Ridley Grove wants David Davis and John Redwood back in the Shadow Cabinet. Tim believes that Chris Grayling should be our devil dog. Over at Coffee House, Peter Hoskin wants Ken Clarke to bare his fangs. Feel the testosterone!
But where's the oestrogen? Don't get me wrong. Brown is wrecking Britain. Fury is justified. But during the coming campaign, the Shadow Cabinet shouldn't come on like the Hound of the Baskervilles - which ended up, after all, being shot.
We need a variety of voices and accents; to vary the tone and pitch. The scalpel will do as well as the bludgeon. Hague, Clarke and Grayling understand this very well. But so do, say, Caroline Spelman and Theresa May - both of whom are now very savvy media performers.
In short, we must concentrate the minds of floating voters on the disaster of a fourth Labour term or a hung Parliament - and how either would detonate market mayhem, sending the pound diving, mortgages soaring and prices rising.
Spelman and May could quietly but adeptly spell out the threat. If CCHQ is searching for another voice, they should try using Sayeeda Warsi more. The Nick Griffin Question Time was a thorny assignment and she handled it adroitly.
Paul Goodman
> Over on the Interviews blog, Paul Goodman interviews another leading Tory woman, Theresa Villiers
Telegraph: "Winston Churchill, who died today aged 69, never quite managed in 27 years as a Conservative MP to shrug off the burdens of having had the wartime leader as his grandfather and the ebullient, self-destructive Randolph Churchill for a father."
Manchester Evening News: "Grandson of British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, Winston Spencer Churchill was a war correspondent in the Middle East during the Six Day War in 1967. He became member of parliament for Stretford in 1970 and later Davyhulme, when the boundaries changed. He represented the area until the 1997 general election when the seat was abolished."
Prospective Tory MP and Vice President of the UK National Defence Association, Colonel Bob Stewart, issued this statement: "Winston was a thoroughly decent man and a great friend to me. I first got to know him 17 years ago and twice during that time I have asked for his help on behalf of other people who really needed assistance – and twice he gave it without reservation. By so doing he changed those people’s lives forever. He did that quietly and without a fuss. I shall miss him terribly. God bless Winston.”
At the end of last year it was announced that election debates had been agreed in principle. I immediately blogged that CCHQ had played the role of Santa and given Brown and, particularly, Clegg an early gift. Some readers attacked me for being too partisan. Debates would be good for democracy, they said. In the latest issue of Total Politics I explain why I'm opposed to election debates in principle. You can read my full argument here (and Adam Boulton's case for debates). But, on the day that it appears exact terms have been agreed for the debates to happen, my main arguments are...
Tim Montgomerie
2.15pm Just noticed this from Michael Crick: "I can report that the "Leaders' Debates" at the forthcoming election have now been cancelled. Instead, over the past 2-3 weeks they've been quietly replaced with "Prime Ministerial Debates". It's a cunning manoeuvre, agreed by the three main broadcasters (the BBC, ITV and Sky) and the three main parties, to exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru leaders from the debates." With the SNP question seemingly resolved the debates are almost certain to go ahead.
That's the question asked by Peter Hoskin over at Coffee House.
It's an urgent question as Cameron must stop the character attacks on Brown. My mum is my best political advisor (she has accurately predicted every election victory throughout my life) and it's the one thing she likes least about the Conservative leader. Rachel Sylvester at The Times addresses the topic in her column in The Times (now, for me, the best of its kind on Fleet Street):
"If [Cameron] continues to concentrate on a character assassination of the Prime Minister rather than on emphasising what he would do in No 10, he will turn off voters — particularly women. If he uses the sort of language in the TV debates that he has deployed in the Commons recently the electorate will be appalled. It would be a huge mistake for the youthful challenger to turn himself into the big clunking fist."
I agree with every word of that. Cameron should, of course, continue to blast Labour for its record but he sullies his own brand when he gets personal. He must be the positive alternative to Labour, decent, compassionate and as above partisan politics as someone involved in partisan politics can try to appear.
Pete suggests that Ken Clarke should be the attack dog. The former Chancellor certainly does a good job at demolishing Labour's economic reputation in an article for this morning's Daily Mail.
My choice for top attack dog would be Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling. He calmly dissects Labour's failures without ever looking mean. Crucially, (like Grant Shapps) he also has the work-rate that too many other Tories lack. He'll get up for GMTV and still by working the TV studios late at night.
The most important thing is that Cameron stays above what he once called 'punch and judy' politics. As Rachel Sylvester writes, it's particularly important that he doesn't get personal in the election debates.
Tim Montgomerie
Within his speech at the Tory Spring Forum David Cameron promised to build the most family-friendly nation in Europe:
"We're going to start with the most family-friendly manifesto that any party has produced in British political history. We're going to set out how we're going to recognise marriage in the tax system, how we're going to support couples in the benefits system, how we're going to give the right to flexibility to everyone with children up to the age of 18, how we're going to have a new army of health visitors to help mum and dad when the new child arrives, how we're going to do all these things to help all our families in all of our country."
We published the headline figures last night but within the detail of the YouGov/ Sun poll there is encouraging news for the Conservatives on the family:
The family is one of the party's six key pledges. A full list of Conservative family policies can be read here.
Tim Montgomerie
These two polls won't have captured the lasting effects of the Tory Spring Forum in Brighton nor today's Lord Ashcroft disclosure.
Tim Montgomerie
Most Tories reacted with consternation to yesterday's YouGov poll showing a 2% lead (there'll be another YouGov poll at 10pm tonight). But the reactions of markets has been even more significant. And don't take my word for it. These are today's headlines...
Here's an analyst quoted in The Guardian:
“So long as the markets could harbour some hope that the next government, in only three months time, would be a fiscally prudent, business-friendly Conservative one that would act swiftly to reduce the UK deficit and borrowing mountains, the pound was able to just about hold its own against the Euro … but today the dam burst and it could not even do that.”
And then there's the FT:
"Since the end of November, the gap between the interest rate Britain and Germany must pay on 10-year government debt has risen from 0.35 percentage points to 0.9 points. British government bond yields – the cost of servicing government borrowing – have risen above those of Italy for the first time since mid-2008. Britain has to pay much more to borrow than other triple A-rated economies such as Germany, France and the US."
It's not scare mongering to warn the British people about the gravity of the choice they face at the General Election. It's difficult for the Tories to warn voters directly. But newspapers and other opinion formers must point to the dangers of much higher interest rates if Britain does not elect a strong government that is capable of coping with the fact that Brown has doubled the national debt.
Tim Montgomerie
From today's Downing Street lobby briefing:
"The Prime Minister will miss PMQs on Wednesday to join the welcoming ceremony for the State Visit of President Zuma of South Africa. PMQs will be taken by the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman. Opposition parties have been informed, the Downing Street spokesman said."
Two questions spring to mind:
A cynic might suggest Mr Brown was trying to avoid PMQs.
Tim Montgomerie
Lord Ashcroft has just issued this statement via his personal website.
He has clarified his tax status, saying he is a non-dom. He notes that two of Labour's biggest donors enjoy the same tax status.
He agrees to abandon this status in order to comply with David Cameron's requirement that all members of the Commons and Lords are full UK taxpayers.
The full pdf of Lord Ashcroft's statement is here.
Lord Ashcroft has become a subject of controversy in recent months although, as we discussed on Saturday, his role in funding Tory target seats is hugely exaggerated.
Long before he became majority investor in ConservativeHome, I've been an admirer of his contribution to big and small 'c' conservative politics. Hopefully today's statement will belatedly remove his tax status as an election issue - unless, of course, Labour are going to repay the money given to them by their own non-dom donors like Lord Paul.
Tim Montgomerie
10.30am: Statement from CCHQ: "It is clear, therefore, that Lord Ashcroft has the same status as several Labour donors including Lord Paul - recently appointed to the Privy Council on the recommendation of Gordon Brown's government."
10.45am: Iain Dale lists Labour's non-dom donors.
11am Gary Gibbon of Channel 4: "Lord Ashcroft – in common with some Labour donors, as his statement (you can see it here) makes clear – has been paying tax here only on his UK earnings. But Lord Ashcroft’s donations tower over the Labour non-dom donations, he is a much bigger political figure, shaping the next election result, or if you believe some Labour critics, “buying it”. So this is a bigger story than the Tories, trying to rally the party and regain a wider poll lead, might like."
By the end of last week it was obvious that the Tory campaign was in trouble. Although the party was still in a strong position it was losing support. Throughout last week Team Cameron prepared a relaunch of the campaign at the Brighton Spring Forum. 'The Brighton relaunch' had the following ingredients:
To frame the election as a choice between 'five more years of Brown' and 'change'. 70% of voters don't want Brown to continue as Prime Minister. Tory strategists think that is their strongest card. The themes of this leaflet will be repeated in all election literature in the 70 days to the likely date of the General Election. William Hague summarised the choice as "change or ruin".
Mettle v bottle. Party strategists have been briefing commentators that Cameron has consistently demonstrated mettle when it has been most demanded:
In contrast Brown is a bottler who never faced up to Tony Blair on Iraq. Bottled his £1m plan to call an election in
the autumn of 2007. Bottled telling the British people the truth
about the public spending cuts that are going to be necessary.
Hague has been put front and centre of the campaign. ConHome published
a poll last week showing as many members wanted the former Tory leader
to front the campaign as wanted David Cameron. Interestingly it was
Hague who welcomed David Cameron to Brighton for the 'arrival photo
opportunity'. That's traditionally the job of the Party Chairman. He also led the attacks on Labour...
The attacks on Labour are now policy-focused. The 2% Tory lead
yesterday was proof, if proof was needed, that bully-gate was a
distraction from the main themes of the election. David Cameron was
wrong last week - spurning Jonathan Isaby's advice
- to wade into the row caused by Andrew Rawnsley's book. The Tories
should be above personality politics and focus on the substantial.
'Melanchthon' used a CentreRight.com blog to set out six substantial attacks. I think his top four are enough.
Boosting of George Osborne. Labour see the Shadow Chancellor as the weak link in the Tory machine.
Ken Clarke spent a good part of his Saturday afternoon speech praising
the man who aspires to be the next Tory Chancellor. Clarke's praise of
Osborne reminded seasoned observers of the veteran Tory's 'any enemy of
John Major is an enemy of mine' stance from the 1990s. There were no
new announcements on tax but the attitude from George Osborne has
shifted. The Telegraph got a strong briefing for its Saturday edition
that tax cuts would come within fifty days as part of a growth agenda.
Immigration is not one of the six Tory themes but Cameron is now at least mentioning voters' number two issue (as Labour ministers are). This is what he said in yesterday's speech:
"People want us to be frank about the issue of immigration, it has been too high for too long, and it needs to be cut, and I will cut it, and we've set out reasonably, sensibly, calmly, how that should be done."
Tim Montgomerie
I have just spoken to someone who is party member, albeit not hugely politically active, who liked what she heard when she watched David Cameron's speech this afternoon.
"I just wish he could have announced all those policies a couple of months ago," she lamented, leaving me to point out that there were absolutely no new policies announced in today's speech.
There's a salutary lesson in this tale: it's one thing to announce policies; it's another for them to get through to the vast majority of voters.
Tim suggested in his excellent ten point plan on Friday that the party needed to stop announcing new policies and focus on the best ones we already have. That's the way to ensure that the messages get through - and my one-person focus group certainly suggests that to be the case.
Jonathan Isaby
Jonathan Isaby's verdict: A confident, from-the-heart performance by David Cameron aimed primarily at those outside the hall rather than those inside it. He emphasised how the party has changed from that which it rejected at the last three elections and highlighted that Conservative policies were not only responsible, but also necessarily radical. He then proceeded to explain some of the changes which the Conservatives will offer the country, making the contrast with Labour - and Brown's - failures on the economy and a whole range of policy areas.
David Cameron is expected to speak without notes, so no text of his speech is being distributed in advance; as such, these are highlights and not verbatim.
2.15pm A video of highlights from David Cameron's leadership since 2005 is now being shown...
2.18pm The shadow cabinet are being welcomed on to the stage.
2.19pm William Hague is introducing another short film attacking Labour failure and emphasising the need for change...
2.23pm David Cameron enters the hall.
2.25pm I'm going to talk very directly - election victories are not handed on a plate - this election was always going to be close and a fight between Brown and me.
2.26pm He namechecks some of the Shadow Cabinet - George Osborne, Ken Clarke, Theresa May. He attacks Labour for chopping and changing ministers a lot - and says Liam Fox, Andrew Lansley and Hague have all been in the same job for some years and would be fine minsters.
2.28 He praises the dedication and courage of those fighting in Afghanistan and pledges fullest support - and indeed equipment - for them.
2.29pm There are at most 70 days until the election. It's an election we have to win because the country is in a complete mess and it is our patriotic duty to turn this country around. Five more years of Brown would be a disaster for this country. The Government is so dysfunctional, divided and weak. They are locked in a dangerous dance of death which is dragging the country down. Only the Tories can give the country hope for the future. "We will not let you down".
2.31pm The British people still have questions to ask us - what kind of party are we, what do we stand for, what changes will we make? Am I really up for it and up to it?
2.32pm You decided by electing me you wanted to change the party. Now we can say we are the party of the NHS and you, the party, should be proud of that.
2.33pm We are the new environmental party. You selected brilliant women candidates, like Charlotte Vere in Brighton, so we will have more than 60 women MPs if we win. Plus you, the party, has selected candidates of all ethnic backgrounds. The change has not just been a paint job. He cites a number of the BME candidates who have been selected.
2.34pm He also congratulates Sayeeda Warsi for destroying that "nasty piece of filth" Nick Griffin on Question Tine (to great applause).
2.35pm We, the party, are like you, the country and are ready to serve you - and are never going back.
The headline numbers should be treated with caution as this is just one poll but it does confirm what has been evident for a few days; the Tory lead has narrowed considerably. The Tories have had a good 24 hours and CCHQ will be hoping that the new clarity of the Tory message and David Cameron's big speech, later today, will start to reverse the decline over the next few days.
More in The Sunday Times.
One of the big lessons of the last week is that there is no evidence that attacks on Brown's character and style of politics have any traction. The bullying and 'forces of hell' episodes excited Westminster but do not appear to have done Brown one scrap of damage. The Conservatives will defeat Labour by convicting them on its economic and social record.
Tim Montgomerie
11.15am update: Appearing on Radio 5 Live, as reported by Reuters, David Cameron responded to this morning's poll numbers by saying:
"The British public are angry and disaffected with their politics and politicians and they take a lot of convincing before they want to put their trust in anybody and they are making us quite rightly fight for this... I've always believed this election would be close. I've always believed it would be a real contest and a real choice between Gordon Brown and me and between Labour and Conservatives and I've always thought we'd have a real fight on our hands and we have."
11.15am update: The detail in the poll shows that Cameron enjoys a big advantage over Brown on having Prime Ministerial qualities:
CAMERON +1
BROWN -32
It was standing room only at the Boston Brighton Tea Party organised by the Freedom Association early this evening at which Dan Hannan was guest speaker. He said that it was time to "bring sanity and order back to the public finances" an that had to be done by reducing expenditure rather than increasing taxes.
He referred to the time when Ronald Reagan was asked how he could justify cutting taxes when the deficit was so large, and he recalled the President's reply:
"I'm not worried about the deficit - the deficit is big enough to look after itself".
In other words, if you bring down taxes there will be economic growth, revenues will rise and the deficit will be reduced. Reagan took a massive gamble, he recalled, and it worked, with Margaret Thatcher doing much the same thing in Britain. "We have lost sight of that wisdom," he lamented.
Mr Hannan noted that in each of his first two terms as an MEP, the EU had a five-year aim. In 1999-2004 it was harmonisation of legal affairs, crime and justice, and immigration policy; in 2004-09 it was passing the European Constitution.
Now, he said, the EU's five-year agenda is tax harmonisation. He prayed in aid - for once - the words of Keynes: "He who controls the currency controls the country".
He noted that the cry at the original 1773 Boston Tea Party was "No taxation without representation" and that today in the US tax may be too high, but that it is not levied by people who are immune to public opinion. In Europe now, he said, there is the danger that we are going down the road towards a pan-European tax system, which was taxation without representation.
To those who might criticise him for aping a foreign idea in Brighton today, he said that there is nothing foreign about meeting to say that we as a people should have a say over what revenue is taken from us. Mr Hannan repeated his oft-made call for a complete rethink of the role of the state in Britain today and said that it was vital that minsters push powers downwards and outwards and restoring democracy.
The Boston revolution led to power being dispersed, he concluded, and whilst he intended drinking tea this afternoon rather than dumping kegs of it in the Channel, he hoped that this would be the start of a revolution that will "restore honour and purpose to the act of voting, dignity to our legislature and freedom to our citizens".
Jonathan Isaby
Recent Comments