ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Voters like the idea of more LibDem-Tory co-operation

A poll of 873 adults by PoliticsHome finds strong support for more co-operation between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Conservative strategists are delighted at the politics of Wednesday's vote on Gurkhas.  They believe it sent out two key messages: (1) Brown is isolated and (2) the Conservatives are the reasonable party, prepared to work with others.

ConHome reported in February that the Conservatives are considering "generous outreach" to the Liberal Democrats in the event of an election victory:

"A group of shadow ministers believe that one of Tony Blair's bigger strategic mistakes was to row back on co-operation with the Liberal Democrats when he won such a large Commons majority in 1997.  These shadow ministers believe that - contrary to Labour's 'under-delivery' to the LibDems - the Conservatives should deliver more in practical co-operation in government than they promise in opposition."

At his monthly press conference yesterday Mr Cameron admitted that he didn't know Nick Clegg well but restated his December 2005 identity as a "liberal conservative" and he said that the Conservatives will work with the Liberal Democrats on issues of common interest, such as the environment, strengthening local govenment and opposing the surveillance state.

Tim Montgomerie

> On Seats and candidates today Leah Fraser explains how she is love-bombing Liberal Democrat voters in Wallasey.

Tory lead down to 10% in new MORI poll

Those who worry about the volatility of Ipsos-MORI polls will have new ammunition.  Last month Ipsos-MORI had the Tories 20% ahead but this month the lead is down to 10%.  Nothing has happened in the last month to justify such a shift.

By way of footnote: As we get closer to hung parliament territory - although I don't believe we will - the role of the Liberal Democrats potentially grows.  The Indy's Steve Richards had a very interesting piece today saying that the LibDem rank-and-file would almost certainly veto any coalition with the Conservatives as part of a 'triple lock' that would have to approve any such arrangement.

Tim Montgomerie

Senior Tories ponder "generous outreach" to Liberal Democrats in event of Tory win

Senior Tories are debating the extent of outreach that should be made to the Liberal Democrats in the event of the Conservatives becoming the governing party at the next General Election.

Tory strategists are hopeful that the next election will see the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party significantly reduced in size but they also believe that the Conservatives have a long-term interest in ensuring that Britain's third party looks as much to the Conservative Party as to the Labour Party as a future natural coalition partner.

I understand that a group of shadow ministers believe that one of Tony Blair's bigger strategic mistakes was to row back on co-operation with the Liberal Democrats when he won such a large Commons majority in 1997.  These shadow ministers believe that - contrary to Labour's 'under-delivery' to the LibDems - the Conservatives should deliver more in practical co-operation in government than they promise in opposition.

The discussion is not of ministerial positions - although there might be some significant appointments to policy reviews - but of working groups on issues of shared interest.  Action on civil liberties and on green issues are on the table.

Tim Montgomerie

PS Congratulations to Nick Clegg this morning.  His wife has given birth to the couple's third child, a son.

2pm: Peter Hoskin at Coffee House sees merit in the plan: "As for the Tories and their wider strategy, shacking up with the Lib Dems makes a whole load of sense. Not only would it isolate Labour, but it meets calls for bipartisanship-in-government to deal with the economic crisis."

Tuesday, 7.30am: LibDemVoice responds to this post.

First reactions to the return of Ken Clarke

Most reactions to Ken Clarke's return on last night's thread were positive.  The same is true of reactions from bloggers and commentators.  Arranged below are key arguments.

The economic times are so serious that David Cameron is correct to bring such a successful former Chancellor back to the frontbench: "The world has changed, and if in response to the resulting tumult Barack Obama can do a deal with Mrs Clinton and Gordon Brown can rediscover his friendship with Peter Mandelson, then surely the Tories should be able to bury the hatchet (in their opponents rather than each other) in order to turf out Labour?" - Iain Martin

His time as Chancellor remains respected (even to The Independent): "His tenure at the Treasury remains highly regarded – something that cannot be said of all former Chancellors."

 Ken Clarke can make complex economic issues understandable: "He may also be the Tories' Vince Cable. What Cable does is talk about economics in clear English - not using Brown's jargons, nor the soundbites Osborne often uses. To Clarke, economics is easy - and, like Cable, he makes it sound easy. It has been a joy listening to him on the economy recently." - Fraser Nelson

Clarke's pro-European views may create tensions: "Mr Clarke's pro European views - in particular, his support for Britain scrapping the pound and joining the Euro - have alienated him from the mainstream of his party. The issue of Europe is still a live one since some now argue that the current economic crisis demonstrates the case for the Euro. Also, the Tories are opposed to the Lisbon EU Treaty which Clarke has backed and they are committed to holding a referendum on it which could lead to a Cameron-led government Britain re-negotiating Britain's relationship with the EU." - Nick Robinson

Ken's European views will be submerged within his acceptance of shadow cabinet responsibility: "To those Tories who recoil in horror at the return of Ken Clarke, I'd say this. Few of us agree with his views on Europe, but they should not be allowed to colour the fact that he is a big hitter and is very popular with people who are either soft Tories or not Tories at all. He will have to abide by the same collective responsibility as the Shadow Cabinet and will know that." - Iain Dale

The Conservatives have invited a very loose cannon into their highest ranks: "Mr Clarke has always said precisely what he thought on matters relating to the EU, having appeared on platforms with his political opponents to the detriment of the Conservative Party and to the embarrassment of the Leader. Indeed, he even favours a coalition with the europhile Liberal Democrats, and has publicly said so. He is a loose cannon, and regularly defies the Party whip with impunity: indeed, his voting record identifies him as a rebel." - Cranmer

Clarke's return is a boost to those who wish to see the Tories form a deal with the Liberal Democrats: "Let's not forget that Clarke sees coalition with the Lib Dems as a good thing. As he told me three years ago "I'm glad to say the fates could condemn the Conservatives and the Liberals to form a coalition." - Fraser Nelson

And finally... a Conservative MP emailed me this cartoon from 1993.  No further comment necessary:

Tim Montgomerie

Raising the prospect of a hung Parliament

I didn't see today's edition of BBC2's Daily Politics as I was following Gordon Brown's press conference, but PoliticsHome cites some interesting comments made on the programme by Ed Vaizey, the Cameroon shadow culture minster:

“We are going to win the next election outright but should it turn into a hung parliament I would expect us to work with the Lib Dems. I would be amazed if they prop up Labour.”

He did add, however, that whilst his was unlikely to be a formal coalition, he believed the Liberal Democrats would “be sensible and support a minority Conservative government”.

This raises several points. Firstly, there is the question of whether Conservatives should be discussing the scenario of a hung parliament in the first place. Some might say that it is a sign of weakness to be effectively suggesting that an outright Tory victory might not on the cards (although Ed did dutifully preface his remarks by saying it was). But I disagree for several reasons:

• It clearly is a possible outcome and therefore it is mature and responsible for politicians to countenance that eventuality;
• To talk in terms of assuming a Conservative majority could variously be deemed to be complacent, arrogant, taking voters for granted etc.; 
• Reminding voters that the next election could be very tight will hopefully focus their minds on the choice that the country faces - ie a Conservative or Labour administration - and hopefully discourage anyone wanting a change of government from wasting their vote on the Lib Dems, UKIP etc.; and
• It will put pressure on the Lib Dems to answer the same question themselves rather than brush it away with a "we want to maximise our votes and maximise our seats".

But what of the main point? I agree entirely with Ed Vaizey.

The biggest marginals poll ever predicts Tory majority of 146

This has just appeared on the PoliticsHome website:

"PoliticsHome predict a Conservative majority of 146:

• Largest ever study of marginal seats
• In an election now Labour would suffer a 1997 scale defeat
• 8 cabinet ministers would lose their seats
• Three figure majority for David Cameron

An exclusive PoliticsHome study of marginal seats,using an unprecedented sample of almost 35,000 people over 238 marginalconstituencies and based on fieldwork carried out by YouGov, gives us the bestever idea of what would happen if a general election were held now."

There's too much information to process quickly but these results of polling in LibDem/ Tory marginals should be enough to get your juices flowing:

Clegg ready to back minority Tory government from day one

"In consultations with senior members of the party, he said he was prepared to take the necessary steps that would enable the Tories to form a minority administration.

Mr Clegg ruled out taking a Cabinet seat in a Conservative government in return for his support and instead would provide Mr Cameron with "supply and confidence" – meaning he would promise to back a Conservative Budget and would side with the Tories in any votes of confidence.

As a result, Mr Cameron would be free to accept the post of Prime Minister from the Queen on the day after the next general election, even if he failed to win an outright majority."

Read more in The Telegraph.

Clegg's Tory past

CentreRight contributor Greg Hands MP has unearthed some very interesting records from his university days, The Telegraph's Three Line Whip column reveals today.

Hands was Chairman of Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA) in 1988 and yesterday he stumbled across his copy of the 1986-87 membership list. The list includes one "N Clegg, Robinson College". who joined that year as a fresher.

Hands in fact went to the same college, they are the only two MPs to have come from it. According to all the College records from this time there only ever was one N Clegg - the man listed as "Clegg, N.W.P. - Westminster School, London".

Rather naively Clegg strongly denied this revelation - as he denied similar claims in the leadership contest - without asking for the evidence. This story may therefore become about his denial instead of his past membership of the Conservatives.

9.30am: READ GREG HANDS' ACCOUNT OF ALL OF THIS OVER AT CENTRERIGHT.COM

Clegg sets out his conditions for working with a minority Conservative government

The Financial Times has an important interview with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.  Mr Clegg sets out the kind of policy priorities that could persuade him and his party to support a Cameron-led minority government.  He emphasises civil liberties, education reforms, the environment and more local decision-making.  Mr Clegg's willingness to talk in these terms contrasts hugely with the stance of his predecessor.  Ming Campbell only seemed interested in what would be necessary to deal with Labour (much to Paul Goodman's delight at the time).

Related link: Only 9% of Tory members support a Conservative-LibDem coalition government in the event of a hung parliament.  79% of Tory members prefer a minority Tory government working with other parties on individual issues.  More here.

The LibDems are David Cameron's number one headache

David Cameron and George Osborne jet off to China tomorrow to discuss economic and environmental issues.  They will leave with the great encouragement of the latest YouGov poll and its 13% Tory lead.  The detail of the poll shows that Brown's dissatisfaction ratings are now nearly as bad as Blair's.  Mr Brown is seen as a little more trustworthy but not by much.

Brown is not Mr Cameron's main worry, however.  Team Cameron are confident that they can beat Brown.  Their worry is the LibDems.  ConservativeHome has called the LibDems the "bindweed" of British politics.  Once LibDems invade political territory they tend to hold it.  At the last two sets of local elections the Tories have been winning seats from the LibDems but will that start to change with Ming gone?

Most Tory strategists do not expect the LibDems to be easy opponents with Nick Clegg at the helm (the likely winner when the LibDem ballot result is declared on Tuesday).  With Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams, Ming Campbell, Paddy Ashdown, Vince Cable, David Laws, Chris Huhne, Steve Webb and Julia Goldsworthy all possible members of a Clegg team, it will be a force to be reckoned with.  They are all considerable figures able to command media attention.

The LibDems hold so many seats in southern England that the Tories must win in order to command a working majority after the next General Election.  Some Tories close to Mr Cameron do not think that it is realistic to expect to win more than ten LibDem seats.  In this scenario the Tories have to either make spectacular gains from Labour (no longer an unrealistic possibility) or think about making deals with the LibDems.

An openness to working with the LibDems is the theme of an overnight article that David Cameron has written for conservatives.com.   In it he notes how the Conservatives have worked together in recent times on forcing Labour to adopt a Climate Change Bill and on the passage of the Sustainable Communities Bill.  He hopes that the LibDems and the Greens can work together in 2008 to "decentralise political power".

Vince Cable has already dismissed the invitation.  David Cameron must be living in "cloud cuckoo land," the outgoing LibDem leader said.  "The Liberal Democrats will continue to work with other parties on issues where we have common ground and can work together in the national interest," he said.

Mr Cameron probably expected the reaction.  If he ends up looking the reasonable person - wanting to co-operate - that's not too bad.  More significantly he is putting markers down so that come the next election the party can show that it has a track record of looking co-operative.  Remember the Greg Dyke offer to Ming Campbell?  Most Conservatives do not want Lib-Con deals and opposition to such co-operation will be a hallmark of ConservativeHome's 2008 manifesto, launching on 7th January.

The madness of LibDem members' preference for Brown

Sky News has a poll of LibDem members and - as noted yesterday evening within this post - it shows a modest lead for Nick Clegg among the half to have already voted.  These findings from the poll interested me most...

"Nearly half of members polled (49%) prefer Gordon Brown as Prime Minister than David Cameron (18%) and would prefer to side with Labour rather than the Conservatives in the event of a ‘hung parliament’. 44% would oppose a coalition with the Tories under any circumstances, while only 26% would oppose a similar deal with Labour."

Even with Labour exposed as incompetent, sleazy and disunited, more than twice as many LibDems prefer Brown to Cameron.  Staggering.

We need to beat this party.  The thought of sharing power with them - and the enormous compromises that that would require - appals me.

PS I loved the "Coming Up: Madness" caption that appeared below Chris Huhne when he was interviewed by Adam Boulton a little earlier...

LibDem MEP joins Conservative Party

Sajjad Karim, Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West region and apparently the first Muslim elected to the European Parliament, has today announced he is defecting to the Conservatives:

"David Cameron's recent speech on immigration was incredibly impressive - sensible, rational and positive. It persuaded me that he is a leader who has changed his party and will change this country. I'm afraid that the Liberal Democrats have lost their way and are no longer a serious force in politics. I'm here to serve the people of the North West and I think I can only do that now as a Conservative. I'm sure I will not be the last politician to reach the same conclusion."

Karim is now officially under the Conservative whip. He had recently been reselected as the second-placed Lib Dem candidate (behind the active Chris Davies) by North West Lib Dems, but as the North West region is losing an MEP his re-election was in doubt.

David Sumberg, one of the three Conservative MEPs for the North West, is standing down at the next election but the rules state that his "top slot" on the list has to be taken by a female candidate.

The Conservative MEPs are electing the next leader of their delegation on Wednesday. It is not clear whether incumbent leader Timothy Kirkhope, who was involved in negotiating Karim's defection, will be able to win.

Deputy Editor

Tweedlelibdem and Tweedlelibdum both rule out EU referendum

Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne were interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and they both ruled out a referendum on the EU Treaty.  It appears that it's not only Gordon Brown who can't keep a promise.

The unwillingness to trust the people on this important constitutional change underlines one of the big gaps between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.  Both of these former MEPs are fully signed up to the further loss of British powers to the European Union (see this essay from Lee Rotherham).

Other big differences between the two parties were discussed earlier this year on ConservativeHome's Platform pages:

• Peter Franklin warned that LibDem europhilia - and associated support for the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy - was bad for the environment;
• David Dundas attacks the LibDems' blanket opposition to nuclear power;
• Jeremy Brier highlighted the LibDems' weak approach to the war on terror;
• Martin Sewell focused on the third party's soft approach to drugs;
• Robert Colville analysed the LibDems' inadequate understanding of localism; and
• William Norton wrote about the party's belief in proportional misrepresentation.

Nick Clegg used his Marr interview to reject the popular, and not unfounded idea, that he's on the right of the Liberal Democrats.  He attacked Thatcherism as "soulless".  He was "appalled" by it, he said, and the former Prime Minister's famous (and grossly misrepresented) 'There is no such thing as society' ethos.  He represented Sheffield, he continued, and will never forget the "ravages" imposed on the city by Thatcherism.

Danny Finkelstein has encouraged Conservatives not to get too worried by Mr Clegg.  Danny highlighted the LibDem Home Affairs spokesman's position on an illegal immigration amnesty:

"Now it's quite possible that we never hear of this policy again and that it changes nothing. The Tories may run scared of it (though I doubt Labour would).  But it is also very possible that this policy becomes a massive problem for the Lib Dems during an early election campaign.  It's one of the very few proposals they could have come up with that has the potential to cut-through. And if it does it would be a disaster for them in quite a number of seats."

I couldn't agree more.

PS William Hague was also on Andrew Marr.  He said that the party still hadn't decided what it would do if the EU Treaty does become law.  All Tory efforts were focused on defeating the Treaty and he highlighted the possibility that the Lords might yet frustrate Gordon Brown's ambitions to pass the slightly-altered Constitution.  The Shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated his pledge to change the law so that any further transfers of powers to the EU would automatically require a referendum.

The pollsters on polling 5: Are Liberal Democrat voters a largely Conservative or Labour-leaning group?

Last week we asked three of Britain's leading opinion pollsters, Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov, Andrew Hawkins of CommunicateResearch and Ben Page of Ipsos Mori, five questions on polling and we've been publishing their answers . So far we have seen our experts answers to the following questions:

1. Blair is still in office.  The public have yet to see Brown in Downing Street.  Then there's the silly and party conference seasons.  When will be a good time to start taking the headline polls seriously again? (Watch the answers here)
2. The traditional view is that governments are most unpopular in the middle of their terms and their popularity generally increases closer to elections.  In this era of constant electioneering does that historical pattern still hold true? (Watch the answers here)
3. What do you think of Robert Worcester's belief that economic competence, party unity and leader image are principal determinants of a party's success? (Watch the answers here)
4. Do you think that public opinion moves more quickly or more slowly than in the past? (Watch the answers here)

Today you can watch what the pollsters think about this question:

• Are Liberal Democrat voters a largely Conservative or Labour-leaning group? In summary: Andrew Hawkins says Lib Dem voters are more attached to Labour as a brand but because of the Iraq War they are lending their votes to the Conservatives. Stephan Shakespeare says they are not one block, some lean to the left some to the right, some people vote Lib Dem because they know they are not going to win. Ben Page says they are more Labour leaning than Conservative, partly because they have picked up a lot of disaffected Labour voters.

You can also read Peter Riddell's answers to the same five questions.

Will the Tories govern alone again?

There is a thoughtful article in tomorrow's Sunday Times from Michael Portillo.  While acknowledging that Cameron's handling of the Dyke affair was clumsy he explores the big reason why it happened - the Tories' belief that they need to form these sorts of surprising alliances if they are to prosper in Britain's new electoral landscape of coalition governments, growing use of proportional representation and the rise of the smaller parties.  ConservativeHome's own belief is that the party would be better attempting to defeat the Liberal Democrats (as the Scottish party are attempting to do) rather than prepare the ground for coalition but the party leadership revealed their instincts this week with the Dyke debacle.

Maude calls on Campbell to sack councillor

The Conservative Party Chairman Francis Maude has called on the Liberal Democrats to prove their anti-racist credentials by sacking a local councillor who nominated a BNP member as a candidate for the May elections. He said:

It’s alarming that, of the three main political parties, the Liberal Democrats have the worst record in local elections of fielding candidates against the BNP. It is time that they woke up to the danger posed by this extremist party.

The Liberal Democrats have a poor record with regards to challenging BNP candidates. Conservatives are contesting 96.7 per cent of town hall seats against the BNP, with the Liberal Democrats giving the BNP a free run in 129 wards (18 per cent).

Councillor Steve Jones who has already resigned as group leader of the Liberal Democrats in Darlington said that ‘he has no sympathies for the policies of the BNP’. His party has issued a statement describing his actions as ‘an error of judgment’.

Michael Ehioze-Ediae

Ming gets mean with Cameron

In a speech that also set five tests for Gordon Brown the LibDem leader has made a strong attack on David Cameron (the full text of Ming Campbell's speech can be read on the LibDem website):

"Dave’s been ducking and weaving.  He wants to keep his past private.  Well, I can understand that.  If I had his past I’d want to keep it private too.  Come on Dave - it's time to come clean.  Admit your guilty secret.  In your youth, you were a Tory Boy and your heroes were Michael Howard, Norman Lamont and John Selwyn Gummer.  You know, with pin ups like that, frankly, I'd want to keep my past private too.  But seriously, it's not your youthful indiscretions that worry me - it's your adult misjudgements.  Teenage kicks are one thing, but you’ve got to grow up some time.  It’s time you admitted your mistakes.  Particularly your support for the Iraq war."

Ming makes his intervention after a narrow conference victory on Trident.  By 454 to 414 he defeated a call for Trident to be scrapped.  The strength of the anti-Trident vote is a reminder of the gulf between Tory and LibDem activists.

An ICM survey for Friday night's Newsnight found that Ming Campbell has made little positive impact on voters over the last year: just 6% thought he would make the best Prime Minister.  28% chose Gordon Brown and 29% opted for David Cameron.  49% to 22% believe that Charles Kennedy would make a better LibDem leader than Ming Campbell.

The Economist, however, has offered some reasons for Ming to be cheerful:

1. Last year's green tax switch at last year's unified Party Conference - a policy switch that has been partly copied by the Tories - "Senior Lib Dems claim to be delighted that Mr Cameron has worked so hard to put climate change on the agenda. They point to polling data that suggests voters still think the Lib Dems are easily the greenest of the mainstream parties. The more salient environmental issues become, they argue, the better the Lib Dems should do."
2. The fact that the media has shifted away from his shortcomings to those of Brown;
3. That foreign policy is in the news and the LibDems are the only party to have opposed the Iraq war;
4. "Given Mr Cameron's grab for traditional Lib Dem voters on the environment, civil liberties and localism, the party's poll rating, hovering around 20%, has been impressive."
5. The growing possibility of a hung parliament where the LibDems would hold the balance of power.

Ming has begun preparations for coalition talks

In an interview for The Times, LibDem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has revealed that his chief whip, Paul Burstow, has been given the task of reporting on how coalition talks should be conducted.  In addition he told The Times that the price of doing a deal with Gordon Brown would be a firm commitment to proportional representation for Westminster.  A poll of Tory activists by this website recently revealed that a promise to hold a referendum on PR for Westminster would be “unacceptable” to 67%.

The LibDem leader's interview pointed to negativity towards the Tory leader.   He said there was no personal chemistry between the men and continued:

“I noticed that Mr Cameron was saying we should let people stand up at Premiership football matches. You slightly wonder, if someone sent him a petition saying that the Earth is flat, would he say that this is a proposition that required careful scientific analysis.”

Sir Menzies' intervention comes after a number of disappointing poll numbers for his party.  A YouGov survey and yesterday's Communicate Research poll both put the LibDems on just 17%.  ConservativeHome's overall poll of polls has the party down to 18%.  Iain Dale thinks that Ming has made his first significant mistake with this talk of coalitions:

"Now that he has discussed the subject once, the media can be forgiven if the question is repeated again and again. It's a legitimate subject for debate. The polls currently point to a Conservative victory, but I think a hung Parliament is by no means beyond the realm of possibility.  By even mentioning the possibility of a formal coalition, Sir Ming has opened a Pandora's Box."

Gove targets Emperor Ming

I'm still trying to understand the tactics of key Cameroons when it comes to the LibDems.  I'm not sure if they're positioning for a formal coalition with Ming's party in the likely event of a hung parliament or if they are more ambitiously trying to split Britain's third party by detaching Orange Book reformers like David Laws and Nick Clegg from the more big state LibDems like Phil Willis and Simon Hughes.

My guess is that they'd most like the second of the two tactics to succeed but they're not yet seeing much progress.  On Saturday Peter Oborne noted George Osborne's behind-the-scenes offer of a shadow cabinet post to David Laws.  It was refused.  Last year Ed Vaizey wrote for The Guardian about Menzies Campbell's "leadership crisis" and invited the reformist LibDems top join Team Cameron:

"Their most talented MPs - David Laws, Nick Clegg, Vincent Cable, Jeremy Browne, and others - must now think seriously about which direction the party should go in. It is time they sat down and looked at the refreshed Conservatives, and decided whether, in the run up to the next election, they position themselves as the guarantors of a discredited Labour government, or part of a coalition to renew British politics."

It wasn't long before Ed Vaizey appeared to recant.

I'm back on this subject because of an article in this week's Spectator by Michael Gove.  A few weeks ago Michael Gove said the following during a Commons Committee discussion of the Greater London Authority Bill:

"I notice that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington [LibDem MP Tom Brake] flinched slightly when I suggested that Liberal-Conservative co-operation was the future. I acknowledge that such a view is not shared by all Liberal Democrats, but I am informed that more cerebral Liberal Democrats see it as the path to the future."

In his Spectator piece (not yet online) Michael Gove is damning about the LibDem leader:

"Yet while natural conservatives will want to celebrate the happy completion of the first year of Ming rule, the same, sadly, cannot be said of the nation’s dwindling number of Liberal Democrats. For the country’s third party, the last 12 months have been arid times. Dropping in the opinion polls, neglected by the news media, increasingly marginal to the nation’s debates, the Lib Dems have become like Chelsea Pensioners — magnificent in their way but redolent of another age.  It is striking that the eclipse of the Liberal Democrats should coincide with Ming’s accession to the leadership. He is, in a way, the purest living embodiment in British politics of the Peter Principle — the law which dictates that people will rise just one level above their natural slot in life, to a position in which their weaknesses are then cruelly exposed."

Ouch!  The article goes on to say that the LibDems have stopped thinking: "Take a gander at the Lib Dem party website and you’ll find that all its spokesmen’s statements are reactions to what the other parties are doing — with scarcely a fresh idea from one month to the next." All quite true but not helpful (I wouldn't have thought) to encouraging LibCon co-operation.

There have been a series of recent articles on YourPlatform exploring policy agreements and differences with the Liberal Democrats: Martin Sewell on drugs; David Dundas on nuclear power; Lee Rotherham on Europe; Bob Seely and Bill Melotti on civil liberties; Robert Colville on localism; and William Norton on PR.

Team Cameron are wooing Laws, Owen, Adonis and Mandelson

ConservativeHome believes that Team Cameron does not believe that a traditional Conservative agenda can secure another parliamentary majority for the Tory Party.  For this reason it has a below-the-radar plan to build a Conservative Party that increasingly resembles the Liberal Democrats or/and can possibly form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats (and possibly some Blairites).  That is why we surveyed Tory members about their views of ever closer LibCon co-operation.  The results of that survey were published earlier this week.

In a very significant article for today's Daily Mail, Peter Oborne lifts the lid on the extent of Tory attempts to woo Liberal Democrats and Blairites into the Tory camp...

Target one - LibDem MP David Laws: Oborne reveals that key Orange Booker David Laws was offered a shadow cabinet position if he defected to the Conservatives.  The offer was made by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne with the full authority of David Cameron.  Laws refused on the grounds that he was not a Tory.

Target two - David Owen: Peter Oborne reports that former SDP leader David Owen is also being "assiduously wooed."  Earlier this week in an interview for ePolitix.com, Lord Owen spoke warmly about the possibility of LibCon co-operation: "If Cameron has the largest number of MPs but not an outright majority, I hope he can deal with the Liberal Democrats and come to an arrangement... I think there is common ground being established and I think people can see that a lot of Conservative policies are acceptable now."

Target three - Lord Adonis: One of the most important first decisions of David Cameron was to support Tony Blair's education reforms.  The reforms, designed by former Downing Street thinker Lord Adonis, only secured parliament passage because of Tory support.  Peter Oborne speculates that Andrew Adonis may feel that his schools legacy will be more secure with a Cameron-led than a union-dependent, Brown-led government.

Target four - Peter Mandelson: The most controversial Tory target is apparently Peter Mandelson, the dark prince of the New Labour project.  David Cameron has met the EU Trade Commissioner twice (Guido thinks three times).  Oborne writes: "Relations are more than professionally cordial: they are warm and friendly. I have heard reliable accounts of Mandelson's table talk from Brussels on the subject of the Tory leader.  Although distressed by Cameron's obstinate Euroscepticism, the Commissioner is otherwise emphatic in his approval, comparing him to the young Tony Blair of 11 or 12 years ago when Labour was in opposition."  Peter Oborne's article contains the extraordinary titbit that Gordon Brown has not spoken a single word to Peter Mandelson since became EU Commissioner.  If true that is a damning indictment of Gordon Brown.  How can Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to have dealings with the EU's Trade supremo?  Peter Oborne's conclusion is on-the-money: "Brown's refusal to have dealings with Mandelson can only be seen as a sign that he is ready to put his private vendetta (which dates back more than a decade) before the national interest."

It may be one of the big gains for Team Cameron in future months if the Blairites start causing Brown trouble once he is installed as Labour leader.  If Gordon Brown doesn't start to bury grievances he'll only have himself to blame for what follows.

Some LibDem demands for a coalition...?

Further to my earlier posting on LibCon co-operation, this is a speculative speech that LibDem blogger Stephen Tall has drafted for Ming Campbell to deliver - the day after the next General Election and a hung parliament...

“The British people have spoken. It is now the duty of all politicians to pay heed.

“It is clear the public has little confidence in this Labour Government and its broken promises. But nor do they trust the empty promises of the Conservative Party.

“Our role as Liberal Democrats is simple and straightforward: to be honest brokers on behalf of the British people, and to do what is right for this nation.

“Here’s how we’ll do it. Liberal Democrats do not believe in ‘behind-closed-doors’ decision-making: what we say in public is what we’ll stick to in private..."

The day after the next General Election?

To coincide with a poll of Tory members showing widespead opposition to a Tory-LibDem pact... the 18DoughtyStreet.com team has produced a tongue-in-cheek video report of the day after the 2009 General Election.  Watch it here.

Warning: LibCon pact ahead!

(1) Labour’s deep troubles have not yet produced an election-winning lead for the Tories with the LibDems’ support stubbornly persistent at about 20% and ‘other parties’ growing.  The average 5.25% Tory lead comes before any ‘Brown honeymoon effect’ and the possibility that it might improve Labour’s position.

(2) A 6% Tory lead - projected by Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting yesterday - would – according to UK Polling Report’s Swing Calculator – produce this parliamentary share of seats: LAB 284: CON 283: LD 54: OTH 29.  Such a Labour advantage would reflect the uneven distribution of population across Britain's parliamentary constituencies - with boundaries failing to reflect the movement of population from (crudely) urban seats in the north to more suburban seats in the south.

(3) A LibCon pact is one of the most under-discussed possibilities at the next General Election even though 52% of Tory members have told ConservativeHome that a coalition or minority government is the most likely result.

(4) Key ‘Cameroons’ Michael Gove and Ed Vaizey have both made very warm noises about the possibilities of ever greater LibCon co-operation.  William Hague, Francis Maude and Ken Clarke have all made similarly positive noises.

(5) More important than what is being said are perhaps the policy changes made by David Cameron that all position the Tories much closer to the LibDems: Kyoto environmentalism; less enthusiasm for nuclear power; a more doveish approach to Iraq; a greater emphasis on civil liberties; and a large acceptance of Labour’s legacy on tax and public spending.

(6) During 2005 ConservativeHome successfully opposed Michael Howard’s attempt to change the rules of the Tory leadership contest.  During 2006 ConservativeHome championed Tory members’ scepticism about the now heavily-diluted A-list.  During 2007 ConservativeHome will put similar energy into being a platform for members’ scepticism about LibCon co-operation.  ConservativeHome aims to put together a mailing list of activists who wish to oppose a formal coalition and that group will plan action together.

(7) That scepticism is revealed in ConservativeHome’s January poll of Conservative Party members.  The same survey that came within 1% of predicting the outcome of the Cameron-Davis contest finds little enthusiasm for a formal LibCon coalition with the likes of Menzies Campbell joining David Cameron around a Cabinet table.

(8) Should no party win an outright majority, 79% of Tory members prefer a minority Tory government working with other parties on individual issues.  Only 9% want a formal coalition with the LibDems.  Full data can be found in this pdf .

(9) Opposition to nuclear power stations, support for proportional representation and enthusiasm for the EU are key hallmarks of the LibDems’ agenda but deals on any of those issues would be “unacceptable” to large majorities of Tory members.  Even a promise to hold a referendum on PR for Westminster would be “unacceptable” to 67% of Conservative members.  A larger number – 70% - oppose any deal which would stop the building of new nuclear power stations.  60% would regard it “unacceptable” if a coalition scuppered David Cameron’s pledge to take Britain out of the EU’s Social Chapter.

(10) The message from Tory members is that any co-operation with the LibDems would have to be rooted on an ad hoc basis in, perhaps, a rebalancing of the tax system towards environmental considerations, protection of civil liberties and greater decentralisation.

Related link: May 2006 poll on Tory members' attitude to co-operation with the LibDems.

Relations with LibDems are main topic for this month's ConservativeHome survey

The January edition of ConservativeHome's monthly survey of readers' opinions is now online.  Please click here to have your say.

In addition to the regular tracking questions we are seeking your opinions on the possibilities of co-operation between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.  Many senior Conservatives have talked up the possibilities of co-operation between the two main opposition parties and current opinion polls point to the real possibility of a hung parliament.  Only last week this was what key Cameron ally Michael Gove said during a Commons Committee discussion of the Greater London Authority Bill:

"I notice that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington [LibDem MP Tom Brake] flinched slightly when I suggested that Liberal-Conservative co-operation was the future. I acknowledge that such a view is not shared by all Liberal Democrats, but I am informed that more cerebral Liberal Democrats see it as the path to the future."

This month's ConservativeHome poll gives rank-and-file Tory members an opportunity to say what they think about the possible path to greater Lib-Con co-operation.

Steve Richards: LibDems won't partner with Tories

Ming Campbell speaks to his conference today and is reportedly going to describe his "amazing" life story and his rise from a Glasgow tenement flat to leadership of the LibDems.

The LibDems are becoming more and more important in British politics because of the real possibility of a hung parliament after the next election.  David Cameron has certainly been able to open up a lead over Labour but not yet a majority-winning lead.

Some Team Cameron strategists are single-minded in their determination to address the LibDem issue.  They know that a Tory majority is difficult to achieve unless LibDem MPs in leafy southern seats are turfed out.  Project Cameron's emphasis on the environment and civil liberties and the reluctance to talk about tax, immigration and Europe could have been designed to (1) increase the possibility of a LibCon coalition after the next election and (2) to woo previous Tory voters who left the party because it was perceived as too right-wing.

A ConservativeHome poll of Tory members on attitudes to LibDem policies has already indicated that there is little shared ground between the two parties.  In this morning's Independent, columnist Steve Richards thinks it unlikely that the LibDems would want to partner with the Tories.  Mr Richards believes that the Tories remain instinctively committed to lower taxation and Euroscepticism.  The LibDems, in contrast, are instinctively redistributive and enthusiastic about European integration.  This is what Mr Richards concludes after listening to Tuesday's debate on tax:

"Mr Cameron need not bother making cups of tea for Sir Ming, if that is his objective. [A Con/Lib pact] will not happen. Anyone who listened to the Liberal Democrats' debate on tax policies on Tuesday would recognise this is a left-of-centre party, gripped by the need to redistribute widely, and to raise cash for some expensive spending commitments, such as the abolition of top-up fees for students. Those speaking in favour of the new economic package argued passionately that the proposals redistributed more extensively than the party's previous policies. Opponents of the proposals protested that there was a need to redistribute more widely still, and to raise additional money for the party's spending commitments."

If tax and Europe are big enough barriers to a Libservative pact the other big boulder is PR.  Simon Hughes has said that electoral reform is the bottom line for any deal.

Steve Richards does not believe that a LibLab pact is particularly likely either.  Labour would have lost their majority if a hung parliament arose and English voters would resent a Scottish Liberal Democrat propping up a rejected Scottish Labour Prime Minister (assuming Brown succeeds Tony Blair).  Mr Richards does not believe that a hung parliament is likely.  Given the number of LibDem MPs and the way they bed themselves into seats, I'm not so sure.  Where I do agree with him is the unlikelihood of all but a few Orange Book LibDems propping up a Cameron-led minority administration.  I still think our best strategy for Government is fierce campaigning against the LibDems and the simple message... Vote Tory to Get Rid Of Labour.