ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

A smaller state needs a stronger society

Earlier today I highlighted Oliver Letwin's socio-centric article in The Times and worried about his opaque choice of phrases.  In the speech he made at Policy Exchange he admitted that it was all part of a grand plan:

"There is a reason why I have been using this ridiculous, high-falutin language.  I want to make the point that ridiculous high-falutin language is not the sole prerogative of Gordon Brown with his post neo-classical endogenous growth theory… Nor of David Miliband with his “emphasis on the value of equality and solidarity… supplemented by renewed commitment to the extension of personal autonomy in an increasingly interdependent world”.  You shouldn't think that, just because someone uses complicated words, they have a coherent theory.  And you shouldn't think that, just because someone tries, most of the time to speak in plain English, they don't have a theory.  Cameron Conservatives have a strong attachment to plain English.  That is because we think that it is easier to think clearly in clear language.  But this has misled some people who think that theories come in complicated language to think we haven't got one.  And my point is that, despite our general preference for plain language, we do have a theory.  It can be expressed (as I have just expressed it) in complicated language.  It can also be expressed (as I am about to do) in much simpler terms."

The simpler bits then follow:

"At the recent Conservative Spring Forum, I chaired a discussion about the work of our six policy groups.  Afterwards, a senior party official – who had taken time off from his arduous administrative responsibilities to listen to the discussion – approached me to say that he had now understood what we were up to. “Instead of economics”, he said, “it's now about the whole way we live our lives”.  Bull's eye.  Instead of being about economics, politics in a post-Marxist age is about the whole way we live our lives; it is about society... As David Cameron put it in his speech to the same Spring Forum: “It's not economic breakdown that Britain now faces, but social breakdown.  Not businesses that aren't delivering, but public services. Not rampant inflation but rampant crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.  Not irresponsible unions – it's irresponsible parents."

There's a second paradigm shift and if you want to read more please see this pdf.

My main reason for writing this second post, however, is to emphasise how valuable this shift in Tory thinking is.  My frustration at the "high-falutin language" - which I still don't understand the need for - distracted me from the proper need to welcome the Letwin-Cameron emphasis on society.  When I worked at Conservative Central Office I initiated the process that led to the publication of There is such a thing as society.  It's real progress that we now have a party leadership that understands that economics is not the be all and end all.  At the start of the Thatcher years most people worried about whether their kids would get a job or whether they could afford the mortgage.  Those worries are still very real for many people but more people are now worried about the dangers of crime and drugs and relationship breakdown.  Social problems are now a bigger deal in every sense and the Conservatives are right to focus on them.

It is also true that social breakdown has huge implications for economic welfare.  Children that grow up in strong families make for more productive and self-sufficient citizens.  When the welfare society is weak and unable to deliver its superior forms of holistic care, the welfare state has to pick up the pieces.  The taxpayer then picks up the bill for that enlarged welfare state.  The best way of ensuring a long-term reduction in the size of the state is to rebuild the institutions of society.  As I have argued before, Conservatives have traditionally been too focused on cutting the supply of government and would be better focused on reducing the demand for government.

***
Earlier today ConservativeHome interviewed Oliver Letwin:

Tory members favour a separate Scottish Party

Perhaps I should be more worried than I am but I do not sense that Scotland voted for independence last Thursday.  Those votes that were counted were largely cast for Unionist parties and all democrats can welcome the end of Labour's fifty year dominance north of the border.  The main worry is that a nationalistic First Minister will fan anti-Scottish feeling in England.

What remains worrying is the continuing weakness of Scotland's Tories.  Despite her energetic campaigning Annabel Goldie now leads a smaller parliamentary group than before last Thursday.  There are now 17 Tory MSPs when there were 18.  The Cameron effect - so evident against the LibDems in southern England - is absent from Scotland.

ConservativeHome believes that for the Scottish party to prosper it needs to be seen as distinctively Scottish.  As we have argued before:

"With its own distinct identity the Scottish Unionist Party (the name of the party until 1965 and a possible name for the 'new party') could be a leading advocate of The Union and would be more likely to be seen to be motivated by an unambiguous commitment to Scotland's interests rather than those of England.  The election of its leader - which should follow independence - would give the party the serious debate it desperately needs about its long-term identity.  Should it be defined by its Unionism, for example, or by a commitment to provide an alternative to the high tax, anti-business parties that dominate the Scottish landscape."

By 43% to 35% more members of the Conservative Party agree that a Scottish party with its policies, name and structure would be a welcome change.  The Scottish Tories who took part in the April ConservativeHome poll are evenly divided on the issue, however.  From a very small sample of 118 members, 47% supported a separate party but 47% opposed any change.

Bruce Anderson rejects the idea of independence for the Scottish party in his Monday column for The Independent:

"Mr Cameron has two contradictory objectives. He would like to give the Scottish Tories more independence. He would also like to sort them out. He should concentrate on the latter. In the short term, the Scottish Tories are about as ready for independence as the Belgian Congo was. Scottish Toryism has always been the party of the Union. It was also the party of business, and the party of Scottish patriotism within the United Kingdom. Those are still formidable electoral assets. It only requires formidable politicians to turn them into votes.  David Cameron understands this. Now, while the Scottish Tories are congratulating themselves on reaching third place, he must move fast and hard to rebuild the party. In so doing, he can create a vital component in the fight to save the Union."

I am not persuaded by Bruce Anderson's preference for central control.  It would only reinforce the sense that the party is controlled from England.  Also, CCHQ's attempts to 'sort out' the London Mayoral candidate do not offer much hope that the party will be adept at finding talent to rebuild the Scottish party.  Despite a lot of opposition from some of the party's most long-serving Scottish figures David Cameron should give the Scottish party its independence.  It should enjoy the same kind of relationship that the CDU and the CSU have in Germany.  If we truly believe in localism and the dangers of centralisation we should give the Scottish party this opportunity for freedom.  The current arrangements are certainly not working.

TOMORROW: BRIAN MONTEITH WILL DISSECT THE SCOTTISH RESULTS

Five reasons why members should retain the right to rank MEPs

An overnight email from the Direct Democracy campaigning group to its subscribers warns the Conservative Party against diluting members' right to select candidates at the next European elections:

"The Conservative Party has in recent years taken the lead in opening itself up to democracy - in contrast to Labour, party members have the decisive vote over their leader, and many constituency associations have embraced our idea for open primary selection of candidates. Which makes a recent proposal by the party's National European Forum all the more worrying.  This obscure body, a kind of retirement home for Heathites, has unveiled a scheme to get rid of Eurosceptic candidates for the European Parliament. It wants to take the vote away from ordinary party members who, since the party list system was introduced, have been allowed to rank their candidates in order of preference. Instead, the ranking - at least of the top part of the lists, where it counts - will be done by small committees of party officers... Taking the vote away from the members and centralising it in the hands of party worthies would be a shocking assault on localist and democratic principles. if the Tories were to do such a thing in Opposition, why should anyone trust them to decentralise power in office?"

ConservativeHome wrote to David Cameron about this issue a few weeks ago and, from a conversation I had with his spokesman, I no longer expect an answer.  The spokesman told me that the party leader expected to be consulted by the party board before it voted on how selection procedures might change.  Mr Cameron would give his opinion to the board and privately.  I then spoke to Francis Maude to hear whether he would be urging protection of existing one member, one vote ranking of all MEP candidates.  He was non-committal.  If, as I now expect, the party goes ahead with this retreat from democracy in the selection of MEPs there will be five consequences:

1. The party board will have further undermined its already weak claim to speak for party members.  A ConservativeHome poll found overwhelming support for members keeping their vote.  The board, remember, was the body that attempted to take the vote away from members in the leadership election.
2. Party rhetoric on trusting people and sharing responsibility will look a bit thin.  The party will have shown itself unwilling to trust its own members to select MEP candidates.
3. Many members will struggle to campaign for candidates with Europhile voting records that they did not get a chance to approve.
4. UKIP and other fringe parties will be able to campaign against many of our MEPs and their support for still deeper European integration.
5. We will have lost the opportunity to fashion a genuinely Eurosceptic group of MEPs that is in tune with David Cameron's ambition to leave the EPP.

The party will go ahead anyway because they fear that any delisted MEPs will immediately leave the Tory grouping in the European Parliament and sit with the LibDems.  If that is where their true instincts lie I think we should not be afraid of them leaving.

Wednesday's Budget wasn't about tax or the economy - it was about the character of the man who aspires to be our Prime Minister

As today's YouGov poll shows - Wednesday's Budget has not fooled the British people.  The Conservative lead is higher since Gordon Brown got to his feet than it was before.  Wednesday's Budget has done nothing to alter the course of the British economy or the growth of the British state.  Under Gordon Brown, Britain has become a much more European-style economy with high levels of tax and spending and with a huge increase in dependency.  If only we had an Opposition willing to deliver a fundamental change of course (but that's a topic for another day).

The 2007 Budget did nothing to repair the damage that Gordon Brown has done to UKplc.  But it did - hopefully once-and-for-all - prove that the Chancellor is every bit as manipulative as Tony Blair.  This was a Budget where all the tax rises were hidden and the tax goodies trumpeted. 

George Osborne got it right yesterday during the Commons debate on the Budget:

"If people want to know what this Chancellor would be like in No. 10, they should look no further than yesterday’s Budget—stealthy, sneaky and unable to tell the truth. He is not the man who can restore public trust in Government, because he is the reason why people do not believe a word that they say any more."

It is a lasting legacy of the New Labour project - a project that we must never tire of describing as the Brown-Blair project - that hardly anyone believes a word from any politician.  One challenge for Mr Osborne is to devise a new way of handling the whole Budget process so that it is transparent and that announcements will become more believable.

Don't trust Gordon Brown

George Osborne is calling the Budget a "con."  He is, of course, right.  ConservativeHome may wish that Mr Osborne was much more committed to making the economic case for lower taxation but Mr Brown has zero credibility with us on tax.  The 2p cut today had a lot more to do with yesterday's 28% poll rating for Mr Brown than anything else.  There's panic in 11 Downing Street as they consider the possibility that the dismal rating will drive panicking Labour MPs into the hands of David Miliband or even John Denham.  Today's announcement of a 2p cut comes from the stealthiest tax riser in British history.  This Chancellor has presided over a massive expansion of the state and huge additional complexity within the tax system.  No Conservative should ever give him comfort.  He has been steadily raising taxes since the moment he entered Downing Street and we won't know the true impact of this Budget until we've all read the small print.  Every one of Brown's budgets has contained sleights of hand and my guess is that this one will not be an exception.  The sooner Mr Brown leaves all Downing Street addresses the better.

PS The Mail and Sun were far too soft on Brown this morning and in response to last year's Budget.  I hope they do their readers a favour tomorrow morning and expose this Budget for its deceit.  If they can't think of what to write themselves they should copy and paste this from The Spectator.

PPS There's also this from The Business:

"The net effects of all his tax policies is a tiny reduction in Mr Brown’s net position to the tune of £525m for 2007-08 but an increase in the tax burden of £280m in 2008-09 and £125m in 2009-10. On balance, therefore, and for all Brown’s bluster, this was a tax raising Budget. After years of bleeding the economy dry with well over 100 tax increases, and a massive increase in the tax to GDP ratio, the Chancellor has not changed his spots.  He remains a tax and spend Chancellor, who thinks he knows better than the market and individuals what makes an economy tick. He unveiled another plethora of extraordinarily complex and detailed initiatives on Wednesday, many of which will take weeks for teams of accountants to work out their full implications."

Not such a free vote after all

The Telegraph's Jonathan Isaby has done an excellent job in recording that 12 shadow cabinet members joined David Cameron last night in supporting the Government's doctrinaire attempts to bring Catholic adoption agencies within the scope of gay equality legislation.  This dozen - plus Cameron himself - accounted for a huge 45% of the vote against the Catholic Church's position even though they account for less than one-eighth of the parliamentary party.  All other shadow cabinet ministers abstained.  Not one shadow cabinet minister joined the 85 Tory MPs who voted against the illiberal regulations that would compel Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay couples.  82 Tories abstained.

It seems that the shadow cabinet is either very unrepresentative of the parliamentary party or was subject to clandestine whipping.

David Cameron's decision to support the Government against the Catholic Church on this issue is one of the most depressing acts of his young leadership.  He is denying faith-based charities the freedom of association and belief that is necessary for his 'big idea' of social responsibility to really flourish.  Catholic and other churchleaders are not asking to ban gay adoption - merely that they do not themselves have to place children with gay couples.  It shouldn't have been too much to ask in a country that purports to value religious freedom.

7.30am Wednesday morning update: From Phil Cowley's revolts.co.uk it is also clear that the 2005 parliamentary intake do not share David Cameron's view on this issue: "Just six of the 2005 intake voted with their leader. A full 23 voted against - and of these 23, 20 have also already defied Mr Cameron on a whipped vote. The modernising agenda has clear limits amongst the backbenches of the Conservative parliamenty party."

Ainsworth plays opportunism knocks

There are a number of good conservative criticisms of the Bush administration.  The failure to control spending and the Rumsfeld light footprint doctrine would be my top two.  I would also add the first term steel tariffs and the failure to legislatively progress the President's faith-based initiative.  If I was a Tory politician I'm not sure I'd go public with those criticisms, however.  While Bush-bashing might be easy politics it's hardly statesmanlike.  It only feeds the anti-Americanism that is all too pervasive in Britain and so corrosive of our two nations' special relationship.

Peter Ainsworth obviously thinks differently.  In a play-to-the-gallery yesterday the Conservative environment spokesman argued that "the sooner the current administration in America goes, the safer the world will be."  "It has been a deplorable drag on international efforts to get a resolution," he continued, "the leading polluter of the world hasn't been playing a full part."

That's unfair and unconservative.  The Bush administration is joined by conservative leaders in Canada and Australia in rejecting Kyoto environmentalism.  Europe loves to attack America for failing to sign up to Kyoto but many European nations are failing to meet Treaty obligations that would actually do very little to stop global warming (even if implemented in full).  Insofar as sclerotic eurozone economies are meeting Kyoto targets they are often only succeeding by exporting industrial capacity to developing nations.  Unlike the Kyoto Treaty - which does not engage with the world's faster-growing developing nations - the US has led the formation of the Asia-Pacific Partnership On Clean Development And Climate Change.  The Partnership also includes Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea.  The six nations that account for 50% of the world's economy are co-operating on more than one hundred programmes that cover everything from cleaner fossil energy to greener forms of mining and steel manufacture.  The US government is spending more money than any other nation on environmental technologies. 

That Mr Ainsworth chooses to regurgitate the talking points of left-leaning green groups is thoroughly depressing.  Mark Steyn overstates things but there is too much truth to what he wrote yesterday: "[The British Conservative Party is] conservative only in the same sense Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin are."

Yesterday's attack on George W Bush is only the latest example of too much opportunism within Project Cameron.  In ConservativeHome's ten peaks of David Cameron's first year I paid tribute to the decision to support passage of Tony Blair's education bill.  The education reforms weren't perfect but they were an improvement on the status quo.  Exactly the same is true of the probation service reforms that the Tories attempted to sink in the last week.  The Whips cancelled all leave in an attempt to defeat the Government.  They miscalculated in a tactical failure that saw the Government win comfortably.  It was a double whammy reverse - a tactical defeat and, as The Sun said, it allied the Tories with leftie dinosaurs.  The same happened, of course, last November when Tories joined forces with anti-war nationalists to embarrass Labour on the Iraq war.  And now, despite David Cameron's leadership contest talk of co-payment, the party is playing politics on road pricing and may be doing the same on missile defence.  David Cameron was right in the leadership race to say that the party must do the right thing and not seek cheap political wins.  Unfortunately the pursuit of cheap wins is exactly what is happening now.

Tories must be positive about 'Son of Star Wars'

ConservativeHome has been arguing for our party to support missile defence for some time (and Mark Pritchard MP discussed the issue on YourPlatform last May).  It is encouraging, therefore, to see the issue finally on the national agenda.

In yesterday's Times, Michael Evans, the newspaper's Defence Editor, wrote that "the simple idea of killing an incoming ballistic missile with another missile up in space merely by aiming it right and hitting it with even a glancing blow was technologically achievable."  The Telegraph agrees.  Yesterday it noted the evolution of Ronald Reagan's programme from a catch-all defence system to one with more limited but still vital aims:

"The defence shield is a development of the 1980s Star Wars programme that planned to destroy any multiple rocket attack from the Soviet Union. Rather than shooting down dozens of rockets, this system would take out only one or two missiles in space with 16,000mph interceptors."

Mr Evans acknowledges the political difficulties of UK politicians embracing missile defence but concludes that it must be done:

"Putting American interceptors on British territory would be political dynamite and is bound to give renewed life to the anti-nuclear lobby which has such strong and bitter memories of the days when this country hosted US cruise missiles at Greenham Common in the Cold War.  However, what is the alternative? Britain cannot afford to go it alone in developing an anti-missile system, but if Iran and other countries in the Middle East become nuclear weapons powers, there will have to be an insurance policy, and the only material one on offer at present is Son of Star Wars."

On Friday Liam Fox issued this statement:

“If there is a request to base part of the US National Missile Defence system in the UK, we would need to see the exact nature of that request before taking a decision.  In today’s climate where we have rogue states developing new long range missiles it’s vital that we don’t rule anything out.  Despite asking a number of questions in Parliament, we have had no information from the Government about any discussions with the US administration or detail. If the Government really does want to maintain what they regard as a bipartisan approach to defence in this country, they need to be more honest with the opposition.”

It is 100% right that Her Majesty's Opposition asks the tough questions but we must not seek to divide Labour's leadership from its increasingly anti-American backbenchers if that could risk losing UK support for missile defence.  The Tory leadership must do as David Cameron did on the Trident decision and seek bipartisan support for our only possible defence against a rogue missile attack.

Portillo is wrong about faith and politics

With David Burrowes MP, I founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship in 1990.  With that declaration of interest out of the way I hope readers will forgive me if I use this post to disagree with Michael Portillo's piece in The Sunday Times: 'If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron – don’t listen.'  Do read all of Mr Portillo's article but here is a key section:

"I worry because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics... Those who look for judgment not from the electorate or parliament or a free press but from God release themselves from the constraints of democracy."

A few quick responses as I'm dashing off for Sunday lunch (roast lamb!):

1. The greatest killers of the last century weren't religious "fanatics" but atheists.  I think of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot.
2. Not all religions are the same.  Some religions are defined by the teaching of forgiveness and peacefulness.  Others are more open to interpretations that lead to violence.
3. It's a bit rich for Mr Portillo to imply that Christian leaders like Bush and Blair want to "release themselves from the constraints of democracy." Both men have been more successful voter-getters than Mr Portillo.  I'd rather have a leader that felt a deep sense of accountability to his maker than someone who thought he could get away with anything if noone was looking.
4. Christian men have been at the forefront of many of the great reforms of our times.  I think of William Wilberforce's campaign against slavery (something Mr Portillo acknowledges) but also Shaftesbury's educational and mental health missions and, more recently, Martin Luther King's civil rights campaigns.  In the Conservative Party today it is interesting that many of the great compassionate causes are being led by Christians - think of social justice (IDS), international development (Peter Lilley), combating domestic violence (Caroline Spelman) and international human rights (Gary Streeter and Ben Rogers).
5. Britain is much richer for the involvement of Christians in public life.  Christian schools generally outperform secular schools and a disproportionate share of the country's charities and volunteers are faith-inspired.
6. If you want to understand philanthropy you have to understand the 'God factor.'  A recent analysis of giving in the US proved that religious motivations were more powerful than any other factor in determining generosity.

Are Christians perfect?  Of course not and there are many Christians who would would make bad governors but the overwhelming contribution of Christianity to public life is beneficial.

Social justice depends upon supporting fatherhood and marriage

Sam Coates and I spoke too soon.  On Thursday night's edition of ConservativeHome TV (watch it here) we welcomed the fact that Labour had not attacked David Cameron's emphasis on the family.  We hoped that - finally - Labour was willing to accept the overwhelming evidence that most children do better when a mother and father are active in their lives. On top of that there is also the fact that mother-father involvement is more likely to be reliable if the couple are married.  David Cameron has had the courage to embrace Iain Duncan Smith's evidence on marriage and Labour's silent response appeared to suggest that - in their hearts - the Government knew that family breakdown was a root cause of underachievement, crime and incivility.

The front page of today's Observer suggests that Labour are about to return to their old ways.  And they are old ways.  Alan Johnson is apparently going to warn that family policy should not be based on 'the prejudices of yesterday's generation' but he is the one with throwback views.  Saying that marriage and fatherhood didn't matter was plausible in the 1960s but the evidence has now poured in and that evidence says that marriage and fatherhood are among the most important weapons we have in building social justice.

The only thing that can be said for Labour's Woodstock warriors is that they are still capable of a good soundbite.  Harriet Harman tells the Observer that Cameron's arguments amount to 'Back to Basics in an open-necked shirt.'  Nice line from Labour's wannabe Deputy Leader but a terrible disservice to Mr Cameron's arguments and to her Peckham constituents.  If she really cared about them she'd be arguing for policies that would encourage more active parenting and the institution of marriage.  Unfortunately a pro-fatherhood, pro-marriage consensus will have to wait until the Labour left cease the party politics.

Labour like to think of themselves as the party of social justice.  They need to understand that you cannot be the party of social justice and be opposed to the family.

Swire avoids the tough questions on the BBC

Yesterday the BBC received a guarantee of future income that most commercial broadcasters would give their right arms for.  Tory culture, media and sport spokesman Hugo Swire welcomed what he described as "a more realistic settlement" than the inflation-busting increase that the BBC had originally requested.  He then went on to offer much comfort to the big cheeses at BBC HQ by repeating their complaints that the settlement will make it difficult for the Corporation to afford the digital switchover and a major relocation of output to Salford. 

Mr Swire's sweeping endorsement of the BBC will disappoint critics of the Corporation, including this website.  "The Opposition fully support the important contribution that the BBC makes to the lives of the British people," Mr Swire said.  He continued: "The BBC is clearly one of our greatest organisations, and one of the most effective global ambassadors that we have."

The BBC has many strengths but many Conservatives would have liked to have heard Mr Swire lead stronger questioning of the Corporation.  All of the following weaknesses need to be addressed:

1. The BBC's biases (as regularly documented by Biased BBC).  Even the BBC has admitted its slanted worldview at its recent bias seminar.  Charles Moore outlined the key news biases in Saturday's Telegraph: "If (God forbid) you spoke to 100 journalists on the BBC, you would find that more than 85 were anti-American, pro-green and opposed to the war in Iraq. They would be happy making a programme about lying tobacco companies and unhappy making one about too many immigrants.  Virtually every single attitude can be predicted. This week, a new year memo by the BBC's Middle-East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, was leaked. He described the situation in Palestine as "the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement-building – and the financial sanctions imposed on a Hamas-led government".  What about the fact that Israel has actually left Gaza, that Palestinians have misappropriated aid, that "militants" (as the BBC likes to call them) have murdered Israelis, or that a Hamas-led government with Western money might not be a very good thing? Is nothing the fault of Palestinian leaders?  Look at the BBC history website's entry on the Provisional IRA. It fails to mention the fact that they killed actual people, whereas that on the loyalist UVF (rightly) gives the number of victims and uses words like "vicious". The BBC never surprises.  As someone who is rather more pro-American than pro-EU, pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, pro-tax cuts than pro-higher public spending, and a lot more pro-Britain than pro-its enemies, I don't like underwriting a religion I don't believe in. It's like being frogmarched into the pew, preached at against your will and then having your wallet emptied."  The biases in arts and drama are at least as serious.  The pre-Christmas drama Born Equal was risible in its left-wing cultural assumptions.
2. Its regressive licence fee.  The licence fee falls most heavily on poorer households whilst telephone number salaries are paid to celebrities like Jonathan Ross.
3. Its tendency to crowd out smaller start-up broadcasters - George Osborne has warned about this.
4. Its tendency to give a disproportionate platform to extreme views.  Tory MP Julian Lewis asked the most important question to Tessa Jowell during yesterday's Commons statement: "The Secretary of State will realise that licence fee payers do not expect their money to pay for airtime to be given to racists, Nazis, Taliban and other supporters of terrorism at home and abroad. Will she build on the excellent and encouraging answer given by the Leader of the House earlier today, and state whether she has made representations to the BBC about the opinion expressed on 28 November by the head of BBC news that such views should be accorded equal respect to those of democratic representatives? Alternatively, does she agree with the Minister with responsibility for community cohesion, who rightly regarded any such shift as dangerous?"
5. The dumbing down.  BBC Television's daytime schedules, in particular, are full of Cash-in-the-Attic-style programming.

Predictions for 2007

A General Election: My boldest prediction is that Gordon Brown will call a honeymoon election soon after he becomes Prime Minister.  In 2007 he will have the benefit of lots of media attention and will announce a raft of measures to clean up British politics and fight crime.  He'll go to the country on the basis of wanting his own mandate and polling suggests that the public won't object to him holding a General Election only two years after the last.  He'll make a virtue out of the fact that his indebted party will be outspent by the Tories.  Many pundits think Brown is too cautious to go for an early election - and they may well be right - but the economic and political environment is unlikely to get better for Labour in 2008 or 2009.  Unless Mr Brown visits Her Majesty to request a dissolution of parliament in the first half of the year - a very unlikely scenario - he'll probably miss the opportunity, however, to fight the election on the current boundaries which are friendlier to Labour and, of course, Mr Brown's great ally, Ed Balls (whose seat will be abolished).

Conservative Party: David Cameron will lead a more balanced conservative ticket.  He'll focus a lot more on crime, security and waste of taxpayers' money but without ditching his gentler, greener conservatism.  David Davis will enjoy a more prominent role throughout the year and he'll be charged with keeping the right of the party onside.

The LibDems: Ming will continue to limp on as his party's leader.  A group of Tories will start to organise against the possibility of Labour-LibDem cooperation in the event of a hung parliament.

Scotland: The Scottish Nationalists will do very well in the Holyrood elections but Scotland's Tories will not join a Tartan-Green-Blue coalition.

Islamism: British politicians are catching up with the electorate in terms of concern about the hostility of a sizeable minority of British Muslims to their host country.  How to deal with this hostility will become a major topic of national debate and there'll be great effort invested in promoting moderate Muslim leaders.

Direct democracy: The internet's influence on UK politics will explode in ways that are difficult to predict but e-surgent campaigns for and against candidates, ministers and legislation will become powerful players.

USA: Bush won't go green in a big way as The Economist is predicting.  He'll focus on compassionate conservatism again with lots of initiatives focused on disease and poverty in Africa.  The race for the Republican nomination for US President will be between John McCain and an ascendant Rudy Giuliani - who may shrewdly announce a socially conservative running mate at the start of the primary process.  Hillary Clinton will enjoy a relatively easy ride towards the Democrat nomination but there'll be excited talk of a Clinton-led dream ticket with Barack Obama.

Europe: Our continent will not enjoy any real leadership.  Chirac and Blair will be exiting the stage and Merkel and Prodi lead governments that are too divided.

Australia: John Howard will face a very tough re-election battle against the new Australian Labor leader, Kevin Rudd.  Should Howard lose it will be devastating for his party - already out of office throughout the nation's states.

Global challenges: Politicians will continue to spotlight their concern for global warming and other problems - that they can do little about - and ignore problems that, although very difficult, demand more urgent action.  I think of Iraq's need for more troops, Darfur's need for security and the deployment of missile defence systems to protect the world from nuclear proliferation.

The One Nation Tories who celebrate Project Cameron were largely wrong in the 1980s

"One Nation Conservatism is back."  So says Andrew Tyrie, MP for Chichester, in a new pamphlet reported in this morning's Telegraph.  Mr Tyrie is best known as one of Ken Clarke's leading supporters - he ran the former Chancellor's 2005 leadership bid - and is the architect of the current Tory policy on increased state funding of political parties.  "The apparent certainties of the Thatcher years and the choices implied by them are being replaced by a new Conservative agenda," Mr Tyrie writes in a paper produced for the One Nation Group of 29 Tory MPs that warmly welcomes Project Cameron's first full year of modernisation.

With impeccable timing we are reminded of what One Nation Conservatism stood for when those 'certainties of the Thatcher years' were being rolled out in the 1980s.  Timothy Barnes, who edits an excellent new blog at the Tory Reform Group, has just published an archive recording of Harold Macmillan's 1985 address to the TRG in which he made his famous 'selling the family silver' critique of the Thatcherite privatisation programme.  Timothy Barnes is at pains to say - quite fairly - that Macmillan's attack was not an absolutist attack on  returning assets to private ownership but on using the proceeds of sales for current rather than investment expenditure (although I would argue that the proceeds were paying for the one-off pain of the transition from the corporatist post-war economy to a new services-led dynamism).

I have just listened to the whole 35 minute speech and encourage you to do the same - if only to savour the former Prime Minister's wonderfully textured voice.  The main reason it's worth listening to, however, is to realise how wrong the 'One Nation Tories' were during the 1980s.  Harold Macmillan talks of shift systems and shorter hours to address the problem of unemployment - the French way - and marvels at the industrial policies of Japan.  Progress, he says, won't ultimately come from scrimping, saving or selling the family silver but from the "politics of union" and working together.  He remembers fondly his bipartisan friendships in the Commons and implies that Margaret Thatcher's belt-tightening had gone too far.  One Nation Tories from Pym to Gilmour were broadcasting the same message throughout those years.  I had my own small exposure to the One Nation alternative while growing up in Germany in the 1980s.  I heard Stephen Dorrell address the Anglo-German society in Bielefeld.  I was an enthusiastic Thatcherite - mainly because of her defence policies - and listened horrified as the young Conservative speaker repeatedly talked again and again about all that British Conservatives had to learn from the German model.

Wherever possible the Conservative Party should be a broad church - embracing all of its various traditions but (1) let us not underestimate the wrongheadedness of the one nation critics of the Thatcher years; (2) let us not seek consensus or celebrate established positions when today's issues of demography, terror and social breakdown, for example, may require Thatcheresque leadership and (3) let's not allow one wing of our party to claim a monopoly on the one nation idea.  Where the so-called One Nation Tories have always been right is to remind the whole party that we cannot be indifferent to the plight of the poorest Britons.  But as IDS and David Cameron are beginning to show with the social justice policy group's work, it is not necessarily a Macmillan-minded-state that has the answers to poverty.  Modern conservatism is more likely to be effectively compassionate if it emphasises family structure, school choice, social entrepreneurship, freedom from drugs and zero tolerance policing.  It will be interesting to see what Andrew Tyrie's paper has to say about all of those issues...

Year two of Project Cameron needs more breadth

Within David Cameron's interview for this morning's Daily Telegraph there are welcome hints of more emphasis on the teaching of British history, greater independence for schools and support for marriage.  Activists will also like the Conservative leader's clear renunciation of Polly Toynbee's politics:

"We are not saying adopt Polly Toynbee's policy. She is a statist, she is a Gordon Brownist."

But David Cameron's overall message to the Tory grassroots is that he's determined to press ahead with his modernisation agenda.  These words are indicative:

"I am very clear about the direction in which we are going. The Conservative Party needs to get into the centre ground on the issues on which people talking about. It is no good having a manifesto devoted to immigration and Europe if people are interested in health and education."

Does Mr Cameron really believe that voters are not interested in immigration?  Few Conservatives object to the party talking about schools and hospitals.  Nearly every Conservative activist I know has reported that recent NHS Action Days have been hugely successful.  The grassroots will be delighted at a greater emphasis on the teaching of British history.  If Mr Cameron had spent his first year on these bread and butter issues activists would not be as restless as they are becoming.  Instead the emphasis on the environment has been almost messianic but has offered no answers to key questions about the failure of the Kyoto approach or the marginal role that Britain can play in arresting global warming.

The problem with the first year of Project Cameron has been a consistent lack of balance:

• Centre-right Tories who supported David Cameron in the leadership contest knew that there was going to be modernisation but they understood that it would not be at the expense of traditional fare.  They were told, for example, that in the first few weeks of the Cameron leadership there would be a modernising drive for more women candidates but there would also be exit from the EPP.  The first has been delivered - the second has not.
• The search for a representative pool of candidates has itself been flawed - even superficial.  There has been a search for women and ethnic minority candidates but no deeper search for candidates from the north or from outside the law, politics and the City.  Nothing has been done to address the huge costs of becoming a Conservative candidate.
• The Tories may be progressing healthily in the south but in northern England there is little good news.  'Waitrose voter' has been wooed assiduously but the Tories are offering little hope to the 'Morrisons voter' who is overburdened by Labour's taxes and failed by inadequate policing. 
• The party is also becalmed in Scotland and Wales where there are crucial Parliamentary/ Assembly elections next May.

There is still time to put all of this right but the Tory leadership will be making a serious mistake if it thinks the grumblings of the grassroots should be ignored.  65% of grassroots members told ConservativeHome in September that the party's poll lead was too modest given the troubles of the Government.  They - rooted in real communities - appear to better understand that only a broader and more authentic Conservatism will deliver the victory that Mr Cameron's personal skills are so well-suited to deliver.

Now, can we please stop stereotyping the Tory grassroots?

I guess there must be shock all around the Commons' tea-room this morning.  Witham Tories did what, reportedly, a number of Conservative MPs thought very unlikely... they didn't choose a middle-aged, white male but a young, Asian female - Priti Patel.  Ali Miraj did himself no favours by recently adding to the tired media slur on the Tory grassroots.  It is, of course, true that there is unacceptable prejudice within some Conservative Associations but that is increasingly exceptional.

Again and again Tory members defy the pigeon-holing by all too many MPs and journalists.  Three of the safer Tory seats in the country have all chosen ethnic minority candidates in recent years.   Windsor chose Adam Afriyie, Cambridgeshire NW chose Shailesh Vara and now Witham has chosen the highly able (and decidely Eurosceptic) Priti Patel.   Before the last election the heartland seat of Arundel and South Downs chose the openly gay Nick Herbert.  In the current selection process we have seen the openly gay David Golds adopted.  Alan Duncan has not been ostracised for 'coming out'... his constituency has been very supportive and he is, of course, now in the shadow cabinet.

Criticism of the Tory membership is understandable when it comes from the media but is unacceptable when it comes from Conservative candidates and MPs.  The dismissive attitude reached its peak (trough?) when Michael Howard led an attempt to disenfranchise grassroots members in the choice of party leader.  Fortunately that attempt was defeated and members voted for the apparently modernising, rather than the more traditionalist candidate.

Unfortunately the we-know-better attitude lives on in CCHQ.  The attempts to restrict the freedoms of local association to choose Westminster and European candidates goes on.  We can only hope that the party leadership that champions localism for the rest of the country will soon champion it for its own members, too.

Related link: Tory members deserve a little more respect from Tory MPs

We can cut carbon emissions or give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now

Last night former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson performed more of a public service in one hour than Britain's public service broadcaster has performed in any of the last 100 hours since the publication of the Stern report.  Whilst the BBC has breathlessly gushed over the report - failing to subject it to any critical scrutiny - other observers (notably the leader-writers at The Telegraph, Mail and Sun) have been more questioning.  Lawson began his Centre for Policy Studies lecture by quoting Blair guru Lord Giddens:

“In order to manage risk, you must scare people”.

Sir Nicholas Stern - soon, no doubt, to be enobled as Lord Stern of Chicken Licken -   has certainly scaremongered throughout his report.  The extent of this scaremongering is exposed in today's Wall Street Journal by Bjorn Lomborg.

Over a number of years Lomborg has been trying - pretty unsuccessfully - to reintroduce the world's policymakers to the central economic concept of 'opportunity cost'.  That's the idea that if you spend one pound on one project you lose the opportunity to invest it in another project.  Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus keeps asking economists and politicians to evaluate whether taxpayers' money being earmarked for climate change could be better spent on other causes.  The same answers keeps coming back: yes, yes, yes.

Over the weekend Professor Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus convened a meeting of 24 UN Ambassadors and (repeating earlier work by distinguished economists) the meeting decided that disease, water, hunger and education should be priorities for international action - more important than addressing climate change.  The BBC failed to report the meeting but you can read about it on Yahoo and in The Washington Times.  [The BBC did give Professor Lomborg a platform back in September].  There is also the opportunity cost of politicians' time and attention - a point made in ConservativeHome's 'Not today's news' entry of Monday.

'Neither the guts to rule Iraq, nor the guts to quit'

The headline of this post - or something very like it - appeared on the front page of The Guardian, earlier this week.  'Neither the guts to rule nor the guts to quit' captures the current policy of Bush and Blair in Iraq.  We're caught in some sort of no-man's land between doing something to reverse the escalating violence (partition and/ or extra troops, for example, as recommended by John McCain) or we should admit that we were never serious about Iraq and bring our troops home.

In today's Philip Geddes Memorial Lecture Matthew d'Ancona attempts to remind us all of the nature of our enemy - 20th century Islamic terrorism:

"At its heart is a terrible mutation of a great world religion: a ferocious system of ideas that seeks theocracy at any price, regards mass murder as divinely ordained and wills not only the destruction of Israel but the overthrow of modern Western society. As V.S. Naipaul warned before 9/11, in some parts of the world, “religion has been tuned by some into a kind of nihilism” by people who “are enraged at the world and wish to pull it down”. By definition, those who adhere to such ideas cannot be appeased."

D'Ancona goes on to argue that increasingly consumerist western democracies lack both the patience and resolve to see that our enemy has guessed that we don't have the stomach for the long fight that is necessary for victory.  Here are some key extracts of the speech:

The time-frame of our enemy: "I was told recently by a source who has had access to intercepted secret Hamas documents, that they deal in timeframes of 50 and 100 years, measuring their objectives in generations, not months or years."

The time-frame of the western democracies: "That phrase [eye-catching initiatives], you will recall, was first used in the hideously embarrassing Blair memo leaked six years ago. That was a gruesome insight into the overwhelmingly tactical nature of much that modern Government does – its quest for what Bill Clinton’s former pollster, Dick Morris, calls the “daily mandate”... Truly, we now live in Warhol’s world: it is no longer just people who enjoy 15 minutes of fame, but Government initiatives, too."

Cameron should embrace Forsyth

Martin Vander Weyer has written an excellent article for today's Daily Mail (not online).  He reviews Gordon Brown's great tax squeeze on Britain's middle classes and the declining tax competitiveness of British business.  He provides a reminder of the extent of Labour's tax grab:

• The fact that our tax burden is rising faster than any other EU nation and has just exceeded that of Germany;
• The £5bn-a-year raid on pensions that has reduced the value of retirement funds by at least £100bn; and
• The failure to raise tax thresholds in line with inflation so that 1.2 million more people have been caught in the 40% tax bracket and that inheritance tax cuts in at £285,000 when indexation to house-price inflation would have put it at £430,000.

The article could also have mentioned soaring council tax and the many other stealth taxes that Gordon Brown has imposed.  Steadily and surely Gordon Brown is undoing the good of the Thatcher years and a sharp change of course is needed if we are not to return to our high-tax and high-waste past.

Taxes from Whitehall and regulations from Brussels are sending Britain further and further down the competitiveness league table.  It is extraordinary that Britain's Conservative Party chooses this time to stop talking about tax and Europe in any meaningful way.

I hope it's not too late for David Cameron to change emphasis.  Later today the Tory leader is giving a speech on tax simplification.  I hope the speech moves beyond generalities and embraces the thrust of Lord Forsyth's Tax Commission and the imminent publication of its findings.  If the Conservative Party is to avoid a dangerous challenge from a low tax party at the next General Election - perhaps birthed on the internet - it needs to listen to Lord Forsyth.

Related links: Will the Forsyth Commission water down its report? and Charles Elphicke and Stephen Hammond MP on Taxcutters versus stabilisers?

Let's go broader, bolder and beefier

It's one of the busiest days of the Tory year and this is only my second post of the day - my apologies.  I'm already in Bournemouth and my excuse is that I've been doing lots of media including Radio 4's PM Programme, Five Live, BBC News 24 and BBC1's evening news bulletin.  My message to all of the programmes has been essentially the same:

David Cameron is the right leader for the Tories.  He's charismatic and his emphases on the environment and social justice are to be warmly welcomed.  What we need to see, however, in the months to come is something Broader, Bolder and Beefier if we are going to convert a modest lead in the opinion polls into a winning lead...

BROADER: I was delighted to hear Francis Maude's endorsement of the 'Politics Of And' in an interview for ePolitix.com yesterday.  The Tory Chairman said "Tim Montgomerie talks about the 'and' theory of politics.  When we talk about the need, and it is a real need, for us to broaden our appeal from one-third of the vote, which has been the case for about 15 years, to much nearer a half then you have got to reach to people we haven't reached before."  Last night - for Radio Five - I interviewed a range of floating voters in Bournemouth.  They were all welcoming of David Cameron's emphasis on the environment and social justice but that wasn't enough for most of them.  They also wanted to hear about his policies for schools and hospitals.  The issue of immigration came up again and again.  Europe came up twice in ten interviews.

BOLDER: John Howard and John McCain (who arrives in Bournemouth tomorrow after warmly endorsing David Cameron in this week's Spectator) have both been willing to lead public opinion when a great issue of state or principle is at stake.  They have substantiated their leadership with a willingness to embrace tough policy positions.   In the post-Blair era my guess is that politicians will seek authenticity from politicians.  David Cameron needs to demonstrate that he has some non-negotiable core beliefs.  If he really believes that climate change is the greatest threat to the planet (this site is more worried about nuclear proliferation) he should show the courage of his convictions.

BEEFIER: There have been increasing suggestions that David Cameron is all talk and no substance.  That's unfair.  He's launched a comprehensive policy review and it will report in the next twelve months.  If we unveiled policies too early they'd only be nicked by the New Labour magpies.  When the policy groups have reported we can decide if Mr Cameron is all style or not.  Mr Cameron's reactions to the Redwood group on competitiveness and IDS' social justice group will be particularly important tests of his policy seriousness.  Until then we should be patient with the policy vacuum but in a year's time there must be real beef.

Conservative members must retain right to rank MEPs

An open letter to Francis Maude from Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome.com:

"Dear Francis,

I do not expect an immediate answer to this letter - I realise you have a very busy week ahead of you - but sometime after Bournemouth Conference it would be good to hear that members will retain full rights to rank the party's candidates for the next European Parliamentary elections.

My understanding is that sitting MEPs do not have to be tested in the preliminary rounds of the selection process and have an automatic right to go through to the final selection meeting at which party members vote on their position on the regional list.  This current position is, I believe, fair and should be retained in some similar form.

I am concerned to learn again, however, that some MEPs - on the more integrationist wing of the party - are campaigning to have their incumbency further protected.  They fear that the party's more Eurosceptic members will want to replace them with candidates more in tune with the party's stance on, for example, the euro and constitution.  These MEPs want their existing ranking on the list to be retained unless it is overturned.  And they do not want this decision to be taken by grassroots members but by regional officers.

I would like reassurance that grassroots members will still have the right to rank sitting MEPs against new final round applicants.  There may be some need to change the method of selection but the aim should be to widen the franchise and not to narrow it.  For example, the current method of ranking the MEPs at a meeting of grassroots activists could be replaced by a postal ballot of all grassroots members.  This ballot could take place after a public hustings and could be enriched by internet-based cross-examination of the candidates.

I look forward to your reply and wish you a very successful week in Bournemouth.

Best wishes,

Tim

PS I'd like to take this public opportunity to thank you for providing ConservativeHome and other bloggers with a stand at Bournemouth.  During your chairmanship the party has become the most willing to embrace the new media and I'm sure that will benefit the party in the years to come."

Related links:

• Tory MEP helps write report calling for greater 'European dimension' to education
• Europhile MEPs seek end to hustings
• An open letter to Francis Maude about the London Mayoralty process.

A good day to bury Built to Last

Team Cameron have chosen an odd day to announce the results of the Built to Last referendum.  Given the fanfare with which it was launched in January the BtL result will hardly be noticed given today's LibDem vote on tax.

As recorded in this earlier post, 92.7% of participants in the Built to Last ballot have endorsed David Cameron's new statement of values.  But it will be the poor turnout that will attract attention.  ConservativeHome predicted a poor turnout and a 90%+ endorsement... and both have happened.  The turnout was just 26.7%.  The party hoped to use text voting and a premium phone service to encourage participation but with little success.

Conservative policy in the age of terror

Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and David Cameron is due to make a major speech on foreign and security policy.  In last week's Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester wrote that the Tory leader "has done more work on this speech than any other he has made."  Mr Cameron will make the speech at lunchtime tomorrow - coinciding with the time that New York and Washington were attacked five years ago.

The speech may appear in the first editions of tomorrow's newspapers.  These are the things I hope Mr Cameron's speech will communicate:

(1) Britain is at war and western civilisation is in danger. The threat posed by Islamic fascists could hardly be more serious.  Peggy Noonan understood the danger eight years ago.  The world has always been populated by evil men, she wrote, but it is the availability of devastating but portable weaponry that is the 'big new thing'.

(2) Iran must be stopped from becoming a nuclear power.  George W Bush has recently compared the Iranian President to Adolf Hitler.  It's far from a perfect analogy but, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, it doesn't need to be: "Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria recently penned a thoughtful essay debunking the 1938 analogy. Iran is an economic and military weakling compared to the Teutonic juggernaut of the Third Reich. Inflating Ahmadinejad into Hitler stretches the analogy to the breaking point. Fair enough, but Ahmadinejad has options Hitler didn’t. Der Fuehrer needed a strong economy and an enormous military to accomplish his objectives. Thanks to things such as nuclear and (soon) biological weapons, second-rate powers like Iran, as well as basket cases like North Korea and modern-day Thugees like bin Laden, can quickly attain the destructive power Hitler only dreamed of. As science proceeds, we can be sure this reality will loom ever more frightening."

John Prescott protests too much

Our esteemed Deputy PM may have been kept out of sight during last Thursday's terror scare but he wasted no time  attacking yesterday's statement on homeland security from David Cameron.  Mr Cameron's intervention was "almost beyond belief" said Mr Prescott.  Meanwhile Defence Secretary Des Browne has accused the Tory leader of opportunism.  But, as today's Sun Says, "David Cameron is entitled to ask awkward questions about the Government’s handling of the terror crisis."  For many years Labour did nothing about the growth of Muslim extremism in Britain.  In fact, the 'Muslim leaders' that Labour have chosen to dialogue with - as Martin Bright and Michael Gove have documented - have often been the more extreme representatives of Muslim opinion.  Labour is repeating the same mistakes that it made in the Northern Ireland peace process - flattering Sinn Fein at the expense of a healthy relationship with moderate Republican opinion in the SDLP.

Labour talks about a consensus on counter terrorism but that is a consensus they want to hide their failures behind.  A consensus at Westminster normally ends up as a conspiracy against the public and David Cameron was right to say what he did yesterday.  Labour are overreacting because they have long hoped that a reputation for protecting the public was one of their electoral trump cards.  They don't like the fact that yesterday's speech by the Tory leader showed they are going to face some stiff competition for being Britain's principal party of homeland security.

A leader in today's Telegraph criticises the alleged hastiness of David Cameron's speech and accuses him of having "stumbled" into "a wholly predictable row by criticising the way the Government is combating terrorism".  The Telegraph's criticisms are unfair.  Most of what David Cameron said yesterday - on a borders police force, for example, and a minister for homeland security - are settled Tory policy.  Yesterday, in the aftermath of last week's plot, was a very good time for Mr Cameron to remind voters of those and other Tory policies.

'Change your foreign policy or we'll blow you up'

Has everyone seen today's open letter from 'Muslim leaders' to the Prime Minister?  It appears in today's Times and you can click on the graphic on the right to enlarge a scan of it.  I found it deeply dispiriting and I am clearly not the only one.   Quoted on BBC Online, LibDem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that the letter - although "expressed in very moderate terms" - could give some comfort to the kind of people who say: "Well, change your foreign policy or we'll blow you up".  I repeat - that is the view of Vince Cable.  Moderate British opinion is becoming impatient with the inadequacies of Britain's Muslim leaders.

Today's open letter could and should have been an opportunity for the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain, and for the Muslim Labour MPs who disgracefully added their signatures to the document, to make an unequivocal condemnation of all people who think there is some sort of justification for blowing up women, children and other innocents.  The MCB and their partners-in-equivocation appear unable to condemn suicide bombing - or other acts that are an offence to the vast majority of British Muslims - without adding a 'but'.  I paraphrase...

Of course 9/11 is unacceptable but the USA has done so little to help the people of Palestine... Of course suicide bombing is wrong but so was the war against Saddam... Of course we deplore the killing of innocent life but Israel has no right to attack Lebanon in the way that it has...

The steady drip of 'but, but and but' is doing nothing to stop the homicidal fringe from justifying their acts. 

In a must-read post on his blog, Iain Dale recounts how Michael Howard dealt with the MCB in the aftermath of 7/7:

"I also remember attending a meeting in Michael Howard's office with the Muslim Council of Britain. They just didn't get it. They couldn't bear to accept that it was down to them to take action. They bleated on about the War in Iraq but could not grasp that it was up to them to control the Immams who were preaching hate in Mosques up and down the country. They thought it was up to the government. Michael Howard was superb. He told them exactly what he thought and who was to blame."

We need more of Michael Howard's approach and less of John Prescott making soothing phone calls to Muslim leaders.  We also need constant reminders of the chronology of the war on terror.  John Humphrys was brutal with Douglas Alexander this morning only seconds after the Today presenter had given one of the letter signatories an easy time of it.  The following quote from Alan Mendoza on Comment is free should be posted in the Today programme's studio...

"The first attempt to destroy the World Trade Centre occurred in 1993, long before Middle Eastern nation-building was on the Anglo-US agenda. The only question therefore is whether we allow the militants to engage with us now - when they are "just" terrorists - or whether they do so when they are in control of a swathe of Middle Eastern states, backed up by nuclear weapons. I know which I prefer."

Is CCHQ fit for purpose?

Rumours are rife that David Cameron has over-ruled Francis Maude and ordered a six month postponement of the London Mayoral process if a big-hitter candidate does not come forward before today's 5pm deadline.  It was predictable and predicted that CCHQ's rushed timetable would be unlikely to yield an adequate field of candidates.

Unfortunately it's only the latest example of a failure of CCHQ to deliver the kind of political operation that David Cameron deserves.  There remain central weaknesses in CCHQ:

• We know best attitude.  This was summed up in last year's post-election plans to change the constitution of the party (which had to be abandoned) and anti-democratic plans to abolish grassroots members' right to vote in the leadership election (which failed to win the required level of support). 

• Candidate selection.  The A-list has been beset by a wide range of difficulties.  CCHQ unsuccessfully attempted to keep the names of A-listers secret... many of the 35 seats that CCHQ decided should select candidates first had not been consulted and decided not to select... more non A-listers are being selected than women A-listers... and only this week 'B-listers' haven't even received the courtesy of a letter telling them that they are not on the top-up... ConservativeHome has been highlighting the huge hurdles facing lower income candidates since the start of the year but the drive for a representative party has not begun to address this key issue of social justice.
  

• By-elections.  The campaign in Bromley & Chislehurst fell far short of the Liberal Democrat effort.

• Centralisation.  The party's poor performance in northern England demands a radical response but there are no clear plans for a serious decentralisation of campaigning power to Yorkshire or Lancashire, for example, although the major cities are now twinned with shadow ministers.

• Wastefulness. Anyone who has ever worked at CCHQ knows the level of wastefulness that characterises operations - particularly at election times.  At this year's local elections Conservative councillors all over Britain who had ordered bespoke pledge letters received the wrong material - with all of their letters addressed to residents of one ward in Manchester.  The 'Built to Last' referendum is a waste of party resources given its uncontroversial and motherhood-and-apple-pie content.

• Rush, rush, rush.  Important issues are not developed properly and policy announcements are rushed out.  In the last few days Association officers all across Britain are being invited to consultation meetings about the party's rebranding exercise.  People are being given two weeks' notice in the middle of August to present their views.  I'm reminded of Inigo Wilson's definition of "consultation" in his excellent Lefty Lexicon: "A formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time".

There are some excellent individuals in CCHQ and a series of recent appointments are designed to address some of the above weaknesses.  There should be no shying away, however, from the continuing failure of CCHQ to be the campaigning force that the party needs.