ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Eric Pickles is off to Majorca - to get Brits abroad to register to vote

Yesterday I spent an hour with the recently-appointed party chairman, Eric Pickles, and at some point in the next few days I will be publishing the highlights of our conversation, during which he talks about how he is settling in to his new role and what he hopes to achieve as chairman.

But first of all, I bring you the news that he is off to Majorca tomorrow - and not to try and find some winter sun; he is spearheading a new Conservative Party effort to ensure that eligible Britons abroad don't lose their right to vote in UK elections (and, dare I say, that they use that vote in favour of the Conservatives).

"There are something like two and a half million British citizens overseas who are eligible to vote in British elections, but only about 14,000 are registered to do so. My trip to Majorca, where I'll be speaking at a rally, is the start of a prolonged registration campaign. It's not just a dash for the elections in June, we're looking towards the General Election."

There will be some visits by him and senior party spokesmen to some of the locations where there are large numbers of Britons - he mentioned various European countries, America and the Gulf States - although the campaign has a website too, which is to be found at DontLeaveYourVoteAtHome.com.

"The great thing about the web is that we can talk to our friends in New York and elsewhere without the benefit of a Pickles visit. So we'll be using the site to get people to register and encourage their friends to do so too, to make sure they don't lose their say in the most important elections which are coming up."

The website includes a factsheet explaining precisely who is eligible to register to vote and a downloadable form for people to print, fill in and send back to the relevant electoral registration office.

When Mr Pickles's visit to Majorca was announced locally, it was front page news in the main English language newspaper on the island. He feels this reflects the importance of the registration campaign, which is to be far more concerted than previous efforts along similar lines.

"I think this is a major, important thing for us to do. Traditionally, we've looked at the ex-pats, people who go abroad to retire. We'll still be doing that, of course, but we're also looking at young professionals doing a period in Dubai, folks working out in America and the like. I'm pretty determined about this - this is the start of getting serious numbers of people registered."

Jonathan Isaby

David Cameron tells Iain Dale that extra state funding of political parties is "last thing you want to spend money on" during these tough times

Iain Dale has released the advance text of an extended interview with David Cameron.  It will be published in full on Wednesday in the March issue of Total Politics magazine.

Some highlights are pasted below:

Any extra state funding for political parties is off the agenda in these "straightened" times: "There is no enthusiasm for state funding. I would like to have the cap at £50,000 and I have always argued that if you can deliver that, then there might be some legitimisation of some limited state funding, but at a time of straightened public finances it’s about the last thing you want to spend any money on. So I absolutely recognise we will need to do better on small donations. Could that be accompanied by some sort of tax relief on donations to encourage giving? Maybe that’s one answer. What we want is parties that have, as a matter of course, to engage massively with people in order to win support and win donations at the same time. Any reform has got to be focused on that. Yes, we do still take some very big donations because we have to compete with the Labour Party who can literally pick up the phone to three unions and get the money, but we have massively broadened the number of people giving £50,000."

Lords reform is also a low priority: "In terms of reform, having a more elected chamber, which is what I favour, to be frank is not an urgent priority. The urgent priority is to sort out the economy and introduce social reform programmes."

Asked if he is a focus grouped politician: "Bullshit! There are lots of misconceptions in politics and you shouldn’t worry too much about them, but I would argue that this Conservative Party which I am leading is one of the least focus group, opinion poll-led parties for a long time. Did I ask a focus group before saying I am a marriage nut? Did I ask a focus group about gay marriage? Of course not! I just don’t! I have never pre-tested a speech, which I know other politicians do. I think our Prime Minister does. Of course, we hold focus groups to try to find out what the mood of the nation is and understand it. Of course, we have regular reports and opinion polls. It would be crazy not to. But I really don’t think this party, this leader, my team are obsessed by focus groups, and it’s a great misconception that we are. It’s frustrating."

Asked about David Davis' decision to fight a by-election on civil liberties: "Because I am quite a logical person, I couldn’t get the logical connection between the loss of a vote in the Commons and a decision on something the whole Conservative Party was united about and the decision to resign and fight a byelection. I am very fond of David. We worked extremely well together - perhaps better than many people predicted. He is an extremely talented politician. It did demonstrate, and perhaps surprised some people, that the Conservative Party cared so much about civil liberties, but we do. I tried to persuade him out of it because I didn’t think it was the right thing to do, so I didn’t think it was something the Conservative Party could say, well that’s our policy – when we disagree with something we’ll all fight byelections. You can’t do that, so that’s why I had to say quite rapidly that I was going to have to get a new Shadow Home Secretary."

Iain Dale will be posting more on his own blog.

Francis Maude pledges to change the culture of civil service recruitment

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude has pledged to change the culture of recruitment of civil servants in the wake of today's National Audit Office report, Recruiting Civil Servants Efficiently.

The report - covered in today's Daily Telegraph and by the BBC - makes a number of criticisms of the inefficiency of Whitehall recruitment procedures and its retention of staff once they are recruited.

The report states:

• It typically takes 16 weeks to recruit a new civil servant, with internal costs of between £556 and £1,921.
• It should be possible to cut costs by 68%, saving £35 million a year across Whitehall.
• Between 14% and 52% of civil service recruits left within a year of being taken on, based on a study of the six largest employers in government.
• 40,000 central government jobs were recruited last year, but only a fraction were advertised to the public.

It states that “central government’s external recruitment processes do not fully deliver value for money” and goes on to criticise the lack of centrally held data on the cost of government recruitment.

Mr Maude has also separately established that of the 40,000 vacancies filled each year, only about 6,000 of those jobs are advertised on the Civil Service jobs extranet. Furthermore, only half of that figure are advertised on the section of that site which can be viewed by members of the public, in other words, fewer than one in ten of the vacancies.

Francis Maude reckons that this is not good enough and that advertising central government jobs to the public on the internet would save recruitment costs, highlight questionable positions and open up central government jobs to competition.

He concludes:

“It is unfair that central government jobs are being hidden from the public. It’s time to open up Whitehall’s closed job shop. Making greater use of the internet will save money, expose unnecessary bureaucracy and ensure healthy competition in the job market.”

Jonathan Isaby

Is it time to reform the House of Lords?

This week's  scandal surrounding four Labour members of the House of Lords - "cash for amendments", "peers for hire" or "Ermine-gate" as it is variously being branded - has prompted discussion among the commentariat as to whether it is time to reform the House of Lords (and for "reform" we should generally read "elect").

This morning, a leader in the FT suggests that a fully elected second chamber - as backed by MPs in 2007 - remains "the right way forward".

Mary Riddell in the Telegraph agrees:

"Move to a fully elected chamber, with peers nominated for their expertise and paid a salary. Drop the titles; Lords and Ladies belong in Shakespeare, or on grouse moors. Fulfil a Labour promise first made in 1967: don't replace the last 92 hereditaries when they die. Get rid of the bishops (a move first attempted by the Commons in 1836) on the basis that the Church should have no formal role in the legislature."

The Conservatives have long made made noises - though often half-hearted - about a more democratic House of Lords. In 2007, David Cameron voted in favour of an 80%-elected second chamber, but, as Fraser Nelson points out in today's Spectator, it would by no means be a priority for a Cameron premiership:

"Being able to appoint Lords has its uses for him, too. There is the small matter of the as yet un-nobled Stanley Fink, the billionaire who has kindly agreed to be Tory Treasurer. And Mr Cameron is expected to follow Mr Brown’s lead in appointing what the Prime Minister memorably called a ‘government of all the talents’ or ‘goats’ — outsiders brought into his government. Being able to offer ermine is a powerful negotiating tool when seeking to hire outsiders on a Whitehall salary."

Whilst the House of Lords rules should be changed to make peers subject to the same kind of sanctions as MPs if they are found to have abused their position, I have long believed that electing the second chamber would be unwise.

David Cameron pledges to introduce sanctions for peers who break the rules

As the story has continued to run this week about the Sunday Times allegation that Labour peers have taken money in return for getting laws amended, David Cameron has tonight pledged to reform the system which operates in the Upper House to allow for punishments for those who break the rules.

In short, he wants to allow for members of the Lords who behave wrongly or break the code of conduct to be suspended or expelled.

He is setting up a committee to advise him on how this can be done, but is determined that procedures and indeed laws be changed in order to introduce sanctions for wrongdoing.

He said:

"Today, it's not possible to suspend a member of the House of Lords no matter how badly he or she behaves, it's not possible to expel them from that legislature and yet they're making the laws that all of us have to obey. This is completely wrong, it needs to change and we will change it. We will make sure that members of the House of Lords, if they behave wrongly, can be suspended or expelled. Simple as that.

"There is a good code of conduct for members of the House of Lords but if they breach it there aren't proper sanctions, there aren't proper punishments. That's wrong, that needs to change.

"That's why I'm setting up this committee to advise me, to look at the issues of lobbying, consultancies, what is declared and what the procedures are. I think it's very important that we absolutely make sure that our Parliament is sorted out and everyone knows that both Houses of Parliament, Commons and Lords, the people there, are working hard, declaring their expenses and allowances properly, doing the things they are meant to do and are open in all the declarations they make about any outside interests or any other things that they might have.

"It's about transparency, making sure everyone declares everything everybody needs to know and it's making sure we have a proper process so bad behaviour is rooted out and dealt with."

There is little I can add except to say amen to that. If public faith in our parliamentary institutions is to be properly restored, politicians need to be going about their business transparently and honestly - and they need to be seen to be doing so.

As such, it is only right that those in the House of Lords who behave improperly should be subject to sanctions similar to those applied to their counterparts in the Commons.

Jonathan Isaby

Ken Clarke can't see Britain joining Euro in his political lifetime

Excellent performance by Ken Clarke on Andrew Marr's programme in which in predicted that Britain wouldn't join the Euro in his "political lifetime".

He said that it was a decision for David Cameron but that he hoped to play a role in the next Conservative government.  He wasn't just in this for a spell on the opposition benches.

On the big story of the day - allegations in The Sunday Times that Labour peers were prepared to accept 'cash-for-laws' - he said that an independent investigation would be needed to establish whether "corruption" was present.

One question: It seems extraordinary that these peers will be able to keep their places in the Lords if they are found guilty.  Surely that needs to change?

6pm: Watch the interview.

Tory peers under fire over low attendance at votes in the Lords

Today's Sunday Telegraph carries a report that Conservative peers participate in far fewer House of Lords divisions than their Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts.

It states that average attendance rates at votes for peers of the three parties during the 2007-2008 session were:

Labour - 55%
Liberal Democrat - 54%
Conservative - 29%

The report goes on:

"An analysis of the figures shows that 18 per cent of Tory peers turned up for fewer than one in 10 votes, while only 12 per cent turned up for more than half... No Conservative peer turned up for more than 100 votes. The highest Tory attenders were Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the party's chief whip in the Upper House, and Baroness Seccombe, who each attended 78 votes. Baroness Morris of Bolton, the shadow minister for children and a key ally of Mr Cameron's in his drive to recruit more women to the party, turned up for 77."

There are a couple of points that should be made in defence of the Tory peers.

Firstly, many took their seats in the pre-1999 environment of a House with a considerable hereditary element in which the arithmetic was completely different and fewer peers would have seen their role as a full-time job; conversely a significant proportion of the Labour and Lib Dem peers have been appointed since those changes in 1999.

Secondly, on the few occasions each session when there really is a crunch vote which could lead to a Government defeat, the Tories in the Lords are generally pretty good at being there when it counts.

However, the need for more committed working peers was in our mind when ConservativeHome launched its Search for 100 Peers - an exercise to identify people whom David Cameron ought to consider appointing to the Lords when he has the opporutnity to bolster the Tory ranks in the Upper House.

Please keep emailing me with your suggestions of names to include in the series (with biographical information and why your nomination would be a good working peer, as well as whether you wish to be identified). With your help, we can show just how broad a range of talented and committed Conservative-minded people there are out there who could bring their skills and expertise to the Lords.

Jonathan Isaby

Cameron ready to cut Commons by 60 MPs and make all seats of equal size

The Tory leader has told the Financial Times that he is prepared to cut the number of MPs by about sixty and will do so as a first term priority.  He told the FT that “the House of Commons could do the job that it does with 10% fewer MPs without any trouble at all.”

There is fairness, good economics and good politics in Mr Cameron's intentions:

• Fairness: Many Welsh, northern English and urban seats in particular are much smaller than southern English and rural seats.  That unfairness needs to be addressed and was the subject of a ConservativeHome campaign last year - quickly answered by Nick Herbert.  "I believe in having seats that are the same size all across the country,” Mr Cameron told the FT.
• Good economics: At a time of economic difficulty and popular concern at the scale of political perks it makes sense to reduce the cost of the political process.  When Mr Cameron first floated a reduction in the number of MPs the savings were to be ploughed into extra state funding for the political parties.  I do not know if that is still the intention.
• Good politics: A move to fair-sized seats will begin to eliminate the disadvantage faced by the Conservatives from the current distribution of seats.  Today's 10% Tory lead translates into a Tory majority of 34.  If Labour enjoyed the same percentage advantage the Labour majority would be one hundred seats larger at 136.

If Mr Cameron was able to enact these changes in the first term it would make a huge difference to the chances of re-election.  My unconfirmed understanding, however, is that the changes would only be effective for the General Election afterwards.

On Platform today Peter Luff MP recommends other parliamentary reforms.  He'd like smaller, fewer parliamentary select committees and proposes a new committee dedicated to social justice.

Tim Montgomerie

You want an alternative to Heathrow, an elected Party Chairman, to go back to the seaside...

...but you don't want an English Parliament or a disestablished Church.

The final results of our end-December survey are summarised below:

1,816 Tory members were surveyed from 22nd to 28th December.

David Davis calls for Bob Quick to substantiate his allegations against Tories or be replaced for inquiry into Damian Green

In another low in the relationship between the Conservative Party and London's police, the Met's Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Damian Green investigation has accused the Tories of dirty tricks:

"The police officer leading the Whitehall leaks inquiry has accused the Tories of endangering his family's safety by leaking information about his wife's wedding-car hire business. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick claimed he had fallen victim to dirty tricks in an attempt to sabotage the investigation that led to the arrest of Tory front-bencher Damian Green. But the Conservatives flatly denied the allegation and cast doubt on his fitness to continue as head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism squad."

On this morning's Today programme former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said that Mr Quick should either substantiate his allegation that the Conservatives conspired with the Mail on Sunday for yesterday's story - 'Security scare over wedding car hire firm run from top terror police chief's home' - or another senior officer should be put in charge of the controversial investigation into Damian Green's conduct.  Listen to David Davis here.

Related link: Lessons from the Damian Green affair for Tory strategy.

10.30am from the Press Association: "Tory leader David Cameron has demanded that Britain's anti-terror chief should retract claims that his party had tried to undermine a Whitehall leaks inquiry."

11.15am: Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve MP has issued this statement after Bob Quick apologised: "We accept Assistant Commissioner Quick’s unreserved apology and this draws a line under the matter.”

Time to make the police democratically accountable?

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has announced via an interview in The Guardian this morning that the Government will not be proceeding with plans to have directly elected police authorities.

She appears to pin the blame on the Conservatives for changing her mind:

"The Tories' behaviour has raised fears that the police were being politicised, making it more difficult to win public support for my proposals for some members of the police authority to be directly elected. Looking at what has happened over the past two months, there has been a fundamental shift in the way people think about the politicisation of the police. I put that down to the London mayor's intervention in the resignation of Sir Ian Blair and the events surrounding the Damian Green affair."

Chris Huhne for the Lib Dems recently cited his party's opposition to directly-elected police commissioners on the basis that such an individual could be a populist "insensitive to the rights and freedoms of minorities in that area".

The Times this morning also seems to suggest that the potential for extremists getting elected to police authorities was another reason for the Government dropping its plans.

But the Conservative position, developed by Nick Herbert when he was shadow police reform minister, remains that  police authorities should be replaced with a directly-elected police commissioner, who would act as the focus for public accountability.

There is strong support for increasing democratic accountability in all kinds of policy areas from the Direct Democracy movement inside the Conservative Party, as championed by Daniel Hannan, Douglas Carswell and others - most recently in their book: The Plan.

Is this not an area where the Conservatives should be highlighting clear blue water between the parties?

Is Labour's position not a vote loser on the basis that they appear to be saying "We do not trust to you vote for the right people"?

11am update - Here's the reaction to today's news from shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve:

"The Home Secretary only ever paid lip-service to the notion of police accountability. Now she is trying to spin her way out of it. This shows Labour are completely bereft of ideas when it comes to making the police accountable to the people they serve. Jacqui Smith has shown the Government in its true colours.

"The danger of politicisation of the police has come from the complete micromanagement that has been the hallmark of this Government over the last eleven years. Our plans to replace police authorities with directly elected police commissioners are entirely different from those of the Government. They are about both restoring the professional judgement of the police, while making them accountable to and able to work with the public, not Whitehall diktats."

Jonathan Isaby

Should MPs be preparing for such a long Christmas recess?

The Daily Telegraph reports this morning that when the Commons rises and MPs return to their constituencies on Thursday, they will enjoy their longest Christmas break away from Westminster in a decade.

With Parliament not returning until January 12, that makes a 24-day recess.

On the one hand, the libertarian-minded among us who favour a small state will welcome the idea of nearly a month going by without our politicians being afforded the opportunity to ban things, interfere, regulate and so on.

And MPs obviously have valuable constituency work to be getting on with as well.

But they are also uniquely placed to hold the Government to account, as pointed out by two sources quoted in the Telegraph article.

Says Tory MP, Peter Luff:

"We still need to properly debate the economic situation. There are so many issues, so much legislation that needs scrutiny, and all we get is a longer holiday."

And Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers Alliance:

"The record length of MPs' holidays is utterly at odds with the situation of ordinary people this Christmas. Whilst everyone else works longer and longer hours to survive the recession, it is frustrating to see Parliament shutting down. Given the huge quantities of taxpayers' money put at risk by the recent bailouts, we need our representatives to be scrutinising the Government as closely as possible, not shutting up shop."

They both make very pertinent points.

Furthermore, whilst this Government is proud to have abolished all but the very occasional late night sitting of the Commons on the grounds of being "family friendly", people need reminding that it has also brought in timetabling of every Bill put before the Commons - which means that reams of legislation is no longer given proper scrutiny by MPs. It is often now the House of Lords which is better placed to hold the Government's proposals to account as goes through new laws line by line.

And just the other day, for example, a time limit was imposed on the debate on the situation surrounding the Damian Green arrest. Why?

Don't we need to ensure that MPs have sufficient time to fulfill that scrutiny role before extending their absences from Westminster?

Jonathan Isaby

Is it time for another Tory Speaker?

There are two myths propagated about the Speakership of the House of Commons.

One is that there is a convention that it alternates between Conservative and Labour MPs. This is patently not correct, since there were in fact four Conservative MP in a row who served as Speaker between 1928 and 1965.

Secondly, there are those who say that convention states that the Speaker always comes from the benches of the governing party. This was the case for several hundred years - until 1992 when the convention was broken on the election of Labour's Betty Boothroyd.

By modern standards, Speaker Martin has already had a good innings after eight years in the post; the last of his predecessors to serve more than a decade was Edward Fitzroy, who died in office during World War II.

So after a weekend of further speculation about the future of the post's current incumbent - including a BBC survey in which a significant proportion of MPs questioned declared themselves to have lost confidence in Michael Martin - thoughts are turning to the identity of the person who should succeed him, whenever that may be.

On the timing front, I would venture that the sooner a new Speaker can be chosen, the better. By its very nature, the role is supposed to be held by a unifying figure who can command respect across the chamber - this is clearly no longer the case with MPs of all political hues now questioning Speaker Martin's judgements.

So who should take over? From the Labour side, names being talked about include Wales Secretary, Paul Murphy, and one of the current Deputy Speakers, Sylvia Heal. Then there are those who favour ex-Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell.

But there is also a wealth of potential candidates from the Conservative benches. Several knights of the shires have long fancied the role, including Sir George Young, Sir Patrick Cormack and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

There are of course also two Conservative Deputy Speakers in Sir Alan Haslehurst and Sir Michael Lord, of whom the former won many plaudits when he temporarily deputised for Speaker Martin on a full-time basis during a bout of ill health.

And the other Tory name increasingly being talked about on all sides of the House is John Bercow, the MP for Buckingham. Whilst his political journey may have lost him some friends on the Tory benches, it has also gained him widespread respect across the Commons and would in my mind be the ideal choice.

Jonathan Isaby

Should Conservatives back more power for Holyrood?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the former Scottish Secretary, has given an interview today in which he states that those considering giving further powers to the Scottish Parliament are "off their heads".

The backdrop to his comments is the ongoing discussion of this very matter by the Calman Commission, whose first report is to be issued shortly.

The Commission - which is backed by the three main unionist parties in Scotland - has the following remit:

"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."

Among the proposals it could make would be to give Scotland greater powers over taxation, a suggestion to which Lord Forsyth gives short shrift:

“I think it's amazing when the house is on fire that people are wondering if it might be a good idea to raise more taxes in Scotland."

When it was put to him that this could mean the Scottish Parliament having power to reduce taxes north of the border, he expressed incredulity at this ever happening.

The Scottish Parliament already has the abilitiy to vary the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound. But given that it has not yet used even that power, is it fanciful to be thinking in terms of passing yet more responsibilities to Holyrood?

Or is it that more significant powers are required if devolution arrangements are to be meaningful, since current powers only allow politicians to tinker at the edges?

Should Conservatives be thinking about making Scotland fiscally autonomous or do you believe that would be a step too far on the road to separation?

Jonathan Isaby

Conservatives need their own democracy agenda

ConHome is delighted that Nick Herbert has already promised fairer-sized constituency seats but the Conservatives need a bigger 'democracy agenda'.  We'll return to this agenda on another occasion but here are three things we hope to see:

• End the power that big money and big unions have in the political process.  By the end of a Parliament the maximum donation to a political party should be reduced to something like £1,000 or even lower.  Such a change would have a revolutionary impact on how political parties relate to voters.  Big money donations from business, unions or the taxpayer insulate parties from real voters.  The internet could be harnessed to build political parties that rely on the little guy for their income.  Barack Obama has shown the way.
• Move to a system where we have more and more City Mayors.  City Mayors - like US Governors - would not only be good for their communities but could be the heads of Cabinet departments of the future.  Too many of our MPs lack executive experience.  We need to build a system which sees a Prime Minister appointing successful Mayors to run Whitehall initiatives and departments.
• Share the BBC licence fee with a new public service broadcaster (or broadcasters) - built on a different model of impartiality (Peter Whittle explains more).  Jeremy Hunt is taking steps in this direction but will he be bold enough?  Ending The Guardian's near monopoly of public sector ads should also be part of a Conservative vision to end the privileged status of the BBC-Guardian worldview.

> Step 5/10: Greg Clark must keep the lights on

The Plan by Hannan and Carswell to launch tomorrow

Direct Democracy will tomorrow launch its third major publication, written by Douglas Carswell MP and Daniel Hannan MEP. The Plan: 12 months to renew Britain sets out a legislative programme that the authors believe would take a single session of Parliament, accounting for recesses, but change Britain for ever.

The original Direct Democracy publication, subtitled Agenda for a New Model Party, argues for the Conservatives running and government unambiguously as the anti-Establishment, anti-centralist party, devolving power either back to the individual or to the lowest possible level of government. The book identified voters' dissatisfaction with politicians and reluctance to vote as a rational response to the way in which Britain is governed, with the decisions most clearly affecting people's lives more often taken by quangos and bodies of supposed expert opinion than by elected politicians. Released following the 2005 General Election, three out of four leadership contenders - David Cameron, David Davis and Liam Fox - endorsed the pamphlet. The proposal of elected sheriffs is now Conservative Party policy. This was followed by the Localist Papers, serialised in the Daily Telegraph.

Openly radical, The Plan applies these general principles to produce a policy and legislative programme. The book includes proposals for the use of referendums to allow citizens to initiate and to halt legislation, and a Great Repeal Bill, abolishing thirty laws, many selected from ConservativeHome readers' comments to Douglas Carswell's CentreRight thread 'What laws would you repeal?'. The book has chapters devoted to pitfalls and voters' dissatisfaction in areas from health care to foreign policy.

ConservativeHome will be covering The Plan's launch event tomorrow evening. The book can be ordered online now.

Peter Cuthbertson

Peter Bottomley supports call to end MPs' compulsory oath of allegiance to The Queen

A group of 22 MPs, led by Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, and including one Conservative, Peter Bottomley, believe that MPs should be free to choose an oath of allegiance that doesn't include mention of the monarch.  The late Tony Banks MP famously crossed his fingers when he swore the oath.

The group of 22 want members of the Commons and Lords to be able to swear allegiance to their 'constituents and the nation' instead.

Mr Bottomley told The Mail:

"We need to make the oath something that people are offered, rather than required to take. We should make provision for republicans or separatists. I wouldn't drop the oath  -  I would make it optional. I am a subject of the Queen even more than I am a citizen of this country. I'd much prefer a bad monarchy to a good president. But people ought to be able to come to Parliament and argue that they don't want the monarchy."

The suggestion has angered other Tories.  Lord Tebbit said the oath had served the nation "satisfactorily for the past 500 years" and "the fact that a silly group of people at the beginning of the 21st century think they know better seems to me to be a very dodgy proposition."

Geoffrey Cox MP attacked the move as "uncomprehending constitutional vandalism."  He continued:

"The Queen is the centre of the British constitution.  To remove her from the Parliamentary oath taken by Members of Parliament is a covert attempt to republicanise our constitution."

One of Boris Johnson's first acts as Mayor of London was to place a portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in City Hall.

Annabel Goldie denies secret talks with SNP

This is the front page 'exclusive' in today's Scottish Daily Mail:

The story - not online - alleges:

• A Tory plan to "hugely increase the powers of the Scottish Executive" in return for keeping Scotland in the Union.
• A "senior Tory insider" told the Mail's John Robertson of a "warm and friendly relationship" between the SNP and Tories "with an eye to mutual political advantage".
• The Mail says the gain for an incoming Tory government would be that they could claim to have saved the Union.  Alex Salmond would be able to claim extra powers and avoid a referendum on independence that polls suggest he would lose.

The Scottish Conservatives have denied that secret talks are taking place.  Annabel Goldie issued this statement:

"No such talks have taken place. A review of devolution is currently being conducted by the Calman Commission.”

Editorial comment: "The plan doesn't appear to make much sense.  Extra powers for Holyrood may win a temporary accommodation with the nationalists for a few years but would only take Scotland one step closer to independence.  We hope there is no truth in the story and in other rumours that the Conservatives are willing to dilute plans for English votes for English laws and reform of the Barnett formula in return for a 'peace deal' with the victors of Glasgow East."

The Conservative AND Unionist Party

It's not often that political leaders can meet without their plans leaking but months of negotiations between the Conservatives and the Ulster Unionist Party have taken place without the Westminster village reporting on them.  Following much spadework by Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson MP, David Cameron and the UUP's Reg Impey have announced a joint working party that may result in what Mr Cameron calls the "creation of a new mainstream political party".  The two men have authored a joint article for today's Daily Telegraph.

Up until the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1986 the two parties were formally linked and many Unionist MPs served in Conservative governments.  This initiative may see a return to those days but the UUP is a shadow of its former self.  It has just one MP at Westminster, Sylvia Hermon, and its former leader, David Trimble, defected to the Conservatives last year.  The UUP remains a reasonable force in local government, however.  115 of NI's 582 councillors belong to the UUP compared to 126 Sinn Fein councillors and 182 DUP councillors.

From the UUP's perspective an alliance with the resurgent Conservatives may offer the best hope of electoral recovery.  A recent YouGov poll of NI voters, commissioned by Owen Paterson and NI Conservatives, found that "45% would be Very Likely or Likely to vote Conservative at the next general election if given the opportunity." 

Editorial comment: "ConservativeHome warmly welcomes this initiative.  Although the Conservative Party has been contesting NI elections since 1992 this potential merger represents a serious opportunity for the Tories to emerge as the only party with seats in every part of the UK.  Northern Ireland residents should be able to vote for non-sectarian parties and for an alternative to the big state politics of both the DUP and Sinn Fein."

Herbert supports first-past-the-post for elections to reformed Upper House

Jack Straw has unveiled his White Paper for Lords reform.  He proposes the abolition of hereditary peers but the retention of the Bishops.  The new Upper House would consist of no more than 450 members - elected for terms of 12 to 15 years.

Responding in the House of Commons, Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert focused on unresolved issues:

1. Method of election: "We believe that the electoral system should mirror this House – a first-past-the-post system based on recognisable constituencies of our historic cities and counties.  And we would strongly resist any move to introduce an electoral system based on proportional representation."
2. Cost: "At a time of increasing public disquiet about the use of taxpayers’ funds by politicians, the cost of the second chamber is bound to be an issue.  What plans does the Justice Secretary have to set out the pay, pensions and responsibilities of members of a reformed second chamber and the costs of reform as a whole?"
3. Size: "We have argued for a second chamber of between 250 – 300 members; a similar size to the upper houses of France, Italy and Spain.  The US Senate has only 100 members for a population of 300 million – albeit in a federal system."
4. Name: "On the subject of a senate, the White Paper notes that the Working Group reached a “strong consensus” that a reformed second chamber should be known as the Senate – yet the Government’s proposals do not use this name.  Can he tell us why the Government appears reticent to adopt a name which was agreed by the cross-party Group?
5. Transition: "The White Paper suggests that life Peers could remain members of a reformed second chamber even after transition is complete.  How could reform possibly be considered ‘complete’ while life Peers remained in a second chamber, possibly for decades?"
6. A space for Appointed members: " is it not the case that, in view of the contrary position taken by the Lords themselves, retaining an appointed minority would provide the best hope of consensus?"
7. Purpose: "Reform should not be supported unless it strengthens the authority of the second chamber in holding governments to account.  But a reformed second chamber should not seek to compete with this House, which must continue to have primacy."
8. Timing: "Reform of the Lords has been proposed and attempted for the last hundred years.  Can the Secretary of State for Justice indicate when he thinks these proposals will be translated into a Bill?"

Rifkind calls for amendment of Ken Clarke's answer to the West Lothian Question

Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP has just issued a statement explaining why Ken Clarke's answer to the West Lothian Question is inadequate.

This is the key section of his argument:

"By leaving the Second Reading to be voted on by all MPs this will mean that legislation that only applies to England could receive a Second Reading and be approved in principle even if it was unacceptable to a majority of MPs representing English constituencies. Thus the legislation on tuition fees, foundation hospitals or fox hunting would still have been approved.  Such legislation, under the Clarke proposals, would now be subject to amendment to meet English wishes which is very much to be welcomed. However, these amendments could not reverse the basic objective of such a Bill which had been approved by the House of Commons as a whole, as any attempt to do so would be designated a “wrecking amendment” and ruled out of order."

He then proposes this solution:

"There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing  English constituencies."

Here is a PDF of Sir Malcolm's full response.

Cameron likely to accept Clarke answer to West Lothian Question

More than two months ago we reported that Ken Clarke was set to recommend that MPs from all parts of the UK should retain the final say on laws only affecting English constituencies.  Mr Clarke confirmed that that was his Democracy Taskforce's conclusion during a 7.35am interview for this morning's Today programme.  We understand that David Cameron is minded to accept it.

Mr Clarke does, however, propose that only MPs from English seats will be able to amend legislation that is introduced in the normal way by the UK government.  There will then be a Convention that at the final stage of Commons scrutiny all MPs will either endorse or reject the amended legislation as a whole rather than picking and choosing the amendments made by MPs from English constituencies.

Mr Clarke confirmed his view that the Conservatives were wrong to oppose devolution in 1997 and that this diluted (our word) version of 'English votes for English laws' was a necessary step to prevent a crisis in the Union that could be caused if MPs from outside of England sided with a minority of English MPs to impose legislation unwanted by the majority.

Mr Clarke's proposals do seem to meet the principal concerns of Sir Malcolm Rifkind.  Sir Malcolm had proposed a more radical answer to Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question but had said that two things were needed for Mr Clarke's idea to be acceptable: (1) At Committee and Report stages MPs from English seats would need to be represented in proportion to all MPs from English seats and (2) 'English amendments' could not be undone at the final stage of Commons voting.

Mr Clarke's recommendations come at a time when the heavily Scottish identity of the Labour Government has been questioned by its own MPs.  Stephen Ladyman has called for more 'English voices' in Government and Frank Field has discussed the "fiscal discriminations" facing the English.  The Barnett formula - that lies behind the "fiscal discriminations" - is overwhelmingly opposed by the next generation of Conservative MPs.  A survey by ConservativeHome found that 83% of adopted candidates want it to be substantially reformed.

People in Northern Ireland want a Conservative government

In the wake of the DUP's vote for 42 days, Simon Chapman used CentreRight.com to call for the Conservative Party to actively contest seats in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has written for today's Belfast Telegraph (available to read here) about the demand for the Conservative Party to contest seats in this fourth nation of the United Kingdom.  His article follows a presentation to all Conservative MPs yesterday evening.

His article states that the people of Northern Ireland care about UK-wide issues:

"People in Northern Ireland should be part of mainstream UK politics, playing an active part in national parties.  On my weekly visits to Northern Ireland people express emphatic views on national issues: the price of fuel, 10p tax row, business taxes, interest rates, over regulation and the Lisbon Treaty.  The current political system keeps them locked in the old style politics." 

Mr Paterson also quotes a YouGov survey of nearly 900 voters in Northern Ireland that suggests a demand for UK politics:

"Recent polling by YouGov shows that 54% would welcome more representation by UK wide political parties, 53% would prefer to see a Conservative Government led by David Cameron and only 27% favour a Brown Labour Government.  45% would be Very Likely or Likely to vote Conservative at the next general election if given the opportunity. 

After the trauma of the past 30 years, the constitutional arrangements of Northern Ireland are thankfully settled.  Now is the time for Northern Ireland to move back into the mainstream of national politics."

The Conservatives have been contesting seats in Northern Ireland for a number of years now but without huge success.  The best known Northern Ireland Conservative is David Trimble; following his defection a year ago.

> Click here for the Conservatives of Northern Ireland website.
> Click here for a week in the life of Owen Paterson, Shadow NI Secretary.

Who should David Cameron put on the red benches?

One of the big challenges for what we hope will be an incoming Conservative government will be the need to ensure that we have a full working frontbench team in the House of Lords.

The current Tory representation in the Lords is summarised in the graphic on the right.  In order to have enough fronbench talent, ConservativeHome estimates that David Cameron will have to appoint approximately twenty new Conservative peers in his first twelve months - assuming that fundamental Lords reform hasn't happened by then.

Who would you appoint?

Here are some suggestions to get the debate going:

• David Fraser, one of Britain's foremost experts on crime and sentencing.  With twenty-six years experience working in the Probation Service, courts and prisons, and having addressed Commons Select Committee on Sentencing. His recent book 'A Land Fit for Criminals' was an encylopaedic attack on the myths and half-truths that are used to oppose tougher, longer prison sentences. 
• Jill Kirby, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies.  Jill is an articulate and thoughtful Conservative who writes the first essay in The Telegraph's 'Tories in power' series this morning.  She writes about the family - the issue about which she is one of Britain's leading authorities.
• George Magan, former Tory Treasurer, philanthropist and  City banker.  Mr Magan has been a long-standing supporter of the party and would bring much to the Conservative benches' understanding of the economy.
• Simon Wolfson, CEO of the Next chain.  Mr Wolfson has been a consistent supporter of Eurosceptic causes  and co-chaired the Conservative Party's Policy Group on economic competitiveness.

Lord Forsyth: England and Scotland should vote on the future of the Union in May 2009

Lord Forsyth was interviewed last night by Andrew Neil for BBC News' Straight Talk.  In a wide-ranging interview in which he attributed his political conversion to the Adam Smith Institute and urged the party to cut taxes for low income workers, the last Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland urged David Cameron to join with Wendy Alexander and other Unionists and hold a vote on independence next May, 2009.

Alex Salmond's agenda is quite clear, Michael Forsyth told Andrew Neil.  The SNP leader expects - "rightly" - that the Tories will win the next General Election but won't have many MPs from Scotland.  He calculates that that situation will maximise the chances of Scotland voting 'Yes' to independence in 2010.  Following Alex Salmond's timetable, Lord Forsyth argues, won't be in the interests of the Union.  Delay and uncertainty on this issue is "debilitating", bad for business, he says, and the Unionist parties should come together now and "lay the issue to rest" once and for all.  A referendum should ideally be held next May and both the English and Scottish should be able to say whether they want the Union to continue.  [Presumably the Welsh and Northern Irish, too?].

Lord Forsyth said that he was confident that the Union would be affirmed in any such vote.  The SNP, he said, didn't come to power because of their opposition to the Union but simply because it was the party best placed to end Labour rule in Scotland.