ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

David Cameron should clear his diary and propose a new system for MPs' pay and expenses

Most of our MPs are decent, public-spirited citizens but that is not how many millions of Britons now see them.  The collapse in their standing could not have happened at a worse time.  Over the next few years the House of Commons will have to make some very tough decisions on tax and spend but it has rarely been so lacking in moral authority.  A Populus poll for today's Times finds that more than two-thirds of voters think that all or a majority of MPs abuse their expenses.  Today's Express leads on the fact that taxpayers subsidise MPs' cups of tea.  Guido is blogging that he is "digging into a whole new seam of scams that have come to his notice."  The anti-politician narrative is relentless.

Someone needs to get a grip of this.  David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown at last week's PMQs to meet him and Nick Clegg as a matter of urgency and fix the problem on a cross-party basis.  Brown was too busy with his G20 summitry to respond properly.  At the weekend David Cameron took one specific issue into his own hands and pledged that no Conservative minister with a grace-and-favour residence would claim expenses for a second home. Good stuff and not the first time that the Conservative leader has led on this issue of standards in public life but enough? No.

David Cameron is quite rightly taking a few days off this week.  While he is away his aides should be preparing a series of proposals for root-and-branch reform of MPs' pay and expenses.  The aim should be to devise a system which sees MPs paid fairly and transparently and under which the total bill for the taxpayer is smaller than under the present system.  Proposing such a system should now be Mr Cameron's number one priority.  He should clear his diary so that he can scrutinise his aides' proposals and consult senior colleagues.  He can promise to enact the new regime as soon as he becomes Prime Minister.  Only with MPs' moral authority restored can they get on with the much more important work of saving Britain from fiscal crisis.

Tim Montgomerie

How much should George Osborne reveal on tax and spending plans?

All the details are on today's ConservativeHome frontpage but there is some confusion about yesterday's seemingly get-tough message from George Osborne on public sector pay.  The FT leads its morning edition with the story - headlining 'Tories take risk over pay and pensions' - but The Times says that advisers to Mr Osborne "backtracked" from the idea of a confrontation with the unions.  The Daily Mail, in a leader praising Vince Cable, accuses the Shadow Chancellor of "muttering" about public spending control but lacking a clear plan.

It's the biggest question facing the Tories this side of the election: How much should be said about post-election plans on tax and spending?  We asked Tory members for advice for the party leadership.  On a forced question we asked members to choose between three options:

1. Maximum openness: "Closer to the election the Conservative Party should give voters a very honest and open indication of the changes to tax and spending that will be necessary to restore order to the public finances."
2. Medium openness: "The Conservatives should avoid specifics but lay out the general principles for recovery in the public finances, saying that spending will be brought under control and taxes increased if necessary."
3. Minimum openness: "The Conservative Party should say that the economic situation is grim and we cannot write a budget until we have seen the books."

The results confirm that it's not an easy choice...!

Tim Montgomerie

The three candidates for chairman of the National Conservative Convention agree that the grassroots must have more opportunities to participate at Party Conference

The three candidates standing to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention answered a first tranche of questions yesterday on candidate selection issues. Here they reply to the questions ConservativeHome readers put to them about the role of members in the party conference and policy formation, and party democracy in general. A final tranche will follow later today is to be found here.

There appears to be a consensus among all three candidates that the grassroots have been sidelined at party conferences. Simon Mort expresses regret at the "increasing marginalisation" of the voluntary party and Sir Graham Bright says he was disappointed at the lack of opportunity for activists to participate in debates and questioning at the most recent conference; Jeremy Middleton also wants more of a platform for volunteers and more spontaneity - but adds that the conference will inevitably remain "carefully managed".

All three candidates are also receptive to a revival of the old CPC format in some form or other as a way of engaging the voluntary party in policy formation and they offer a variety of answers to the question about how to make the party more democratic.

Gordon Brown's G20 mini-bounce lasted 48 hours: Populus poll shows Tory lead increasing to 13%

Tim's prediction that Gordon Brown's G20 bounce would be short and small would appear to have been conclusively proven. After the YouGov poll at the weekend showed a narrowing in the Tory lead to 7%, there is a new Populus poll in tomorrow's Times, which shows Labour flatlining on 30% and a slight increase in the Conservative lead to 13%. The parties stand on the following figures:

Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,512 adults between Friday and Monday.

Comparisons are with last month's Populus poll for the Times, which gave the Conservatives a 12% lead.

But there is bad new for all politicians as the poll investigated the public's feelings about the current media storm about MPs' pay and expenses:

"More than two-thirds of voters think that all or a majority of MPs abuse their expenses and allowances. Some 27 per cent say all or nearly MPs and 42 per cent think that a majority of MPs, abuse the system."

There is full analysis from The Times's Peter Riddell here.

Thatcher offered a Right-to-Buy; Cameron will add a Right-to-Move

Tomorrow at 11am Grant Shapps MP, Shadow Housing Minister, will launch Stage II of his approach to housing.  Stage I included incentives for local communities to accept new housing.  Stage III will look at urban regeneration.

We'll have more in the morning on Stage II but BBC1's Six'o'clock News has just lifted the veil on plans to introduce a new Right-to-Move.  The Centre for Social Justice has already highlighted the extreme problems of some social housing 'ghettoes' and some CSJ ideas - such as equity rewards for good tenants - have found their way into tomorrow's announcement.  The work of previous Housing spokesmen, Michael Gove and John Hayes, is also coming to fruition in what has been titled 'Extending Opportuinities'.

The key proposals from Grant Shapps are:

• The piloting of a ‘Right to Move’ by half-a-dozen local authorities where good social tenants can demand that their social landlord sell their current property and use the proceeds, minus transaction costs, to buy another property of their choice – anywhere in England.  The new home will remain a state-owned property but will aid mobility.  The innovative Hammersmith & Fulham council have already expressed an interest in being part of the pilot.
• Harnessing the power of the internet there will be the reintroduction of a comprehensive national mobility scheme for tenants who wish to move but to stay in the social sector - matching people who want to move beyond local authority boundaries.
• Protection of Right to Buy discounts for tenants moving within the social sector.

Tim Montgomerie

8.30pm: It has just been drawn to my attention that The Right to Move was a Policy Exchange idea.  More here.

MPs' moral authority to preside over public spending cuts

The above has been a preoccupation of mine for a couple of weeks now.  I suggested that a temporary 5% cut in MPs' pay and a temporary 10% cut in ministers' pay would help give the House of Commons the moral authority to preside over the public spending cuts that 94% of Tory members think are necessary.  Unfortunately only 40% of Tory members support a 5% cut in MPs' pay during a period of public sector austerity.  Hmmm.  Over at his indispensable blog, John Redwood may have come up with a better idea.  He writes:

"The government should require all MPs to cut their total expenses by 10% in 2009-10. It would not be that difficult, especially for those of my colleagues spending over the average. Indeed, why not ask the big spenders to cut by more? Then, armed with the modest moral authority that would bring, the government should demand a 10% cut in all the other administrative overheads of the public sector."

It's not a full solution to the problem of allowances (Tory MP James Clappison is now under fire) but it's a good component of the coming squeeze on state spending and for that reason I second the Rt Hon gentleman for Wokingham.

Tim Montgomerie

Tory members want George Osborne to focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes

The thin strip of clear blue water between the Government and Opposition's positions on public spending is steadily widening.  On this morning's Today programme, George Osborne's statement that "the age of excess" in public sector pay is over is another step towards the kind of hawkishness that will be necessary to clean up the Brown-Darling mess.

The latest ConHome survey of Tory members shows that a whopping 94% believe that "significant cuts in public spending are going to be necessary to restore order to the public finances."  86% agree with the ConHome line that "tax rises should only be considered after the possibilities for reductions in state spending have been exhausted."

The membership is split on the suggestion that "significant tax rises will be necessary to restore order to the public finances."  40% agree and 41% disagree.

Members are very suspicious about the 45p tax band.  82% agree that "the Government's increase in the top rate of tax to 45p will raise little or no money."  Only 36% agree that "Conservatives must support the 45p tax rate in order to avoid Labour's 'you-are-the-party-of-the-rich' attack."

There is no enthusiasm for delaying on inheritance tax.  More than three-quarters (77%) say that "the Conservatives' inheritance tax policy should remain a priority."  16% disagree.

Supply-siders will also be pleased with the fact that 74% believe that "some taxes should be cut in order to boost the economy."

Tim Montgomerie

Is the Candidates' List too long? Should the Priority List be scrapped? How should we select MEP candidates? The three men bidding to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention offer their views

Having already introduced the three candidates standing to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention, below is the first of three tranches of answers to the questions ConservativeHome readers wanted to put to them. The other tranches are to be found here and here.

One issue that has regularly provoked considerable debate within the party is that of the selection of candidates for Westminster and the European Parliament.

Asked whether they had supported the mechanism used to select MEP candidates for June's elections, only one - Jeremy Middleton - said outright that he had opposed it. All candidates agree, however, that the process needs to be reviewed before the next European election.

On the topic of Westminster selections, all three candidates raise a variety of issues: Simon Mort believes that the Candidates' Department has lost the confidence of the voluntary party and that the candidates' list is "absurdly too big" - as well as asserting that sitting MPs should have to "justify their continuance more formally"; Jeremy Middleton calls for the Priority List to be scrapped and for more flexibility to allow local candidates to stand who are not on the candidates' list; and Sir Graham Bright calls for local members to be involved earlier in the selection process, whilst questioning the success of the Primary system.

Here are their answers to our questions in full:  

Conservatives demand that innocent people's DNA must not be stored by the state

Some in the party - especially members of the David Davis and Dominic Grieve fan clubs - have privately expressed concerns about whether the recently-appointed shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, shares his predecessors' commitment to civil liberties.

He may be putting a different emphasis on the home office brief, but today Mr Grayling will please the civil libertarians in the party by championing the plight of the millions of inncoent people whose DNA is being stored by the Government.

He is demanding an immediate end to the practice and accuses the Government of breaking a European Court ruling by storing the samples as it currently does, a huge number of which are from innocent people - including tens of thousands of children - tested purely in order to eliminate them from criminal inquiries.

Mr Grayling says:

“People know that I believe we should be tough on crime. DNA data plays an important part in many modern criminal investigations. So it should be taken and used where needed.

"But I also believe in the fundamental principles of our nation – and one of the most important of those is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So if the system judges someone innocent, or if they are only peripherally involved in a case, there is no excuse for storing their DNA indefinitely.

"This practice has now clearly been ruled illegal by the courts. It is morally wrong as well. Yet Ministers are dithering about what to do. It’s very simple. They should stop breaking the law, and remove this data right now.”

The Conservative Party is announcing proposals to build on the existing system in place in Scotland, which would only allow Ministers to order DNA from innocent people to be retained in cases involving some sexual and violent offences – and only then for up to five years (rather than indefinitely).

Incidentally, this is also a theme which Hammersmith and Fulham MP Greg Hands took up in this CentreRight post last summer: his DNA has remained on the national database after he was interviewed in the wake of his uncle's murder.

Jonathan Isaby

Introducing the candidates for the chairmanship of the National Conservative Convention

Nominations close today in the election for chairman of the National Conservative Convention, the person who is the most senior volunteer in the Conservative Party, with a seat on the Party Board - a body of which that person is also deputy chairman.

Three candidates are being nominated to succeed Don Porter in that role:

• Sir Graham Bright
• Jeremy Middleton
• Simon Mort

The 850 or so members of the Convention will on Wednesday be posted ballot papers which they can either fill in and post or retain until the hustings at the Spring Forum in Cheltenham, after which the count will take place.

Several people have asked in comments who these 850 people are. They are as follows:

• The Chairman of each Constituency Association within England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (or a Deputy);

• The representatives elected by party members to serve on the Board of the Party, the Scottish Executive of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Board of the Welsh Conservative Party; 

• Members of the Area Management Executives;

• Regional and Deputy Regional Chairmen;

• 42 CF Representatives and 42 Representatives of the Conservative Womens’ Organisation;

• The 3 past Presidents of the Convention;

• The 2 immediate past Chairmen of the Convention;

• The immediate past Area Chairmen for one year only;

• The immediate past Regional Chairmen for one year only.

ConservativeHome invited each of the candidates to provide a brief biography, contact details and complete in 150 words or less the phrase "I want to be chairman of the National Conservative Convention because..." and we publish their responses here.

We also posed ten questions based on the responses received to our invitation for questions last week. The candidates' answer to the first question, asking why they are best suited to be the voice of the grassroots, is below and the remaining answers will be published in several tranches today and tomorrow. The first tranche is here, the second is here and the third is here.

Can we end the human rights nonsenses while Britain is still a member of the ECHR?

The above question seems to me to be a very important one.  It's one I can't answer and that James Forsyth explores over at Coffee House.

Our Justice spokesman Dominic Grieve appears to argue that the answer is 'yes'.  His hand has been reinforced by the move of Nick Herbert (who, I understand, leaned towards 'no') to a different portfolio and Ken Clarke's elevation to the shadow cabinet.

James is in the 'no' camp (and there are a number of other senior people in Team Cameron who are also worried): "If Cameron wants to actually deal with the problems created by the overreach of the European Court of Human Rights then he will have to get himself a new shadow Justice Secretary."

Someone needs to give us a clear answer?  One of the Dominics - Grieve or Raab? - there's a Platform waiting for your answer...

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron pledges that no Conservative minister with a grace-and-favour residence would claim expenses for a second home

Another Sunday and another set of papers full of stories about MPs' allowances and expenses, on the back of last week's revelations about Jacqui Smith's husband's taste in films and the publication this week of MPs' allowance claims for 2007-2008.

David Cameron raised the subject at PMQs on Wednesday when he demanded an urgent meeting of the party leaders so thrash out ideas for reform and he tries to further seize the initiative on the issue with an article in today's Mail on Sunday.

His headline promise it that he would not allow ministers to claim the second home allowance if they already have a second home provided by the State (as many Labour ministers have been doing, and doubtless Tory ministers in previous Governments too):

"If elected, I will make sure no Conservative Minister with a grace-and-favour residence in London would be allowed to make a claim for a second home - and that would, of course, include me."

He floats two ways in which more general abuse of the second home allowance could be stopped:

"We could radically tighten the existing allowance, with a proper declaration from MPs about where they live and why they need this allowance and clear restrictions on what can and cannot be spent, ending the idea that these allowances can be used for an endless stream of plasma televisions.

"Alternatively, we could replace it with a sum of money that would cost less than the current system. The Prime Minister's suggestion of an allowance for every day an MP attends Parliament is one variant of this. I am sceptical about a solution which pays MPs to turn up to do their job. But whatever the solution, it just needs resolving."

Small G20 "Brown Bounce" reduces Tory lead to 7% in new YouGov poll

There is a new YouGov survey in tomorrow's Sunday Times, which puts the parties on the following standings:

Comparisons are with the most recent YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph published eight days ago.

You can view the full details on an Excel spreadsheet here.

Tim predicted a small, immediate bounce for Brown here yesterday - but also predicted that it won't last.

Jonathan Isaby

Tory members reject the idea of a temporary cut in MPs' pay

A little while ago I recommended a 5% temporary cut in MPs' pay as a sign of moral leadership from Parliament during a time when the public sector would need to be slimmed down.

I put the idea to the grassroots in the end-March survey of the Tory grassroots but I got something of a raspberry returned to me.  Only 40% supported the measure.  Only slightly more - 41% - supported my idea of a 10% cut in ministers' pay during the same period of austerity.

Only 19% supported a "ban on Tory frontbenchers pursuing outside paid interests while in opposition" and 42% supported a "one-third reduction in MPs' own pension benefits"; something proposed by Mark Field.

More popular was a "reduction in the number of MPs to 500 from the current 650".  58% supported that reduction in the number of elected politicians.

Where there was overwhelming support was for a "root-and-branch reform of the allowances received by MPs".  A whopping 96% supported that.

Earlier this week David Cameron urged the Prime Minister to take action on MPs' allowances NOW and not put the issue to another review.  During a Five Live phone-in, the Tory leader also appeared sympathetic to the idea of MPs being fined if they misused allowances.  Over at CentreRight today, Jonathan Isaby highlights an idea from Tory councillor Ian McCord.

Tim Montgomerie

A £50,000 cap on donations would kill the Conservative Party

It was in March 2006 that David Cameron announced that the Conservative Party would seek to introduce a legal £50,000 cap on donations to political by individuals, trade unions, corporations and institutions.

That pledge was made in healthier economic times, and when donating money to political parties was - in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical and cynical public - marginally less tainted an act than it is today.

Yet three years later, the stark fact is that if such a curb on donations were in force, the Conservative Party would not have enough cash to function as an entity.

Comment overwritten

Trolling and feeding of trolls has become a bigger problem in recent weeks.

Jonathan and I are going to take a tougher line.  Non-Tory voices are welcome on this site but only if contributions are constructive and thoughtful.  I've been too tolerant of comments that are negative without purpose.

I've overwritten four troll-like comments this morning and will be much more active in cleaning up threads from now on.  I've also attempted to ban two people including 'Tommy'.

And I say to all those who respond to the likes of Jack Stone and Gezmond007 - please ignore them if their comments are puerile.  They thrive on attention.

We keep a close eye on comments but can't watch 24/7 so if you see a thread deteriorating badly please email me and Jonathan.

Thanks.

Tim Montgomerie

Pickles and Clarke marked down by Tory members

Pasted below are the shadow cabinet ratings for March 2009.  A few observations:

• Michael Gove is now number two in the league table; his highest placing.
• Eric Pickles has taken a hit for his Question Time performance.
• Ken Clarke has taken a smaller hit for his loose remarks on IHT.
• George Osborne continues his climb back after Yachtgate.
• Caroline Spelman moves up sharply following her close-to-clean-bill-of-health on nannygate.
• Caroline's place at the bottom of the league table is taken by Sayeeda Warsi.
  

FULL SHADOW CABINET RATINGS
Satisfied minus dissatisfied for September, November and December 2008 + February and March 2009 (latest numbers on right):

1. William Hague +82% | +85% | +73% | +72% | +76%
2. Michael Gove +60% | +62% | +67% | +66% | +70%
3. Chris Grayling +69% | +70% | +74% | +71% | +69%
   
4. Dominic Grieve +51% | +63% | +69% | +63% | +65%
   
5. Liam Fox +52% | +46% | +44% | +48% | +54%
6. Lord Strathclyde +50% | +52% | +55% | +52% | +54%
   
7. Alan Duncan +55% | +55% | +57% | +49% | +50%
8. Eric Pickles +75% | +71% | +75% | +70% | +50%
9. Philip Hammond +45% | +46% | +43% | +45% | +49%
   
10. Pauline Neville-Jones +43% | +44% | +43% | +44% | +47%
    
11. Andrew Lansley +45% | +43% | +42% | +39% | +44%
12. Ken Clarke N/A | N/A | N/A | +57% | +43%
13. George Osborne +70% | +2% | +30% | +34% | +43%
    
14. Jeremy Hunt +33% | +39% | +36% | +33% | +37%
15. Grant Shapps N/A | N/A | N/A | +25% | +36%
16. Nick Herbert +44% | +45% | +42% | +32% | +33%
17. Patrick McLoughlin +33% | +26% | +28% | +26% | +30%
18. David Willetts +21% | +27% | +28% | +20% | +30%
19. Owen Paterson +23% | +24% | +29% | +24% | +28%
20. Greg Clark N/A | +23% | +15% | +18% | +24%
21. Mark Francois N/A | N/A | N/A | +8% | +21%
22. Oliver Letwin +26% | +27% | +20% | +18% | +20%
    
23. Andrew Mitchell +19% | +18% | +15% | +16% | +20%
24. Theresa Villers +4% | +19% | +17% | +19% | +20%
25. Cheryl Gillan +10% | +12% | +8% | +7% | +14%
    
26. Caroline Spelman -8% | -5% | -10% | -1% | +13%
27. Theresa May +5% | +3% | +7% | +2% | +12%
28. Francis Maude +17% | +11% | +10% | +6% | +11%
29. David Mundell +2% | +3% | +4% | +0% | +7%
30. Sayeeda Warsi +11% | +16% | +10% | +8% | +6%

1,482 members voted from 30th March to 1st April.

Brown's third bounce will be smaller and shorter than the first two

Listening to this morning's Today programme you might think that Gordon Brown had saved the world.  It's true that the G20 summit went better than many pundits had expected and it would be churlish to say that Brown didn't perform well.  The summit went well as an event and Brown was a beneficiary of the glow that still surrounds America's very popular new President.  I suspect that the Prime Minister will get an immediate boost in the opinion polls.  We'll know within days because there will be a YouGov survey for Sunday and a Populus poll in next week's Times.

But Peter Riddell is surely right to say that the G20 will not have a lasting effect. "There is no evidence that past summits have made any real difference domestically," he writes in this morning's Times.  There will be much more voter interest in Alistair Darling's budget - now just three weeks away.

ConservativeHome's Parliament page records George Osborne's reaction to the G20 communiqué.  The Shadow Chancellor welcomed the summit's progress on expanding the IMF facility, increasing trade finance and on regulation.  He noted, however, that Brown had failed to get an agreement on fiscal stimuli - once his biggest hope for the summit.  Mr Osborne also warned that the summit would appear remote to most British families:

"The question that the British people will ask tonight is what it all means for them, once the world leaders have left. There is still the small business that cannot get credit. There is still the mother working in the high street shop who fears for her job. There is still the family who fear for their home. The G20 will seem very remote for them. No $1 trillion boost for the IMF and trade finance will help us to deal with a £1 trillion national debt, which we are leaving to our children, thanks to this Government. The truth is that Britain will be clearing up the economic mess created by this Government long after the G20 show leaves town."

Tim Montgomerie

Dan Hannan to address Spring Forum

Eric Pickles has responded to ConHome's letter suggesting Dan Hannan address Tory Conference in the autumn.  We shouldn't wait until then but strike while the iron is hot, he told me.

'Dan Two Million Views Hannan' will give a keynote speech at the party's Spring Conference in Cheltenham, later this month.  An extra incentive to apply for a pass if you haven't already.

Thank you Eric for being a listening Chairman.

Tim Montgomerie

The era of increased state spending is over

The era began under the Major years when the Tories allowed both taxes and spending to rise.  Spending growth accelerated under Gordon Brown.  The idea that unreformed public services can be improved simply by hosing them with increased public spending has been tested to destruction.  According to a new PoliticsHome/ Spectator poll, 72% of Britons are ready for reductions or a freeze in public spending (click on chart to enlarge).

The public now know that extra spending is not the answer to the nation's problems.  As Fraser Nelson writes: "If spending can be more than doubled with little or not effect on services (some, like education, have grown worse) why should [the public] believe that cuts should be so damaging?"

And let's be clear: The public has come to this conclusion without any leadership from the nation's politicians.  Daily experience of bad services and stealth taxes has provided voters with more than enough instruction.  All the mainstream parties have beeb stuck in 1997 - listening to Portishead, watching This Life, reading Philip Gould - all believing that voters still want still more spending.

Harry Phibbs calls on the Conservative Party to realise the significance of the poll: "The proposition that spending cuts are impossible is now recognised as downright absurd. The public knows it and thanks to this poll, the Tories know that they know it. Let us stop pretending. For the nation to recover, the burden of state spending must be lifted. The Conservatives must be clear and open that they will face up to this challenge."

Tim Montgomerie

PoliticsHome has lots more details on its poll for The Spectator here.

This year's best April Fool

It was from PR Week:

"A lobbying consultancy has signed up Tory grandee Norman Tebbit in a bid to forge stronger links with David Cameron's Conservatives. Zeitgeist Public Affairs has appointed the former Tory cabinet minister as a non-executive director...

Tory insiders said Tebbit had been hired for his ability to ‘press the flesh’ and build bridges, thanks to diplomatic skills developed over decades in the party...

Former Hill & Knowlton consultant Prail set up Zeitgeist in 1989 with Anthony Lofo, a one-time aide to the disgraced Tory peer Jeffery Archer... It is understood that Prail and Lofo begun talks with Tebbit after meeting at Annabel’s, the exclusive nightclub in Berkeley Square, which is said to be a favourite haunt of Tebbit’s. The two lobbyists were introduced by former Labour cabinet minister David Blunkett - a close personal friend of Tebbit."

Funny insidery stuff from David Singleton.

The world's leading conservative

On National Review Online yesterday I wrote:

"In one year's time David Cameron is likely to be the world's most senior conservative leader. American conservatives can find much to admire in his social and fiscal conservatism. His "realism" on foreign policy and enthusiasm for the green lobby will be more problematic."

It's a theme taken up by The Times's leader-writers today.  They argue that the G20 is being dominated by the Left.  The Centre Right, they say, lacks an authoritative statesman today - at a time when world leaders are presiding over a significant extension of state power:

• "[John] McCain is a politician of yesterday, whose acknowledged lack of economic expertise hindered his campaign."
• "[Sarkozy] remains a distinctively national and even Gaullist figure. His conservatism is expressed in an aversion to the disruptions caused by market forces. He demands stringent - which is not the same thing as more effective - regulation on high finance. He envisages a new form of capitalism that “puts finance at the service of business and citizens.”
• "Ms Merkel has welded a more successful coalition government than many expected. She is a quietly competent administrator, who marks a welcome contrast to the blustering anti-American demagoguery of her immediate predecessor, Gerhard Schröder. But she lacks political charisma."

Missing from The Times's list is Canada's Stephen Harper.  Like Chancellor Merkel, he also lacks charisma and leads a fragile, minority government but his approach to regulation, free trade and the war on terror is authentically conservative.  Watch his interview with Sky News yesterday.

But The Times does have a point.  It sees David Cameron as the possible future of conservatism:

"David Cameron has marked out a position that fiscal stimulus is storing up future problems of debt and inflation. He has done much to dispel the impression that the Tories lack tolerance and an understanding of modern social mores. He has an opportunity to become much more than the British prime minister. There is a vacancy for a messenger with a coherent message for a global audience, waiting to govern from the Right."  

Mr Cameron will succeed in that task if he can stay focused on the big issues.  He needs to avoid becoming distracted by Red Toryism, nudging and other essentially marketing devices.  He needs a much stronger foreign policy but in recognising the importance of social reform (the biggest idea on the centre right), the environment, being vindicated on fiscal responsibility and as a stalwart defender of free trade he is, indeed, well-placed to become a leader of global conservatism.

Tim Montgomerie

Team Cameron meets Team Obama

After today's PMQs, David Cameron raced off to his meeting with President Obama.  It was the second meeting between the men - the first was when Mr Obama was still a candidate last summer.

The meeting didn't need to happen.  There certainly wasn't a meeting with Nick Clegg.  President Obama has a massive schedule that included his first meetings with the Russian and Chinese leaders.  That it happened at all is a sign of the White House's expectation that Gordon Brown (who Obama lavished praise on earlier in the day) is unlikely to be in office for long. 

On the American side were Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and the Acting US Ambassador to London.  On our side were David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Pauline Neville-Jones, Ed Llewellyn and Andy Coulson.

The meeting that ran for slightly longer than thirty minutes focused on the G20, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, green technologies and NATO reform.  CCHQ described the meeting as "positive" and "business-like".  Mr Cameron told the BBC that he had found the President "deeply impressive".

Samantha Cameron and Michelle Obama also met together at the same time.  Mrs Cameron gave Mrs Obama a designer bracelet and gave the Obama children a copy of the Railway Children and Stories from Shakespeare.  America's First Lady gave Mrs Cameron a book on the Wizard of Oz and also a book of fairy tales.

Mr Cameron has also met the Australian PM over the last few days and the Mexican President.  He is also due to hold talks with Canadian PM Stephen Harper.

Tim Montgomerie

No killer blows in a low key PMQs

Jonathan Isaby's verdict: "A low key PMQs, with neither Cameron nor Brown firing on full cylinders given the distraction of President Obama et al. A no-score draw in my view".

12.23 Tory David Heathcoat-Amory attacks Brown for having sold off British gold as Chancellor. Brown says it was agreed with banks around the world and that he bought euros "which have now gone up in value".

12.18 Clegg attacks the VAT cut as a mistake; Brown says you have to use all weapons at your disposal and reels off everything the Government is doing.

12.16 Brown says he is dealing with tax havens and that he will do "whatever he can" on green issues.

12.16 Nick Clegg agrees that world leaders need to work together but that Brown needs to practise at home what he preaches abroad, accusing the fiscal stimulus of not being green enough and not acting against tax havens. Doesn't leadership start at home?

12.14 Brown parrots lines about Tory plans to cut child benefit, pensions etc

12.13 No country is following the advice of the Conservative Party, the "do-nothing party of the past". Cameron says that that attack is not helping - the Tory ratings have been increasing since Brown started using it. Cameron again asks about sorting out the pubic finances: isn't the lesson that we should never leave Britain this exposed again?

Liam Fox: A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself

1. Russia is spending over $200 billion in the next five years upgrading its forces.  Vladimir Putin's strategic bombers are probing UK airspace again.
2. The world's greatest exporter of terrorism - Iran - is inching ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.  An Iran - still publicly committed to wipe Israel off the face of the map - with nuclear capability will be able to sponsor 'nuclear terrorism' which may include the detonation of a dirty bomb containing enough radioactive material to contaminate whole cities.
3. The ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist continues to be spread across the globe.  All over the world young Muslims are being exposed to an ideology that is "irreconcilable to our political system and our values."

These were some of the threats outlined by Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday - during a speech to Politea.  He could also have mentioned the increasingly worrying situation in Pakistan.  Dr Fox warned that Britain was a nation that was losing its moral seriousness and that this endangered our ability to meet the threats to our peace and security:

"There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.  This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.  For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us."

Pasted below are sections of Dr Fox's speech in which he identified the key forces weakening Britain's fortitude: