The conversation among Conservatives this morning is about the communications disaster that has gripped Downing Street. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. There is talk of this being the moment when David Cameron kissed goodbye to winning the next election. The dire headlines have got Tory MPs rattled, but it is the performances on their own side that cause them particular anguish. They want a promise that Francis Maude won’t be allowed anywhere near a television camera again – “managerial genius, but keep him back stage,” they say. They wish Mr Cameron would stop trying to pretend he isn’t a county gent with a fondness for toff sports, arguing – probably rightly – that voters prefer politicians who are what they are. They would like to see a few more people around the top duo who know what it’s like to clean toilets, to balance out the Rupert/Danny/Matthew metropolitan brain boxes. But what they really want is more Mike Penning.
MORNING BRIEFING – By Benedict Brogan (Daily Telegraph)
Armando Iannuci is still working on the new series of The Thick of It, but after yesterday, it has an awful lot to live up to: Westminsterhas descended into farce over fuel shortages and George Osborne’s “pasty tax”. The Sun has splashed with the headline “Half Baked” (with a free sausage roll for every reader) and all of the newspapers except the Guardian and the FT are leading on one story or the other.
First, fuel. As we report, the Government stands accused of causing entirely unnecessary panic buying of petrol, even though Unite – the union which is threatening to close supplies – is still at least a week away from calling a strike.
In particular, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, messed things up when he told motorists: “as and when, when it makes sense, a bit of extra fuel in a jerry can in the garage is a sensible precaution to take”.
On The World At One, Martha Kearney took Maude to task for advocating something that is technically illegal – motorists can only store 10 litres of petrol in two plastic containers, while a jerry can contains 20. On Newsnight last night, Mike Penning, the roads minister, said that Maude had “made a mistake”.
But was Maude using the term as shorthand for a receptacle for a few gallons of spare fuel, or did he really mean the rusty old WWII jerry can Uncle Herbert brought back from Germany, I wonder?
I blogged on all this last night: this ‘crisis’ is entirely the Government’s own fault – it is botched communication that has got the Government into this mess (there’s also a video of David Cameron failing at badminton). In its leader today, The Times (£) picks up on my point: “ the Government has provoked a spike in demand that threatens to create the very shortages that it was trying to avoid.”
In the Telegraph, we hone in on Ed Miliband, who must be delighted that the coverage is focusing on the Government’s shambles, not his links with Unite: “Mr Miliband must do more than urge the parties to sit down and talk. He should tell Unite to call off the strike.”
Important though the planned strike by Unite’s tanker drivers is, in the sunshine yesterday, it all just added to the sense of chaos in Westminster yesterday, which was already overwhelmed by the “pasty tax”. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves stopped in Redditch to stock up on sausage rolls, while David Cameron scrambled to explain when he last ate a pasty.
Judith Woods, who apparently knows how the temptation of Greggs works, explains why this matters: “Pastygate is important because it throws into sharp relief that the current Cabinet has been drawn, almost exclusively, from the ranks of the wealthy.”
On his Coffee House blog, James Forsyth says the same thing – this is a proxy row “about whether David Cameron and George Osborne get what it is like to worry about the family budget each week”. In his print column in today’s Spectator, Forsyth reports that Downing Street is certainly worrying about that: “ deep down, [David Cameron] realises the potency of any story about the Tories and a moneyed elite.”
Indeed, Peter Oborne reckons that this week may be the week “when trust and confidence evaporates and all that remains is a long battle of attrition”. Oborne argues that if David Cameron wants to “avoid going down in history as the PM who sold out to the spivs” then he needs to reconnect with the Tory party.
DAVE IS UP
Of course, there’s some more serious news around too. Today, the Government is publishing an update to the Open Public Services White Paper . In today’s Telegraph , we’ve got an article from David Cameron who explains the point of it (Francis Maude, who has a lot to do with this, presumably isn’t being allowed out). Here’s what Dave says:
“I want truly open public services, where people can choose the hospitals and schools they go to, with the right information at their fingertips to make that choice; where different providers, from the private and voluntary sectors, can come in and offer new services that people can access free; where funding is directed to helping the most disadvantaged; and where these services are truly accountable to local people, not to politicians or bureaucrats in Whitehall.”
This is one of Steve Hilton’s last hurrahs before he goes off to America, and he will be delighted to have delivered agreement with the Lib Dems on the vexed question of resetting the assumptions of the public sector to allow private providers a right to offer services too. Whether to proceed with the legislation published today remains undecided though. It could be in the Queen’s Speech. Or not.
Some more serious stuff: the FT (£) has splashed on something we wondered about last week – where is this £10bn in new welfare cuts that George Osborne needs to find? According to the newspaper, the Government doesn’t know either – infighting is raging over where the savings will come from.
As Chris Grayling, the employment minister, tells the paper: “What the chancellor did in his budget was set out a framework for government as a whole and that £10bn is a figure that applies across government. He expressed the desire that we make further savings in welfare as part of that, but … we haven’t begun that kind of discussion yet”.
‘The government as a whole’ is definitely not what George said – he said welfare. But finding an extra £10bn of savings from DWP, on top of the £18bn-a-year already planned, will not be easy – as the FT points out, that’s 5 per cent of the department’s budget.
If the DWP doesn’t take all the cuts, then one area George Osborne might be looking at is Andrew Mitchell’s DfID – one of the only parts of government with an increasing budget. As the Daily Mail reports gleefully, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has called for a cut in the aid budget, as it reckons that the 0.7 per cent of GDP target is “unhelpful”.
On the Today Programme this morning, Lord MacGregor, the chairman of the committee, attacked “wasteful” aid. His argument is that: “We believe aid should be judged by the criteria of effectiveness and value for money, not by whether a specific arbitrary target is reached.”
But Andrew Mitchell, the DfID secretary, has already shot back – he issued a statement to say that: “The Government makes no apologies for sticking to its commitments to the world’s poorest people.” Quite right too. And of course, they mostly don’t eat at Greggs.
The peers attacking the aid budget are not Andrew Mitchell’s only worry this morning; The Times has also put him on the spot for his tax affairs. As they report, the DfID secretary was a big investor in a company which avoided £2.6 million in stamp duty through exactly the sort of “aggressive avoidance” that George Osborne said was “morally repugnant” last week.
Mr Mitchell has since sold his investment and there is no suggestion that he played any part in the way that DV3 – the company – managed its tax affairs. But this does illustrate quite neatly some of the problems that can arise when you attack tax avoidance as a moral failing…
Bad times also for Nick Clegg; as The Times (£) reports, the Deputy PM’s hopes of reforming the House of Lords have been “badly dented” by the decision of the committee he set up to examine reform to call for a referendum before any changes are introduced. Based on the AV referendum, I’m sure that idea will simply delight the Lib Dems…
Labour maintains its new 10 point lead: latest YouGov/The Sun results: Conservatives 34%, Labour 44%, Liberal Democrats 10%
TWEETS AND TWITS
Glyn Davies, Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, strikes a note of discord with Francis Maude: “Just leaving London after midnight. I know my car is empty of fuel. Hope not too many people have been to London garages with jerry cans.”
In The Telegraph
David Cameron: Brick by brick, we’re tearing down the big state
Sue Cameron: Whitehall mandarins must stop being so defensive
Best of the rest
Chris Giles in the FT (£): Britain may face worse than seven lean years
Steve Richards in the Independent: The liberal dilemma – how to rule and stick to your principles
Fraser Nelson on the Spectator’s Coffee House: The grey recovery
David Aaronovitch in The Times (£): We shouldn’t destroy this tweeting idiot’s life
Today: Bradford West holds a by-election to replace departing Labour MP Marsha Singh
8.00am: Vince Cable appears the Centre for Cities’ annual post-Budget briefing, on ‘economic boost or business as usual’
11.00am: Ed Balls appears on College Green with representatives from the Whizz-Kidz and Action for Stammering Children charities to launch his marathon bid – donate at just.ly/edballsmp
7.00pm: William Hague speaks at the Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet for the diplomatic corps at Mansion House
MORNING BRIEFING – By Benedict Brogan (Daily Telegraph)
Well – that didn’t last long. Mere hours after Francis Maude popped up on Today to explain why the Government’s refusal to publish details of Dave’s dinners was “open Government”, No 10 changed tack and published the list of donors who have dined at No 10 and Chequers.
Our splash story is here . Mr Cameron will be relieved that the headlines are not as strident as yesterday after No 10 shovelled out the details. But he should note the universal view that No 10’s handling was sorely lacking. His aides say they have moved as quickly as bureaucracy and record-trawling allow while acknowledging that nothing looks fast enough in the age of Twitter speed.
They also plead with us to note the irony of yesterday’s petrol strikes announcement by Unite, Labour’s own big donor (more on that below). Labour are pressing with further questions, but will we see today one of those moments when a ‘scandal’ loses momentum because there are no new revelations, or will something turn up?
The challenge for the Tories is to resist demands for a switch to party funding, not least if Nick Clegg seizes his chance to force the issue. Yesterday, David Cameron ‘conceded’ a funding cap of £50,000, but the Labour Party wants a cap at £10,000, as Sir Christopher Kelly – the chairman of the parliamentary watchdog – recommended. Will they ever be able to agree?
In today’s Telegraph , we say that donations aren’t the problem – transparency is. “There is nothing wrong with business leaders lobbying government; nor is there anything wrong with people making donations to political parties. Both are intrinsic parts of the democratic process – but both must be transparent.”
Also in the Telegraph, Paul Goodman reminds us that lobbyists and donors aren’t really buying influence – they’re buying glamour: “Namely, those who give not out of loyalty or even greed, but from another motive which, though no more noble, is arguably less harmful: vanity.”
But Mary Riddell reckons that while cash-for-access is nothing new, David Cameron’s particular association with wealth makes this dangerously toxic. “Voters already convinced that the Tories have cut the top tax rate to help their rich friends will wonder, as they are bound to, whether the Chancellor’s apparent enthusiasm for a third Heathrow runway and relaxed planning rules could possibly be driven by lobbyists.”
Elsewhere, in The Times (£), Rachel Sylvester looks at the funding question – she argues that the parties are stuck in a prisoner’s dilemma. She reckons that the Tories need to accept a lower cap on donations while Labour must look at its union links. In his analysis for the Guardian , Patrick Wintour agrees – he says that: “for the first time in a generation there may be an equivalence of mutual self-interest in tearing up the current arrangements”.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail demands a cleaning up of politics to end the “cesspit of corrupt party funding”, and taxpayers must not make up the shortfall. Inside, Andrew Pierce profiles Tory Party chairman Andrew Feldman – David Cameron’s best friend and one of the most quietly influential men in the Conservative Party.
Finally, in its leader the FT (£) calls for Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations, including the £3 per voter of public funding – to be implemented. They’ll be lucky.
ASIDE – Barack’s dinners – Perhaps the PM was just learning from the President – tweeted this morning by Barack Obama: “Ever wanted to have dinner with the President? Now’s your chance—take the last seat at the next #DinnerWithBarack: OFA.BO/TpCU2Q”
(though with Barack, donations start at $10, not £250,000).
Labour are sticking to their argument that last week’s Budget was an outrageous transfer of wealth to the rich ( see Polly Toynbee today for evidence). So how do we explain this?: last night, Labour failed to vote against the cut in 50p tax. Instead it was left to the SNP to call a vote, which Labour abstained on.
A senior No 10 source emails that “given the fuss they’ve made about it over the last days it is pretty extraordinary” . But Ed Balls has taken to defending himself on Twitter, pointing out that “Lab voted against whole Budget tonight. But no chance to vote solely on 50p tax. Will ensure there is in Finance Bill & vote against”.
ED BALLS OUT
Page 18 and 19 of the Daily Mirror today are on Ed Balls’s fitness regime – the shadow chancellor has given an interview to the paper explaining exactly how he’s preparing for the London marathon.
Here’s what he says: “Finishing will be enough. I think running the marathon will be a bit like the leadership election for the Labour party. It’s funny going into a race which you think you won’t win, but is still worth running.”
Oh, and apparently Mrs Ed Balls isn’t so keen: “Yvette [Cooper] thinks it’s completely ridiculous and that at my age, 26 miles is a very, very long way. She might be right.” Did she think that about your leadership bid too, Ed?
The other political story today is planning – the Government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework, which is intended to slim down the masses of planning laws to just 50 pages, will be published at 12.30pm. Greg Clark, the planning minister, is also expected to give a statement to the House of Commons around then.
Chris Hope’s full story on the reforms is here. Since we launched our Hands Off Our Land campaign last summer, the Government has made several concessions. Officials will have to consider the importance of “ordinary” countryside when approving developments, while an explicit requirement to build on brownfield land first will be reinstated.
However, the controversial “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is still there, and though we are assured that the corners have been knocked off, No 10 sources are stressing that this is an “unashamedly pro-growth document”. Worrying.
Speaking of planning: one thing that George Osborne is very keen to build is new airport capacity in the South East – as the FT (£) reports, the Chancellor wants to show he has the “political balls” (presumably he doesn’t mean his shadow) to push through new capacity, even though his aides say that there is “no softening” on a third runway at Heathrow.
As promised – petrol strikes. The Daily Mail has splashed on the story, reporting that the country will be “held to ransom” by 1,000 tanker drivers, who yesterday voted for a national strike. As they report : “The walkout, which threatens to wreck the Easter break, could close nearly 8,000 petrol stations.”
So far, Ed Miliband has refused to condemn the strikers, who are part of the Unite union – Labour’s biggest financial backer. Len McCluskey, Unite’s general secretary, and no fan of the “Blairite” Ed, said that drivers are looking for an “amicable settlement”, but refused to rule out strikes early next month. What will Ed say?
The headlines haven’t been so bad recently, but if you thought the prospect of euro-armageddon has receded, this brilliant quote from Stephen Nickell, the economic historian who advises the Office for Budget Responsibility, ought to make you think again: “Occasionally I go and look at William Hill, they have the odds on these sorts of things. Last time I looked, the odds of Greece not using euro by the end of the year were the order of about 40pc, a bit lower after the latest Greek bail-out talks”.
That is presumably why it is a good thing that the OBR’s estimates for economic growth rule out the possibility of a Greek collapse…
DOING THE MATHS
Free Enterprise Group MP Liz Truss has a debate in Westminster Hall today worth noting: she wants a “subject premium” to be paid to schools teaching maths and further maths at A-level to boost the numbers of children taking the subjects.
According to her research, under the funding formula A Level Media Studies, Psychology, Physics and Biology receive twelve percent more funding than Maths and English, while non A-level subjects like floristry with more practical content are given even higher weightings . Liz wants this reversed – wish her luck.
Not all politicians are dishonoured today: Edward Heath and James Callaghan are to be honoured with memorial stones at Westminster Abbey. In today’s Telegraph , we have a column from Leo McKinstry, who says that Jim Callaghan was not our “worst Prime Minister” ever – or anything close:
“When Callaghan departed in 1979, the mess that his government left was reversible, as Margaret Thatcher heroically demonstrated. But, tragically, the same is not true today. Blair and Brown, the twin architects of New Labour, altered the fabric of our country forever.”
On the topic of honours, it’s also worth noting the death yesterday of Lord Newton of Braintree – Social Security Secretary under Margaret Thatcher and later Leader of the House. Our obituary is here .
The shocking poll is from ComRes in the Independent: Labour are ten points ahead, on 43%, against the Conservatives on just 33% (the Lib Dems are on their perpetual 11%).
Then there is also a Populus poll in The Times, which puts Labour on 38%, the Conservatives on 34% and the Lib Dems on 11%.
Finally, YouGov’s daily poll for The Sun puts Labour on 43%, the Conservatives on 35% and the Lib Dems on 9%.
In all three, the Conservatives are down sharply. So the Budget went down well eh, chaps?
TWEETS AND TWITS
Conservative MP for South West Norfolk and prominent free-marketeer Liz Truss, distracted from seriousness by a rodent: “Eek mouse alert in tearoom. Has ruined my discussion about tax policy.”
Also, he’s not an MP but the FT’s Chris Cook deserves a mention for this tweet: “Please can someone connect the Cameron donor antics to his home in London. So we can have #nottinghillgate”
In The Telegraph
Paul Goodman: David Cameron – smooth yes, dodgy no
Philip Johnston: A new era dawns for the grammar school
Best of the rest
Rachel Sylvester in The Times (£): On funding they really are all in it together
Polly Toynbee in the Guardian: Self-confidence matters. This is a moment for Labour to seize
Philip Stephens in the FT (£): Baby boomers are the wrong target
Malcolm Rifkind in The Times (£): Only real secrets must be kept out of court
Today: Day II of the Seoul nuclear security summit
Today: Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna speaks at the The Social Enterprise Exchange in Glasgow
11.30am: Andrew Lansley takes oral questions in the House of Commons, before it rises for its easter recess
12.30pm: The National Planning Policy Framework is published – planning minister Greg Clark makes an oral statement to the House of Commons
2.15pm: George Osborne appears in front of the Treasury Committee with Treasury permanent secretary Sir Nicholas MacPherson to give evidence on the Budget statement
3.15pm: Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King appears in front of the House of Lords economic affairs committee to answer questions on the economic outlook
7.00pm: Theresa May gives the speaker’s lecture, followed by a Q&A, at Speaker’s House
Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, has been notable by her absence since news of the “Cash for Cameron” affair first broke. Instead it has fallen to a tag team of Francis Maude and Michael Fallon to go from studio to studio explaining why this is a “bit of nonsense” (in Maude’s words) which simultaneously the Conservative party leadership takes seriously.
Warsi’s co-chairman, Lord Feldman – Andrew Feldman, ennobled by his close friend David Cameron – has not been seen either. This is less surprising, as Feldman is the Cameroon’s fund-raising lynchpin and keeps a low profile. He was interviewed for the Financial Times recently as part of a profile on Cameron’s first two years as PM. Feldman explained that his friend was good at his job and works tremendously hard, but does look a “little tired” (in contrast to many millions of Britons who commute, work to keep their heads above water, do not have access to two grace and favour homes and look completely knackered).
“Cash for Cameron” has underlined the absence of a proper old-style Tory party chairman. Matthew Barrett (“Where’s the Party Chairman?”) spotted this yesterday, when Fallon and Maude were doing the 10,000 metres media relay. He suggested that Cameron needs to get himself a chairman to lead from the front pronto.
Mr Maude said it was no secret that those who paid more than £50,000 to join the Leaders Group would be invited to meet the PM and senior party members.
He also said it was unreasonable to insist that Mr Cameron disclose his private dinner guests.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, described by commentators as a “car crash”, Mr Maude suggested that people who donate large amounts of money to the party were invited to regular “leaders group” dinners.
He suggested party donors should be able to get access to the Prime Minister, but denied they could influence or buy policy, describing the suggestions as “absurd”.
However he added: “People will put forward ideas whether they are donors or not. Do you really want a Prime Minister who is not going to listen to ideas that are put to him?”
MORNING BRIEFING – By Benedict Brogan (Daily Telegraph)
BREAKING – Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s fundraiser, and Francis Maude, Cabinet Office minister, on the Today Programme, discussing party funding:
Lord Levy: “Until there is a change in the system, this is always going to happen in one form or another… a party cannot have its policy directorate open… I’m not aware of any fundraising dinners which Blair had at either No 10 or at Chequers.”
Francis Maude, asked whether large donors can meet the party leader: “We’ve always been very open…. there’s no secret about it. You can join the leader’s group… The fact is that all Prime Ministerial meetings are disclosed… People will put forward ideas, whether they’re donors or not. What’s being alleged here is that you can buy influence, you can buy policy, and that’s simply not the case.”
Asked whether David Cameron should disclose everyone he meets, Maude said that “no one has ever suggested that” in any country, stressing that the PM has a right to some privacy.
CAM DINE WITH ME
Is the Daily Mirror’s headline, as the bad news continues for the Government: after George Osborne’s disastrous Budget last week, yesterday’s Sunday Times splash moved the pressure onto David Cameron. Their revelation that Peter Cruddas, until yesterday Tory party co-treasurer, offered access to the PM in exchange for cash reopens the tricky debate about access.
But it is the revelation that donors were offered private dinners with Dave and Samantha in the private apartment at No 10 and Chequers, as well as to policy making, that hurts. It draws the PM into a scandal that could have otherwise been kept at arms’ length. That he made a song and dance about lobbying in Opposition doesn’t help either.
Our splash story is here. David Cameron is now facing calls for what John Rentoul calls a FIPI – a Full Independent Public Inquiry – from Ed Miliband and even from Rupert Murdoch, who presumably knows a thing or two about access to the PM. They want the Camerons to publish details of who they’ve had dinner with – something No 10 is resisting on the grounds that dinners were private.
Speaking to the BBC yesterday, at a Sports Relief event, Mr Cameron said that he would hold an internal inquiry: “This is not the way that we raise money in the Conservative Party, it shouldn’t have happened. It’s quite right that Peter Cruddas has resigned. I will make sure there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can’t happen again.”
But this is hardly the first cash-for-access scandal, and it won’t be the last: can Mr Cameron hold out?
The Daily Mail is particularly hard on the matter of Mr Cameron’s judgment – or lack of it when it comes to ‘spivs’ with lots of money. It cites the case of David Rowland, who was appointed treasurer only to resign before starting when questions about his past were raised.
Meanwhile, The Times (£) points out the flip flop over Dave’s rich Oxford mate Lord Feldman, who is being fingered both for the appointment of Mr Cruddas and then a botched arrangement for the internal inquiry.
In the Daily Telegraph, Iain Martin notes that the “the cumulative impression is toxic for the Tories, particularly after a budget in which the Chancellor announced the removal of the 50p tax band”.
The Sun’s leader backs that up: they say that “millions of voters will now be wondering whether Chancellor George Osborne decided to scrap the top 50p tax rate after a few cosy lunches with millionaire backers”, and call for a cap on individual political donations.
In our leader column , we don’t go quite that far, but we worry that this will lead to calls for the state funding of political parties. Parties need to attract a broad base of genuine supporters – if they could, they wouldn’t need to court financiers’ cash.
Elsewhere, the Times (£) says that: “even if influence has not truly been bought, propriety and integrity have surely been sold”, while the Guardian says that the revelations are “jaw-dropping in the shamelessness with which the treasurer sets out the terms on which access is traded”.
Unfortunately, for the PM, the story No 10 would like us to be focusing has beenlargely forgotten. The Government is announcing new funding for dementia research today, as the Alzheimer’s Society holds its Dementia 2012 conference in central London.
David Cameron is speaking at the conference. He will say that: “Dementia is simply a terrible disease. And it is a scandal that we as a country haven’t kept pace with it. The level of diagnosis, understanding and awareness of dementia is shockingly low. It is as though we’ve been in collective denial.”
Funding for research is being doubled to £66 million by 2015, which Dave hopes will lead to the sorts of medical breakthroughs that helped with cancer in the 1970s and HIV in the late ‘80s and ‘90s. “This is a personal priority of mine” says Dave, “and it’s got an ambition to match.”
Today, dementia – tomorrow euthanasia. At least if Richard Ottoway, the backbench Tory MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, gets his way. He’s secured Parliamentary time for a debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow – the first time since 1974 that the issue has been discussed.
“I am sympathetic to further developments in the law. I have not used the word ‘step’ at all – this is a development in the law for which I’m seeking Parliamentary approval. These are very clear guidelines and it is why I actually support them being put on a statutory basis to protect them against going further without parliamentary approval.”
Full story here: “Richard Ottoway MP hints at support for euthanasia law”
Then there’s the story which would worry the nation’s drivers: Unite, Labour’s biggest union backer, will announce the results of its ballot of petrol tanker drivers today. The drivers supply some 90 per cent of petrol forecourts, meaning that if the drivers vote to strike, stations could be faced with crippling delays to their supply of fuel.
As the Guardian reports, troops are being trained to fill in if necessary, thereby preventing a disaster of the sort that so damaged Tony Blair in 2000. The union is concerned about the fragmentation of petrol supply and falling wages and conditions for drivers.
Francis Maude says that: “Although we are pushing for an agreement, we have learned the lessons of the past and stand ready to act to minimise disruption to motorists, to industry and, in particular, to our emergency services, in the event of a strike.” Let’s hope so.
In the meantime, will Ed condemn any strike? Given the state of relations between Unite’s leader, Len McCluskey, and Labour HQ, I would have thought that it would be fairly easy…
Still, if driving is out, flying is coming back in. George Osborne wants a new runway at Heathrow, regardless of what Justine Greening, Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg think about it. As David Cameron said in his surprise infrastructure speech last Monday, the Government is “not blind to the need to increase airport capacity, particularly in the South-East”.
Dan Milmo, the Guardian’s industrial editor, has some helpful analysis of the U-turn here. Last night, Boris Johnson said that he would not allow a new runway at Heathrow. The Mayor of London said: “it will not be built as long as I am Mayor of London” as it would be “an environmental disaster. It would mean a huge increase in planes over London, and intolerable traffic and fumes in the west of the city”.
Britain’s economy certainly needs the new capacity somewhere, but there’s a lot of opposition to this one. If George and Dave really intend to push through a third runway at Heathrow, don’t expect them to confirm it until Boris Johnson has safely been reelected.
A week or so ago, before George Osborne’s Budget distracted us, Ed Balls was the victim of a whispering campaign about his competence – but the shadow chancellor is in it for the long-run, it seems. Literally. Yesterday, at the Guardian’s open weekend, Mr Balls revealed that he plans to run the London marathon next month.
Mr Balls let on earlier than planned after someone mentioned on Twitter that he had been spotted in Regent’s Park in “very tight, unedifying trousers”. Apparently he thinks it’s a “crazy thing to do”. When has that ever stopped him?
…has a new house, or so reports the Daily Mail. The radical cleric was forced to move after his last landlord objected to renting a house to the family. A friend tells the Mail that: “He told us they have now given him a very nice new place, bigger than the first house he went to after the British let him go. He is really enjoying his new home and so are his family. The inside is very modern and has been done up more nicely, it has more bedrooms and a larger garden.”
How are those talks going Theresa?
Latest YouGov/Sunday Times results: Conservatives 35%, Labour 42%, Liberal Democrats 10%
TWEETS AND TWITS
Circumspect from Eric Joyce, now no longer a Labour MP: “The Moon and Venus. Out of your window or close-by. Too beautiful and amazing for a picture.”
In The Telegraph
Iain Martin: Cash for access is toxic for the Tories
Cristina Odone: Here’s a plan to help my GP get the most out of my visits
Best of the rest
Michael Heseltine in The Times (£): Are we good enough to compete — and win?
John Harris in the Guardian: The Tories are no closer to shaking the taint of privilege issue
Wolfgang Munchau in the FT (£): Europe’s bailout bazooka is proving to be a toy gun
Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent: Is 50p a year really too much to end this corruption?
Today: Nick Clegg attends the Seoul nuclear summit
Today: Employment minister Chris Grayling speaks at the ‘tapping into talent’ conference at the Centre of Economic and Social Inclusion
9.30am: Care minister Paul Burstow appears at the Dementia 2012 summit
12.30pm: Hazel Blears takes part in a debate about the decline of working class MPs at Policy Exchange
2.30pm: Philip Hammond takes defence questions in the House of Commons
3.30pm: The Budget debate continues in the House of Commons
3.30pm: OBR Chairman Sir Robert Chote appears to answer questions on the Budget from the Treasury Select Committee
4.30pm: National Security Adviser Sir Kim Darroch appears in front of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
Mr Maude caused controversy in Conservative circles last week when he said Tory voters had to accept gay marriage if the party was to shake off its “backward looking” image.
The minister’s older brother, Charles, died from the disease in 1993, at the age of 42, never having admitted to his parents he was homosexual.
Five years earlier Mr Maude, who had long suspected his brother was gay, voted for Section 28, which banned what many in the Conservative party regarded as attempts by schools and local authorities to promote homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship.
But in an interview Mr Maude now states that the law “did not make it any easier for gay men like my brother to enter into a relationship and to be open about it. I deeply regret that. It’s one reason I support gay marriage, which is a deeply conservative idea. It’s part of the glue of people making a deep commitment to each other.”
He now says of his previous support for Section 28: “In hindsight, it was very wrong — very wrong. It was a legislative provision that came out of honourable motives. It took me some time to realise what an emblem of intolerance Section 28 had become for gay people.
Suppose that I (or you) were determined to behave in ways that the Conservative leadership would approve of: perhaps out of helpfulness to the government in a time of crisis, or maybe just because we want to avoid being clobbered by the penalties meted out to those who get it wrong, we decide (as the Americans say) “to get with the programme”. What exactly would we be expected to do or say? I only ask because I am genuinely confused about this.
For a start, we should be prepared, according to the most recent pronouncements, to endorse gay marriage as a totemic symbol of tolerance and social liberalism. To refuse to do this is to be locked into an archaic, bigoted past which would render any political party “unelectable”, and any supporter of it beyond the ethical pale.
OK, that’s clear enough. But hang on a minute, the very same people who are adamant about the need to solemnise same-sex unions also insist that we must engage more with ethnic minorities: to be viable in modern Britain, a party must not speak only for the entrenched white middle class but for all the varied communities that call this country home.
People in Britain (and in America too, of course) often complain that the Republican Party nowadays talks only to itself. It seems obsessed, they say, with the positions that its presidential hopefuls hold on sexual issues, guns or the teaching of evolution, rather than the issues that matter to the ordinary voter.
There is truth in this. It was because the Conservative Party suffered from a British version of the same problem that David Cameron declared his intention, when he became a candidate for the Tory leadership in 2005, to be the great moderniser.
Mr Cameron was right in two key respects. One was that no political party can succeed unless it addresses the issues that matter to voters: it was a scandal, for instance, that the Conservatives had so little to say about the public services. The other was that voters make their judgments much more by assessing the motives of parties than by studying their policies.
The neatest example, cited by the proto-moderniser, Francis Maude, in his lecture this week to mark the 10th anniversary of the think tank Policy Exchange, was immigration. In 2005, the Tory policy on the subject was put to a polling sample “blind”. Two thirds supported it. Then the same policy was put to the same sample, explaining that it was%2