was taken down.  We fear it was just for a spring clean rather than a full retreat.

David Davis on Today

Did you hear David Davis on the Today programme, 8.10am?  In a ten minute interview about 90% was spent on the "process story" of his resignation and what it meant for his political future/ the Conservative Party.  There was almost no discussion of the issues upon which David Davis has resigned.  That's what is wrong with political coverage today.

Over the next few weeks let's hope that that can be put right and David Davis gets the chance to put his case on 42 days, CCTV, DNA databases etc.

11.15am: David Davis has just done half an hour with Five Live, he described 42 days as "frankly evil" and also said that his good friend Dominic Grieve would be a better Home Secretary than him anyway. Afterwards R5 played clip of David Cameron talking about the need for the Shadow Cabinet to be "permanent", at its "very strongest"... and also that it is "a team, and will play as a team."

"There is every chance that Ireland has voted 'no'"

That is what the Today programme is reporting as we await the result of the Irish vote on Lisbon...

The relatively low turnout is giving the 'no' camp hope. 

The result is expected between 3pm and 4pm.

11.45am: Other blogs - see PoliticsHome.com - are reporting that Ireland is pretty certain to vote "no".  We so hope they're right.

Five reflections on an incredible day

Every politician and journalist and blogger has been bowled over by today's events.

Here are a few thoughts on what has happened:

(1) There is a gulf between the reactions of the Westminster village and the general public.  The villagers are interested in David Davis throwing away the chance to be Home Secretary and what this means for Project Cameron.  Most of the public is simply applauding a politician who has resigned his seat on an issue of principle.  They're impressed.  DD might soon have the status of his chum, Tony Benn and others like Frank Field, Clare Short and Ann Widdecombe.  Big hitting, principled people but not entirely comfortable with conventional politics.

(2) David Cameron called the decision "courageous" but, in many ways, David Davis isn't taking much of a risk.  He's certain to be re-elected but, on the other hand, he risks not being part of the first Conservative government of the 21st century.

(3) David Cameron's decision not to appoint an Acting SHS but a permanent replacement in Dominic Grieve shows a ruthlessness from the Conservative leader.  David Cameron could have kept the position open.  He didn't.  By appointing Dominic Grieve the Tory leader signalled that there'll be no retreat from the stance that DD has taken on civil liberties.  Mr Grieve's support for the Human Rights Act may mean trouble ahead, however.

(4) What will David Davis do when he returns to Parliament?  Accept a more junior shadow cabinet position?  Unlikely.  He'll probably go to the backbenches and champion certain causes.  David Davis is also a tax cutter.  Will he make the case for small government conservatism when he's back?

(5) How will David Davis keep his campaign in the news?  It's been a massive story today and will lead tomorrow's newspapers.  But, but...  Will the campaign stay in the news if DD doesn't have serious opponents in the by-election?  Will he win his contest but on a low turnout?  Will this story still be alive on Monday?

65% of Tory members "inspired" by David Davis' move

1,291 Tory members have been voting this afternoon in a survey of grassroots reactions to David Davis' decision to resign his seat and fight a by-election in defence of Britain's historic liberties.  Most members are inspired by his move and 70% would like to see him reinstated as Shadow Home Secretary should he win his by-election - as he almost certainly will.  The survey also shows that just 12% of Tory members support a 42 day detention period.  50% actually want 14 days or less.

THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON REACTIONS TO TODAY'S NEWS.  RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

There are better ways of making a protest than this:
Agree: 38%
Disagree: 48%

This is an inspired move that will draw great attention to a vital issue:
Agree: 65%
Disagree: 25%

David Cameron should invite David Davis back as Shadow Home Secretary should he win the by-election.
Agree: 70%
Disagree: 19%

The Conservatives should repeal 42 days pre-charge detention when/ if we come into Government.
Agree: 87%
Disagree: 8%

67% of the public support 42 days and Conservatives need to be careful not to get on the wrong side of that popular opinion.
Agree: 24%
Disagree: 72%

David Davis probably resigned because he did not think David Cameron was tough enough in resisting 42 days and promising to repeal it.
Agree: 26%
Disagree: 49%

WE THEN ASKED ABOUT THE ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THIS ROW:

Which period of pre-charge detention would you like to see in Britain?
14 days or less: 50%
28 days: 38%
42 days: 10%
More than 42 days: 2%.

The survey is still open if you want to vote.

Dominic Grieve: Tories will repeal 42 days

In his first announcement as the new Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve confirmed that the Conservatives will repeal 42 days pre-charge detention if it is passed.

Our congratulations to Dominic Grieve.  He is a true gentleman and has been passed over for too long.

He was Conservative members' top choice for the shadow cabinet in our turn-of-the-year poll.

Special survey...

What do you think of 42 days' pre charge detention? What do you think of David Davis' by-election campaign?

Click here to take part in a special ConservativeHome survey.  We will publish interim results at 6pm.

David Davis to resign to force by-election on 42 days

This is an unconfirmed but well-founded rumour but David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, is to resign his seat to highlight the issue of 42 days.  More as we get it...

1.45pm: We'll now attempt to catch up with this extraordinary story; the ConHome team were having a fish'n'chip lunch when it broke!  Dominic Grieve is the new Shadow Home Secretary.

1.50pm: LibDems won't oppose David Davis.

Mr Davis will stand as an independent a Conservative Party candidate, but without the backing of CCHQ.

Simon Chapman has been blogging about developments at CentreRight: "I cannot see an up-side for the Conservative Party in this. This can only be seen as a challenge to David Cameron. Why has he done this? Why now? Why did his job not give him a sufficient platform to make the case he wanted to? Why has he decided that he needed to resign to campaign on the erosion of civil liberties and on 42 days, when he was the Party's spokesman on those issues? No doubt we will find out more soon, but my current emotion is utter dismay. It suggests that DD believes the Party does not share his commitment - why else resign?"

1.53pm: David Cameron's statement:

“This is a personal decision for David Davis. He is a friend and colleague and I will be happy to campaign for him in his constituency.  I pay tribute to the campaign he has been waging on behalf of the Party on 42 days.  But we cannot put Home Affairs on pause and it is my job to ensure that we have a team that’s ready for Government.  We remain fully committed to our opposition to 42 days and the new Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve will step up our efforts to fight against it in Parliament.”

Dominic Grieve, new Shadow Home Secretary, said: “I fully understand David’s brave stand and I am honoured to take up this appointment. It has been a privilege to work with him in fighting 42 days. I look forward to continuing the Party’s campaign against 42 days pre- charge detention in Parliament, as I have been doing throughout in my role as Shadow Attorney General.”

2.25pm: Download PDF of full statement by David Davis

2.35pm: Taking a second look at the statement it is amazing that The Speaker wouldn't allow DD to make it in the House.  Another bad day for Mr Martin.

2.55pm Nick Robinson: "David Cameron has lost control of his strategy. This was not his decision. He was not asked for his agreement. He was informed late last night by David Davis that he was going to do this come what may. That he was going to resign and trigger this campaign. This is not a campaign that Mr Cameron wants, it is not part of his strategy and indeed, I am told by senior Tories who know Mr Cameron well, that this was David Davis' personal decision and will be his personal campaign."

2.55pm Andy McSmith: "The risk is that his campaign will fade into a monumental irrelevance, and he will be returned on a low turn out as the voters in Haltemprice and Howden wonder why they are being dragged to the polls to no effect."

3pm: Bookmakers William Hill has a surprising perspective on this news. They've lengthened Davis' odds of becoming leader from 4/1 to 14/1, the same level as Grieve, because: "It is difficult to see how David Davis could have done anything other than damage his prospects of becoming his Party's next leader by embarrassing them in this way"

3.10pm: The transcript of Davis' announcement has been posted on CommentIsFree

Cameron webcast and Thatcher drama

David Cameron will be speaking at the second Cameron Direct event in Truro tonight at 6.30pm. The Cameron Direct tour involves Cameron going to a hall somewhere and taking unscripted questions from the local audience for an hour or so. The first one, in Harlow, proved very successful with two hundred people attending - go to WebCameron to see a video of it.

In the biggest step in the party's use of the internet since the launch of Webcameron, from tonight all Cameron Direct events will be broadcast on live the internet. We should even be able to embed the webcast on this site. They're also going to use the CoverItLive liveblog software for viewers to comment in. Comments made in that won't be addressed by Cameron as the focus is on the local residents, but there is a form for you to ask your own questions of him via email.

After that at 9pm BBC Four is broadcasting its drama about the young Margaret Thatcher's pursuit of a parliamentary seat - The Long Road to Finchley. It might give heart to some of those aspiring MPs out there! Here's a clip:

"Is there any policy that would most help you in your fight to win your seat that hasn't yet been introduced?"

We asked the above question to 225 Conservative adopted candidates.  124 have replied to the survey in total and about fifty answered this particular question with direct answers.  We publish their verbatim answers below - categorised by us.  Other results of our survey are being gradually published here.  The graphic on the right puts the answers below in context.  123 candidates (one skipped the question) identified crime, cost of living and the national tax burden as the most important three issues that will decide their bids to become an MP.

Taxation and cost of living
> Tax system to support families with young children, married OR NOT.
> I would like to see us commit to prioritising raising the personal tax allowance when the budget allows for tax cuts - I think this could be our equivalent of council tax sales as it would be of most benefit to the C1/C2 classes who I believe determine elections - our aspiration should be that noone should pay income tax until they earn a living wage.
> Any easy to understand policies which could alleviate the burden of ever rising costs of living.   
> Scrapping tax credits and substantially lifting the basic allowance.
> Big increase in personal allowances.
> Raising the tax threshold year on year to get poorer people out of income tax.
> Clear commitment to reducing the tax burden.
> Bigger personal alllowances that will help the poor, cut fuel duty, cut business taxes.
> Council tax discounts for specified roles in a community that help to build a responsible society.
> Scrap car licences and TV licences.
> A clear commitment to reduce the burden of taxation.
> Taxation of cars to be more responsive to registration address postcodes. A blunt environmental tax on fuel or 4x4s will be deeply unpopular in my rural constituency where appropriate vehicles are needed to avoid crippling isolation. Must be some way of not depressing rural dwellers more. Most of us are not rich county set, ok!
> Something on council tax/local taxation. 
> A promise to cut taxes.
> Clear commitment to lower taxes when the public finances allow.

Law and order

> Build more prisons and keep criminals in them.
> Anything which helps with the problem of yob culture amongst our young people, and gives us more police, with more power. Also any policy which reverses the ridiculous rules on political correctness which seem to dominate all areas of life in Britain today.
> Getting more police hours on the street - sort of announced, but some kind of figure about hours on the street (30% more hours on the street by 3 years for instance). Tougher prison sentences for serious and violent crimes, no early release with more prisons.
> A firm policy on how to tackle the ever increasing drug problem.
> Introduce 6 month boot camps for youngsters who commit a second ASB offence; widely available and utilised abstinence based drug rehabilitation.
> Discretion returned to officers involved in community policing. In rural towns, it is still just about possible for police to have a relationship with the community they serve. Tick box procedures are wrecking that.
> Mandatory jail sentences for carrying knives/guns/drugs.
> Revoking the Human rights charter that was introduced by New Labour.

An apology

Today hasn't been easy.  To be quoted at PMQs by Gordon Brown and to have so many readers unhappy at what we wrote has produced gloom at ConservativeHome Towers.  We can't apologise for what we wrote.  We stand by our editorial which was clearly marked as a controversial view and as our own.  But we may well have been wrong to publish it today and have communicated our regret to David Cameron's office.  Mr Brown might have still referred to our editorial if we'd published it three, seven or fourteen days ago but we concede that there was a particular danger in us doing so today.  We have held back in the past, see here and here for example.  Although we don't think we had any material affect on the course of events we are sorry we didn't hold back today.  This is our second serious apology in three years of blogging and five thousand plus posts. 

Two other quick observations:

• Over at CentreRight we have created room for a number of anti-42 days pieces and have promoted them on the front page.  We want this site to be home for different opinions and if you read our comment threads you'll know that you are more than ready to help us succeed in that.
• What we won't promise is to avoid difficult topics or hold back in expressing our views.  The site wouldn't be worth having if it became conservatives.com II.  If we think Caroline Spelman is being treated unfairly - as we did at the weekend - we'll say so.  We'll congratulate David Cameron for taking on tough line on MEP sleaze but we'll also give prominence to MPs like Andrew Tyrie when they speak against the party line on an issue, like climate change, where we think the leadership isn't necessarily right. 

Final thought: 42 days may have passed the Commons tonight (on the back of a £200m bribe of the DUP) but it's unlikely to get through the Lords.  The civil libertarians who clearly dominate the readership of this blog can take comfort from that!  Unfortunately, however, the Lords haven't done us proud on Lisbon tonight.

The political civil servants problem

The radical political backgrounds of Ken Livingstone's inner circle, as documented by Martin Bright's Dispatches programme, was a rarely told story. The story's not over just yet though. Today's Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard (not online) asks:

"how long will [Boris] put up with Ken Livingstone's key far-Left advisors who are still ensconced at City Hall pursuing their own agendas on their council taxpayer-funded salaries?"

It notes that Jude Woodward, a member of the Trotskyist group Socialist Action, is still responsible for "the Mayor's programme of major events promoting the culture, diversity and creativity of the city", and is currently helping set up the mayoral offices in Beijing and Shanghai.

The Diary also points out that Bob Pitt, a former stalwart of the Workers Revolutionary Party who runs a website called Islamaphobia Watch ("combating the racist ideology of Western Imperialism"), still works there.

Firing is harder than hiring, so Boris' handful of political staffers still tend to whisper when walking around City Hall. Ken Livingstone has reportedly told his loyal followers to "hang in there" pending his glorious return. Boris' task of moving on some of the more off-piste staff members in City Hall is just a taster of the challenge that will face an incoming Conservative Government as it deals with politically hostile appointees at every level of government. Ironically, it may need to rely on more political appointees of its own to push reforms through Whitehall.

p.s. Last week we noted how the Chairman of TravelWatch was sacked for endorsing the Conservatives, and Labour then trying to replace him with a Labour councillor. If you are interested in London transport issues do consider applying for the TravelWatch Board.

PMQs: 42 days dominates

2pm: Watch the Brown V Cameron exchanges on 42 days

EDITORIAL COMMENT: "A very high quality PMQs with both Brown and Cameron performing well.  We would obviously preferred not to have been quoted by the PM in the same way we wish we weren't at odds with our party on this issue but our earlier editorial was carefully worded, not least in saying our view was a very controversial view within the party."

12.27pm: Michael Howard asks about the prejudicing of any trial of a terrorist suspect if, as under the draft legislation, Parliament discusses his/ her case.

12.20pm: Nick Clegg also asks about 42 days.  The PM quotes back another survey which suggests there is popular support for 42 days and understanding that terrorist cases are increasingly complex and time consuming.

12.16pm: Gordon Brown quotes a host of sources in support of 42 days including this website.  David Cameron responds by saying that he'll always do the right thing, not just because something is popular.

12.12pm: David Cameron says we shouldn't trash our liberties in trying to defend ourselves from terrorism.  The PM responds by saying that the Chief of Police in Northern Ireland doesn't need lectures from David Cameron in how to fight terrorism.  David Cameron responds by saying that the first MP he worked for was killed by terrorism and he will never be weak in the fight against terrorism.

12.10pm: David Cameron asks about 42 days and the DPP's concerns.  Brown responds by pointing to support from the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Lord Stevens and the head of policing in Northern Ireland.

12.09pm: David Cameron states that Afghanistan should be Britain's number one foreign and security policy.

12.05pm: David Cameron invites the PM to make a candid statement about the situation in Afghanistan.  The PM replies that the number of children in education has trebled in the country and that it is vital that we stop the Taliban from retaking control.  He also says - in response to another question from David Cameron - that he is happy to give regular progress reports to Parliament.   He denies David Cameron's suggestion that things are going backwards and insists there is progress overall.   

Noon: The Prime Minister says that he'll leave the schoolboy politics to Greg Hands after the Tory MP for Hammersmith & Fulham asks the PM about a statement on the Downing Street website about Brown being popular at school and now being the most unpopular PM in history.

Our case for 42 days

We know this isn't going to be popular among a great many ConservativeHome readers and 92% of adopted Tory candidates but we ought to publicly nail our colours to the mast and stand up with Ann Widdecombe, Norman Tebbit, Matthew d'Ancona, Melanie Phillips and Frank Field as supporters of the Government's attempts to introduce a period of 42 days' pre-charge detention.

This debate is often portrayed as a great clash between those who care about civil liberties and those who don't.  Between those who are too worried about the threat of terrorism and those who are blind to the dangers we face from extremists.  This isn't helpful.  Is there really a substantial, principled difference between the Conservative leadership's support for the existing 28 day detention period and the Labour leadership's preference for 42 days?  David Cameron has always been careful to appear pragmatic on the issue - repeatedly saying that he and the Tory frontbench were open to persuasion that more than 28 days might be necessary.  He hasn't been persuaded but he has never ruled out a longer period of detention on the grounds of high principle.

Experts are divided on the issue but we have heard enough in recent days to tip us into the camp supporting the Government's plans.

Crucial to our conclusion was last week's article in The Telegraph by Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Unit.  He argued that the complexity of the terrorist networks we currently face - using hi tech methods and operating across borders - may mean that more than 28 days of investigations might soon be necessary.  Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Met Chief, who advises David Cameron on security issues, has told this morning's Times that "anti-terrorist police have come close in the cases of six suspects to needing more than 28 days to detain them".  A mature political party, interested in public safety, shouldn't lightly dismiss the arguments of such a senior anti-terrorist specialist and a senior police chief.

Most Britons still want a referendum on Lisbon... but only 40% would definitely vote "no"

ConservativeHome has had an exclusive preview of a ComRes poll for today's Daily Politics programme.  From noon today Andrew Neil & Co will be in Ireland for a special Europe-focused edition of the programme.  Polls show that the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty could go either way.  "No" campaigners believe that the recent stories about MEP sleaze that have played heavily in Ireland's media could  help them win.  They are also using posters of Peter Mandelson to make the case for rejecting Lisbon!

The ComRes survey of 1,010 UK voters finds that 64% of UK voters believe that the UK should hold a referendum and 26% think Parliament should decide.

33% say that they would vote to accept the Treaty if given the opportunity.  40% say that they would reject it.   27% don't know.

Interestingly twice as many women 'don't know' as men; 36% to 18%.

45% of 18 to 24 year olds would vote for Lisbon, compared to just 30% of those 65 years or over.

People in Wales & the South West (50%) are most likely to reject Lisbon.

Related video: Stuart Wheeler explains why he is going to the Courts to force Labour to honour its manifesto promise on a EU referendum

Noon: Stuart Wheeler has written for Coffee House about his campaign.

Populus put Conservatives 20% ahead

The Times has just released its Populus poll, which was conducted over the weekend:

• Conservatives 45%
• Labour 25%
• LibDems 20%

Peter Riddell commented:

"Public support for Labour and Gordon Brown continues to plunge to new lows with the Prime Minister's leadership rating falling to a level even below that suffered by Iain Duncan Smith according to a new poll for The Times.

Labour’s rating has dropped by 4 points since early May to 25 per cent, with the Conservatives up 5 points to 45 per cent. This is by far the worst Labour position since 1997 and the best Tory one. The Liberal Democrats are up one point at 20 per cent, according to the Populus poll."

10.15pm: The graphic!

Has Ruth Kelly just handed the Conservatives a winning issue in Greater Manchester?

BBC is reporting that Ruth Kelly has told the Commons that she backs congestion charging for Greater Manchester.  There will be a charge of up to £5 from 2013 combined with £2.8bn to create a "world-class public transport system".

Theresa Villiers, Shadow Transport Secretary, has wasted no time in seeing the political danger for Labour and the political opportunity for the Conservatives:

"Ruth Kelly is so desperate to push Greater Manchester into being a guinea pig for national road pricing that she is willing to stake her own parliamentary seat on it. At a time when fuel prices are at record high, and the Government is punishing drivers with sky high VED increases, Mrs Kelly is now going to hit low income earners in Greater Manchester with a 8 per cent tax on getting into work. Bullying Manchester into congestion charging is a high risk strategy for Ruth Kelly and she may find her Bolton West voters punish her at the general election for the plans she is announcing today. She needs to decide if she is going to stand up for her constituents or for her failing Government’s road pricing agenda."

Altrincham and Sale West MP Graham Brady attacked the whole scheme as "absurdly complex".  There will be two charging boundaries, rather than London's one.  Cars will be charged every time that they cross the boundary.  And rather than copying London's simple discount for residents there may be a means-tested discount for low income people.

Other 'local' issues playing to Labour's disadvantage: Post office closures, Polyclinics, A&E wards, Heathrow expansion, Ecotowns.

Technical update

TypePad - the hosts of this blog - are working on the problem with the loading of pages that we first discussed on Thursday.  The problem isn't constant but deteriorated again badly over lunchtime.  Apologies for this.  We are planning to move the blog from TypePad to MoveableType soon and hope that this will lead to a better service all round.

4.15pm: We think the problem is resolved.  The Latest News & Blogs list had more than 3,000 entries (most of them invisible) and this was causing the problems.  Let us know if you are still struggling to load the frontpage and we'll go back to the drawing board.

Encouraging healthy relationships is a government priority

Further to our earlier post, David Cameron fleshed out his approach to supporting marriage in his speech to the Relate Institute a couple of hours ago.

He started off by criticising those politicians who avoided talking about relationships, saying that not tackling the issue of relationships undermines the 'grittier' issues that they focused on instead like education, healthcare and tax cuts. "Politics is behind the public on this" he said, noting the popularity of the TV programme Supernanny, Britain's 700 agony aunt columns, and MumsNet.com. "Politicians have feared looking old fashioned, but where has it got us? UNICEF said we are the world's worst place in the developed world for children to grow up in". Here are the other key points to draw from the speech:

Just like life, it's not all about money - One role of the speech was to meet head-on the critics who think that the Conservatives think that promoting the family - "the best institution in the country" - is all about money, with regard to the promised tax break: "I don't want anyone to think I have a mechanistic view of these things, it's as much about the message than the money". You can have "all the tax breaks and flexible working in the world, but if the warmth of a family is eroding away it will mean very little". He went on to recognise that this whole area is not very comfortable territory for politicians, as our previous post covered.

MEP sleaze could be the making of David Cameron

Last week we reported that David Cameron was prepared to give the 'Conway treatment' to Tory MEPs who fell short on ethics.

Sky's Joey Jones is reporting that Mr Cameron is setting a reasonableness test for parliamentarians' conduct:

"We have got to recognise as MPs it is not enough just to meet the letter of the rules. We have to be happy that everything we put in place for funding our offices is something that reasonable and practical people would look at and say 'That's OK.'"

Guido blogs that Andy Coulson, head of Tory communications, wants a bloodbath amongst our MEPs.

If David Cameron does take this sort of decisive action he can emerge from this with his reputation as a strong leader considerably enhanced.

Noon PS: The MEP selection process was "managed" by CCHQ in order to avoid the grassroots deselecting Europhile MEPs and them then defecting to the LibDems etc for the remainder of the Parliament.  Given the considerable overlap between Europhiles and episodes of sleaze David Cameron may be able to deliver a double whammy of cleansing.

Investment in relationship education set to be new weapon in Cameron's battle against family breakdown

Last week support for David Cameron's pro-family agenda came from an unlikely source; The Guardian's Michael White.  The Conservative leader develops his agenda today in a major speech to the annual conference of Relate, the relationship guidance charity.

Here is a key section of Mr Cameron's speech, as reported in the Daily Mail:

"The number one challenge in this country today is to strengthen our society. There is no more important way of doing that than strengthening families, and there's nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships. This isn't comfortable territory for politicians. Our relationships break down and fail just like other people's, arguably more so. This goes to the heart of people's personal lives  -  and some might say the best thing politicians can do is keep their noses out. But I think that's a bit of a cop-out. Politicians are the ones who take taxpayers' money and write billions of pounds worth of cheques to deal with the costs of family breakdown. So I think politicians have a responsibility to do what we can to bring these costs down."

Mr Cameron will note that Relate's annual budget is only £24m but that the costs associated with family and other forms of breakdown are estimated at £20bn pa.  He will call for more investment in early relationship support rather than waiting until relationships are already in crisis.  He will also say that sex education in schools should also include relationship education.

Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Policy Group noted that relationship education has been proven to reduce divorce and break-ups among couples. The SJPG proposed a nationwide programme of relationship education, offering opt-in support to couples and parents at all key life stages.

The Conservative Party has already promised to introduce recognition of marriage in the tax system (paid for by higher green taxes); the elimination of the 'couple penalty' in the benefits system (paid for by welfare reform); and, as set out by Maria Miller MP, more flexible parental leave arrangements and a universal health visitor service.

The Daily Mail's leader writers welcome today's speech as Mr Cameron "taking another vital step on the road to power."  Gordon Brown's recent votes on fatherhood and abortion have caused a perhaps decisive souring in Mail Editor Paul Dacre's relationship with him.

Do the Tories want to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe?

Many Eurosceptics are unhappy at last week's apparent admission by David Cameron that a retrospective vote on Lisbon would be unlikely once it has been ratified by all EU states.  We must all hope that the Irish vote 'no' in their referendum (polls say the outcome is close) or, less likely, Stuart Wheeler succeeds in his valiant legal attempt to force Labour to honour its manifesto commitment.

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Norman Blackwell of Global Vision acknowledges that once Lisbon has been ratified it will be near impossible to hold a retrospective referendum.  Furthermore, as Andrew Lilico has written, our problem with the EU-UK settlement goes wider than what Lisbon will produce.  A wider renegotiation is desirable and Lord Blackwell sets out some ideal objectives for an incoming Conservative Government:

• Remaining in the EU: "Clearly, the starting point should be that we want to stay part of the European family, building on free-trade relationships, joining in common programmes in areas such as security and the environment, and helping to foster peace and democracy across the continent."
• Undoing Lisbon: "We should seek to remove the UK from the provisions of Lisbon that compromise our independence in foreign policy, defence and justice. Any common policy in these areas should remain truly intergovernmental."
• Repatriation of control of fishing, agriculture and the powers surrendered to the Social Chapter.