CentreRight

I am delighted with David Cameron's new European policy. A Sovereignty Act making British law supreme is vital. A commitment to ignore the ratchet clause and subject every new power grab to a referendum is wonderful. Renegotiation of the various areas where Lisbon has gone too far is very important. I take the Ben Brogan view of this, not the Tim Montgomerie one.

UPDATE: Told you so! (and hooray!)

I'm not fussed if we don't have a post-Lisbon referendum.

No, I haven't gone soft on Europe. I'm as much of a sceptic as ever I was. Don't believe in withdrawal, because of the business and diplomatic benefits of free trade and co-operation on issues like the environment and human trafficking. But do believe that Europe has gone way too far down the road to statehood, is anti-democratic, bloated, and fiscally corrupt.

Let's not mince words about this. The SW Norfolk executive have disgraced themselves. The decision to refer Liz Truss's selection, which she won clearly on the first ballot, back to a meeting of the full association is scandalous.

If what a person has been doing in their private life is legal, that is an end of it. Liz's past and present relationships are none of the association's business. I answered "yes, there is" at every selection to the question about anything in your past that would embarass us -because I had been a member of the Labour party. I would not have dreamed of discussing my personal life in answer to that question.

This is rank sexism. The neanderthal idea that your love life has a bearing on your ability to do a job. I hoped decisions like this were part of our party's past. This sort of thing is what has, in the past, forced gay candidates to lie about their sexuality. It does not matter whether the affair was public knowledge or not (it was). It is a matter for the parties involved and no-one else.

SW Norfolk's Executive have damaged the reputation of our national party. They have damaged all the work that David Cameron and many other forward-thinking associations round the country have done to show how we have changed, selecting candidates from a broad base, women as well as men. Of course one must not judge the whole association by the small number of people on its Executive. The full meeting may well be more sensible.

If not, CCHQ must act. We cannot have the ugly spectacle of a female candidate for a safe seat deselected because of her private life, doing nothing illegal and something that is entirely her business. As a commenter on the S&C; thread said, Liz was not seeking ordination to the priesthood. She wanted to be an MP and she was chosen on the first ballot to do just that.

Going forwards, selection rules that already forbid questions about marital status and childcare must be tightened to specifically exclude matters of relationships and sexuality. These are not the 1950s. Object to AWS? Think there is no sexism left in our party? The treatment of Liz Truss, up to now, proves otherwise.

Reports earlier today stated that Jeremy Hunt MP was opposed to Peter Mandelson's proposals for cutting off internet use for file-stealing music and film online. They were embellished with Jeremy's very reasonable statement about not wishing to criminalise the kid who puts up a family video on YouTube and soundtracks it with a snippet from the Beatles.

Those that follow me on Twitter will be aware of my running dispute with Labour MP Tom Watson over protecting the work of musicians and filmmakers online.

I'm delighted to be able to say, therefore, that today's ToryDiary and media reports misrepresented Jeremy's position. He clarified at a Conservatives for the Creative Arts and Industries event, focussing on advertising, which I attended this evening. When asked about the Tories apparent shift in position, Jeremy clarified that the Financial Times headline did not reflect the content of the interview. The Conservatives have no objection to Mandelson's proposals to cut off internet access -  for the worst offenders. Rather, in giving the example of a film parody or a YouTube video with a soundtrack, Jeremy is looking at separating out innocent use of cultural references from blatant ripping off of music and film; in other words, an expansion of what the law currently considers "fair use". Once we have decided what we think should be allowable, there are other, more creative ways to block serious copyright theft.

This morning I have found my opponent, Phil Hope MP, a junior minister, at the heart of the expenses row. He has been all over Sky News and the BBC, stating that he will repay over £40,000 of public money claimed to furnish a very small two bedroom flat in Southwark. 

I have given a statement to our local paper, which has been flooded with angry letters from constituents. His decision is the right one. Under the old, rotten system, Phil had the right not just to a second home, which I feel is a necessity, but to furnish it. It is unfortunate that furniture claimed for included a table and chairs from John Lewis. Back when the original vote on abolishing the "John Lewis list" was taken, and defeated by a majority of Labour MPs, Phil was absent. I feel I criticised that absence legitimately. He should have voted to abolish the list. Strength of feeling in Corby is enormous - Northants is losing over seventy jobs a day. Phil is doing the proper thing by paying back this money. 

Phil has stated that he used the furniture to make a modest flat habitable. I have to say that I take him at his word. My fight with Phil Hope and Labour is political, and not personal. I intended to keep our campaign in Corby & East Northants purely a straight ideological one - and God knows that gives me enough ammunition. Phil acted with great kindness over a matter relating to a sickness of one of our councillors. While I cannot go any further without breaching confidences, his actions at that time were in the highest tradition of politics. I consider him a fundamentally decent guy, a man of personal integrity, and take no pleasure at all in what is happening to him today. Nor can our own party afford to gloat. Some of the Tory claims are simply embarrassing. The difference is our leader has acted - Phil's leader has not.

The disgraceful scenes at the G20 protest reflect poorly not only on the drunken louts involved in property damage, rioting, trespass and assault, but also on the government. There can be no absolute right, in British society, to protest anywhere and in any numbers you wish. The right to protest must be weighed up against the right to work, the right to travel peacefully, the right to trade in shops and hotels, even the right to drive normally. All of these should be taken into the balance when a demonstration of this kind is looked into.

On this occasion the government, who issue guidelines, and police both got it badly wrong. G20 protestors, as Iain Martin points out, were allowed to get close to Downing Street, disrupt the city and close St. James's. Police did not, or could not, stop them from smashing windows and storming into buildings. It's hardly as though this trouble was not anticipated. At this dreadful time for the economy, why are we subsidising forseeable "unrest", as the BBC might put it, or crime, as I might?

If the police cannot contain the threat they should not permit it to gather in the first place. The route was far too permissive and the rights of the demonstrators were not balanced against those of city workers - or taxpayers. If the eyes of the world were on London today, the Labour government and the police dropped the ball.

Labour knighted Fred Goodwin.

Labour agreed to pay him six hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year for life (he's fifty).

Labour pretended they didn't know about the pension they authorised.

And Labour made this guy Paul Myners Chairman of the Low Pay Commission, whose website describes its purpose as "advising the government on the National Minimum Wage". (h/t to commenter mirthios on political betting).

Please may we have an election? Thanks.

I will be presenting a short piece during Channel Four's annual Political Awards on the Political Book of the Year. Over the last couple of weeks I've been in and out of London doing brief Q&A's with most of the nominees. It was a fascinating experience, and I very much enjoyed talking to Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor who wrote the foreword for the peerless Hugo Young Diaries, John Prescott and Dylan Jones.

Finally I had the honour, and yes I do mean honour, of interviewing Cherie Blair. As a tribal Tory, like the rest of us, I've read the caricatures published about this woman over the years. She was the PM's wife our press loved to loathe. Grasping, bolshie, chippy, you name it. There was none of that anywhere in the person I met.

Earlier this week Iain Dale blogged on "Carla Jones", the fake Facebook profile of a Daily Mirror journalist. Every Tory MP and PPC on Facebook was advising each other to remove her. I certainly did, if only because it's deceitful. If a Daily Mirror journalist, or Labour party member, asked to friend me I'd have no roblem with it.

The incident did demonstrate a couple of things to me. One, that no public figure should have anything on their public profiles they wouldn't want to see in, say, the Daily Mirror; but that's just common sense. More to the point, it underlined that many people still don't understand social networking sites.

One commenter on Iain Dale mentioned me and chuckled at the fact that I had "friended" someone I knew nothing about. Erm, clue: Facebook "friends" are not real friends, just because the site uses that term. On Facebook I have more than eight hundred "friends" and I can assure you I'm not that popular! Facebook and Twitter allow me to offer information to anyone who might be interested in me, as an author or PPC, and to get it from others.

A (Bob) Quick question for a Sunday morning... Damian Green, in the course of doing his duty as an Opposition spokesman, was arrested, his house raided, his love letters read, held for multiple hours, his wife and daughters were in tears and lastly he was bugged without his knowledge.

This was on suspicion of, and I forget the exact term, "conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office".

In comparison, Labour peers are on tape offering to amend legislation for cash. The Metropolitan Police's response to that will be very interesting, won't it?

Alan Duncan is one of the brightest and best in the Shadow Cabinet and has played a blinder today ensuring that even backbench Tory MPs must vote to reveal their expenses.

As a PPC in a marginal, I cannot emphasize enough how much the public care about the grubby little scandal of feather-bedded expenses.

It is beyond disgraceful that as we stare down the barrel of a banking crisis Brown is whipping his MPs to cover this up - and locally I will challenge my opponent, Phil Hope MP, to reveal his detailed expenses. I am already pledged to account for mine if elected.

But we must go further. We must recognise public anger on the issue and state that a Conservative MP who refuses to reveal their expenses, defying the whip, will not be permitted to stand for the party at the next election - no matter how long their service. There are some great candidates out there who will not only work hard but account for every penny of public money. Taxpayers are entitled to expense receipts - they are MPs' employers.

I pointed out to Corby & East Northants voters last time that the vast majority who voted to keep the John Lewis list were Labour MPs. With this whipped vote, they must all be Labour MPs. The Conservatives must prove to the public that politicians are NOT "all alike". This is a matter of integrity.

What is all this nonsense about Ken Clarke? I wouldn't presume to comment about who should go where in any putative reshuffle, but the idea that Ken Clarke could not play a front bench role because he is a Europhile is utter nonsense - and furthermore, it reveals a distressing lack of confidence in where we are as a party on the issue of Europe.

There are those who believe we must withdraw completely and those who believe we should embrace Lisbon and the Euro. Their views are well known. It is stupid to ask a great man like Ken Clarke, who has always been honest about where he stands on Europe, to start lying and obfuscating now.

The views that matter are David Cameron's and the settled will of the parliamentary party, party membership, and indeed, judging from the poll at the weekend, the British people. All Ken Clarke need say is something along the lines of "My views on this subject are clear, but David is relaxed about our disagreeing."

Channel Four's 2009 Political Awards include a section for the Political Book of the Year, and this year it's a truly fascinating crop. The programme makers want your ratings, good or bad - up to 300 words - and may use the best of them. I can't help thinking that ConHome readers would make excellent reviewers; not just those who comment on the site but the far larger crowd of lurkers (yes, I'm looking at you).

Here's the shortlist:

A Political Suicide: the Conservatives' Journey into the Wilderness, by Norman Fowler

A short, fascinating book about the party's descent from Thatcherite dominance into the wipeout of 97 and back by a man who had a front row seat. Lord Fowler sees paralells between the breakdown of the later Major years and Brown's government today. Should be required reading for every Tory candidate, even if you disagree with some of the author's politics.

Cameron on Cameron by Dylan Jones

One of the most important political publishing events of the year, as it is an exhaustive conversation with the Leader of the Opposition and likely future PM. Derided by some reviewers as not pushing Cameron hard enough on difficult issues, the book nevertheless has the unique selling point of offering Cameron's own responses, unvarnished, rather than commentary on him. Vital if you want to understand Cameron's mindset without the filter of the media. People keep giving me copies!

What a mess this is. The Speaker's astonishing statement yesterday, a masterclass in buck-passing, sought to blame both his own hand-picked Serjeant at Arms and the Police. The Serjeant had not known she was supposed to have a warrant, and the police violated their own code of conduct by not informing her she had the right to refuse.

Well, somebody has been telling porkies.

The Metropolitan Police have released a copy of their letter to the Home Secretary. In it, Commissioner Bob Quick flatly denies he did not tell Jill Pay she had the right to refuse. Furthermore, he says she even sought legal advice, and knew perfectly well she had the right to refuse.

Here's the money quote from the letter:

"The officers informed the Serjeant at Arms that the provisions of Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act required that they first seek consent of the person who occupies or controls the premises where they believe evidence may be found.

The officers explained the nature of the investigation and the purpose of the search and were satisfied that the Serjeant at Arms understood that police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant and therefore could only do so with her written consent or that of the Speaker. Prior to giving written consent the Serjeant at Arms told the officers that she would seek legal advice."

Who is being economical with the actualite? Did Jill Pay misinform the Speaker, saying she was never told she could refuse? Did the Speaker "misspeak" to the House? Are the police lying about what they actually said to the Serjeant at Arms?

This is serious stuff. The Conservatives have been ably led by Michael Howard MP and QC on this matter. His case for the prosecution should not rest until the inconsistency between Martin's statement and Quick's is clarified.

Does Britain have a broken society? Yes, and a broken Board of Film Classification, too. Here's where I release my inner Mary Whitehouse: how on eath did this movie get released in the UK with a title like this? It's a film by Kevin Smith, and despite Jersey Girl and Dogma may even be funny. But after going to speak to a group of Corby sixth formers on careers, I left Lodge Park school to be confronted by this title advertised on the side of the local bus. What do I do when my five year old son asks me "Mummy, what's a porno?". Why should I have to explain this? If I take my daughter to the movies to see the Madagascar sequel, why I am telling her what a porno is as we pass the giant film poster?

As we consider the horrors of the Baby P case it strikes me that the casual, coarse degradation of our society thinks nothing of putting explicit messages and images where any child can see them - like the side of a town bus. There are spicy passages in some of my earlier novels. But the titles and the covers are unobjectionable - adult content is for adults. I hope the next Conservative government puts a premium on protecting innocence. "Zack and Miri make a Porno", no matter how amusing and good-hearted the film it describes, is not something our kids should be reading, in giant letters, before they are ready.

Put away the champagne, Gordon. Stop crying, Eyeores. Listen to John Redwood and stop carping at George Osborne and David Cameron. Not very surprisingly at all, people in Britain are sick of Labour, don't take the LibDems seriously, and are supporting the Conservatives.

As the Telegraph says "The ICM findings, if repeated in a general election, would give the Conservatives an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons."

Vote intention: 43% for us, 30% Labour, 18% LibDem.

The result in Glenrothes was good for Labour. Expectations are so low that holding a safe seat with a reduced majority is now seen as a major success. But it was one of those rare occasions where a party can lose its deposit and still have done well. In a straight fight between an embarassingly over-confident SNP and Labour, third party votes were always going to be squeezed. But the Tories came third - beating the LibDems. This is now the second time it has happened on safe Labour turf. Future Conservative superstar Davena Rankin defeated the LibDems in Glasgow East as well. Davena is now our candidate in Glasgow South.

The Scottish Conservative & Unionist party is reaping the rewards of a unique voice. Unlike Scottish LibDems, seen as Labour's poodle in Holyrood, they provide effective opposition based on issues. For recovery to come north of the border, we have to be realistic. Unlike the LibDems' childish and dull insistence that they can reach government every election, the Scottish Tories have a solid goal of building respect. Annabel Goldie, Maurice Golden, Davena and our other candidates and elected officials are doing well. The Tories recovered in Wales to become a major force, and it will happen in Scotland too. The immediate aim must be to marginalise the LibDems and stand as a center right, yet unionist, party. After two by-elections in third place, the scenario for recovery is encouraging. Meanwhile, it'll be fun to hear what LibDems north and south of the border say after being beaten by the Conservatives twice in a row.

After eight years of one-party rule in the White House, people want change. Al Gore could not get elected even with a popular President and a booming economy. McCain faced eight years, a tanking economy and an unpopular leader.

Extrapolating, that tells me that no matter if ComRes says our lead is eight points or YouGov says it's ten, Labour will founder badly at the next election and David Cameron will be Prime Minister. I'm sure he will work very well with President Obama. But I'm really looking forward to Sarah Palin's run in 2012!

Let me count the ways...

I love the excitement she brings to the base. I love how her rallies outdraw Barack Obama. And, for that matter, Joe Biden in his hometown. I love how she handles hecklers: "Bless your heart, sir, my son's in Iraq fighting for your right to protest."

I love her politics. And this morning I especially love her hilarious appearance on Saturday Night Live, bopping along to an hysterical rap by nine months pregnant Amy Pohler (go Amy!)

"My name's Jeremiah Wright 'cause tonight I'm the preacher/I got a bookish look and you're all hot for teacher"! (and don't miss the special guest appearance by the moose)

Click the link and enjoy.

A few reflections on Conference; this was my first. I had signed up to go last year, but cancelled it in order to campaign for the election that wasn't. The prior year, I signed up to go but spent most of it in a hotel room, thanks to local police checking passes at a snail's pace. So I was looking forward to this one.

Fingerprint Events managed it beautifully. (Thank you, Shama Hussein). They helped me get a pass in good time. No hotel rooms, of course, since I only decided I could afford a campaigning break six weeks in advance. I booked a furnished apartment - great value and was able to make my own supper and breakfast.

I was unable to relax completely, though, because I knew I would probably be giving a short speech on the day of Cameron's keynote address as one of several PPCs. The video is here, we start at 2 minutes 30 seconds in. (Link only good today). I do a fair bit of speaking but this was quite terrifying. I was unable to sleep well for the two nights prior. Went OK in the end.

The title will be instantly recognisable to fellow fans of The West Wing, and Boris Johnson. "After this, therefore because of this" - the fallacy that an event that follows must be caused by a certain event because it preceded it.

It gives me no pleasure at all to say this, but clearly from the polling, John McCain is going to lose this race. And at the same time, he selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The left loathes Palin and therefore, McCain will lose. Right?

Wrong. He will lose, and the polling directly reflects this, because the US and world economy has fallen off a cliff. McCain was way behind until the Republican National Convention and his selection of Sarah Palin. Her speech in the face of personal attacks on her family was sufficient, improbable as it seemed, to put McCain ahead. Rallies with her were record-breaking. She then gave a couple of lousy - edited - TV interviews but in the unedited Vice-Presidential debate she triumphed.

Packed doesn't begin to describe it. I thought I might pop into the main hall to hear George Osborne's panel discussion with voters who are feeling the pinch. Great format; instead of reciting a speech with dreary Brown-its statistics George discussed the economic crisis with actual voters; a guy who needed to drive from London to Bury to visit his parents and couldn't afford the petrol; an estate agent who watched his sellers despair as Labour ditherer on stamp duty.

But I'd be lucky. The queue to get in was thirty deep, security guards were exasperated. "how many does the main hall hold?" one woman asked plaintively. "1500," came the reply. We were directed in to an overspill hall. That was full too. People were clapping the giant monitor screens. A secondary overspill hall was rumoured to have seats. I gave up and went to find a fringe meeting. Have the Tories ever been this popular?

Gordon Brown's attack yesterday on David Cameron's parenting was spiteful, inappropriate, and just plain pathetic.

Especially since he's being economical with the actualite.

Here's a glossy photograph of his family, featured in this Daily Mail puff piece, written at the height of the Brown bounce last summer, detailing how "The Premier, wife Sarah and boys John and Fraser" like to go to "Dorset, where bucket-and-spade family holidays are alive and well". So unlike the Blairs, you see. The family, we are breathlessly told, "will have to muck in when they stay at a friend's home" instead of being "waited on hand and foot" like those dastardly Blairs.

Maybe it's all nonsense, though, and this PR shot is actually photoshopped. I'd like to see a journalist hand him the picture and ask for a comment.

What does the Vice-Presidential selection tell us about the judgement of the nominee?

Was this a good governing pick? Is this person ready to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office? Was the Veep candidate even properly vetted?

Yes, these are all questions being asked today - about the Democratic ticket.

I've blogged about Biden's gaffe-prone campaign before. But over the past couple of days he has truly excelled himself. Ask yourselves how the American media can look themselves in the face: had Sarah Palin come out with any of these gems the American press would have eaten her alive. But Joe Biden's different, you see; despite over twenty years of campaigning experience the press is willing to cut him a total free pass - because he's running with Barack Obama.

So just for fun, here are his latest comments: first, his denunication of the appalling Obama ad (video in link) attacking John McCain for not using email; McCain cannot type well, tie his own shoelaces or comb his own hair due to injuries to his hands sustained under torture for his country. Biden said to Katie Couric:

""I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said...
Asked why it was aired, Biden said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."

The Obama campaign forced him to put out a clumsy retraction. But there's more... lots more...

An interesting snippet on the Politics Home superpoll of 282 marginal seats (biggest Lab > Con swing; the East Midlands - certainly fits with our mass canvassing here in Corby & East Northants). Informative insider Brownite blogger the Mole, a man with excellent New Labour credentials. says of this dynamite poll, predicting a majority for David Cameron of 146,  that:

"Labour is finding it hard to dismiss as 'just another opinion poll' the survey conducted by PoliticsHome.com, released over the weekend, which concluded that David Cameron is on course to win a 146-seat landslide at the next election. The survey was conducted among 35,000 voters in 238 marginal seats and echoes private research by Labour HQ kept under lock and key."

Tell me more, Deborah Mattinson. I'm all ears.

PS: you needn't peg your hopes on a complacent or arrogant Tory party either. We spent the summer hand-delivering surveys to ten and a half thousand voters and sending out personalised answers to every respondent; and will be rolling the project out across the rest of the constituency, amongst other campaigns, in the autumn and winter.