If David Cameron only entered politics now, would he even be a Tory?

The New Statesman published this on Tuesday and I'm rather smug that 2 days later, even post Miliband, it remains the 2nd most read piece on The Staggers. It's also attracted a load of comments. But hardly anyone has answered the second question (in the last line). Anyone care to have a go?

Over the last two weeks I’ve been wrestling with a couple of questions. Trouble is, I only have an answer for the first. Perhaps you could all help me with the second?

My first poser is this. Let’s imagine that David Cameron had not gone into politics when he did. Entranced by the magical world of PR, he eschewed the chance to be an MP to pursue a career in the media, but now, 20 years on and full of regret, he decided he would like to give it another go. Which party would he join?

Well, according to Conservative Home the achievements the current government should be most proud of – and therefore presumably most attractive to a prospective new recruit – are the Equal Marriage Act, protecting the International Aid budget and raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. You don’t have to be much of a student of politics to know that they are three core Liberal Democrat policies – and the comment section of the Conservative Home article would suggest that the Tory grass roots don’t have much time for them. But as the Tory party is now furiously laying claim to them, presumably Cameron is in fact, quite keen…

Then you think about the things David Cameron first cared about when he became Conservative leader – you remember, when he wanted everyone to hug a hoodie or a husky, when (on his election) Norman Tebbit described him as wanting to build a “New Modern Compassionate Green Globally Aware Party” (it wasn’t a compliment) and he ditched the Tory Torch for an oak tree . And you look at the Tory party now – pulled rightward by UKIP, anti wind farms, demanding marriage tax breaks and reductions in inheritance tax, – and you wonder how comfortable Cameron feels inside the party he leads. It’s not really the vision he started with, is it?

And now he must cast a glance at the Lib Dems – who originated those policies the Tory party now claims as their proudest achievement. Who remain passionate about the Green agenda Cameron once wanted to claim as his own . Whose leadership (much to the chagrin of the Lib Dem grass roots) appear to support all sorts of policies that Cameron apparently also  feels comfortable with, from Secret Courts to Press Regulation to Immigration.

And you wonder if the David Cameron who joined the Tories in his twenties would now look at the Lib Dems and the Tories, and find, perhaps to his surprise, that in fact he had rather more in common with the former than the latter.

Which brings me on to my second question, to which I have no answer. If indeed it is true that the current Conservative Prime Minister would today feel more comfortable in the Lib Dems than in his own party, who should be more alarmed about that fact – the Tory membership, or the Lib Dem grassroots?

Why did David Miliband resign? I blame this man

As we wave goodbye to David Miliband - I think this is the best and most balanced 'obit' I have read about his resignation - there is a sense that he could have been Labour leader if only he'd taken either of the two chances he had to stand against Gordon Brown, in 2008 and 2009. The received wisdom is that he didn't have the cojones to do it - and hence he lost the chance. When he did stand for the leadership, there was enough doubt about whether he had that thread of steel you need - which in a finely balanced election was enough to tip the balance against him.

But was it really courage that stopped him standing in 2008 or 9?

Probably partly - but it was also the received wisdom that he who wields the knife, never wears the crown.

Now, whoever concocted that 'rule' a) has never seen 'Game of Thrones and b) hasn't paid enough attention to recent political history.

The reason everyone always cites the rule is that when Heseltine stood against Thatcher, he did enough damage to remove her from the running - but made enough enemies amongst Thatcher loyalists in the process to ensure he didn't win in the next round. This is undoubtably true. But he's a bit of an exception that makes the rule.

The Tories don't have quite the taste for regicide that everyone claim they do - only 3 of the last 7 leaders have been toppled against their will.  But the only other notable Tory politician to stand against the incumbent leader in 'recent' history was  - Thatcher herself, when she defeated Heath in the first ballot. Sir Anthony Meyer was a stalking horse candidate the year before the Heseletine coup but was always only meant to be a repository of protest votes to destabalise Thatcher. And that's pretty much it.

Every other coup against the leader since the 1970s  - across all 3 political parties - has been the result of the men in grey suits or a mass visit from the backbenches, not a single (serious) candidate putting themselves forward to challenge for the top job (I'm talking Ming, Charles, IDS, and to a degree Brown and Blair). All the other leaders resigned of their own accord (Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Beckett, Major, Hague, Howard, Thorpe, Steele, Ashdown) or died (Smith)

So for any serious politician thinking of toppling the leader, the Heseltine factor looms large - but history suggests the man or woman holding the knife is not necessarily doomed never to be monarch.

They just have to make sure they have the balls.

And, as this Damien Mcbride piece makes very clear - they've done their homework. Otherwise, they're stuffed.

The fact David Miliband either bought the received wisdom, didn't have the thread of steel, hadn't done his homework, or a combination of all 3 - means we shouldn't shed too many tears at his departure now.

An Open Letter to all Lib Dem Peers in the House of Lords

Dear Everybody

So, today is the day. The final chance to send the Justice and Security Bill back to the House of Commons with a firm 'no' written all over it, in the shape of the excellent amendments proposed to the bill, designed to consign it to a permanent state of ping pong between Houses until time runs out.

I hope you take the chance to  send the Bill to this Parliamentary limbo.


Why?

Partly because it is fundamentally illiberal. There is a reason why successive Lib Dem conferences have rejected the Bill over and over again. There is a principle at stake here.

Partly because party policy is fundamentally against this bill. This is a red line issue for many party members.

Partly because it is fundamentally flawed. I won't bore you with the arguments again - your in box is full of them - but if you need reminding just pop over to the Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts site where you can get no end of information.

Or if you don't fancy that, go and see what your own colleague Lord McDonald has to say on this issue over at the Reprieve website.

Or even have a skim of this article just published by the Lib Dem lawyers group. Takes 2 minutes. Says everything you need to know.

I'd partly like you vote against it because I don't think the case for the bill has been made properly; The Guardian suggests The Commons was given duff information only recently when considering the bill  - by Ken Clark of all people. With this sort of thing happening, do you really want to put your name to the bill?

But mostly, I'd like you to vote against the bill because its another nail in the coffin of our own liberty. And remember...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Please do the right thing this afternoon. No to Secret Courts

Why the GOP would be sensible to pick Jeb Bush as their Presidential Candidate in 2016

Not because of his policies

Not because of his character

Not because of his skills

But because the last time the Republicans won the US Presidency without the name 'Bush' or Nixon' on the ticket was..... 1928.

Just saying.


Update

According to my friend Chris...

That Boris Interview everyone is talking about

Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear

How's the differentiation thing working out for us?

You'll remember our differentiation strategy, as outlined on a napkin by Richard Reeve early on in the government and helpfully reproduced below...

Having spent some time establishing that we are a 'grown up' party of government by working hand in hand with the Tories, in the middle of the parliament we will slowly start to extract ourselves from their grasp, reasserting our own liberal character and credentials, in good time to make it clear that we offer an alternative to the British people at the 2015 General Election.

I always thought it was a mistake. And I have to ask- how is that going?

On the one hand policies that are undoubtably Liberal Democrat feature heavily on the governments programme. The problem is - having spent so long 'not having a cigarette paper between us' that the Tories can claim them just as much as we have. And surprise surprise - they are claiming them, with Conservative Home saluting David Cameron for delivering on Equal marriage, protecting the Aid budget and  the £10k tax band.

Many in the Lib Dems will point out that this will fool few people (and equally that none of these go down well with the Tory grass roots). I think they're wrong (at least on the first part). The Tories have got a lot of money to spend reminding people that it was George Osborne who stood up in the house and announced the £10K band, that the Equal Marriage Act was proposed by a Tory Secretary of State at the DCMS, that the two SoSs responsible for International Aid have been Andrew Mitchell and Justine Greening. None of that will be fair - but they have big pockets. If they want to own those policies in the minds of the British public - they probably have the ammo to do it.

Meantime, we do ourselves no favours at all in trying to re-establish our own liberal credentials. Look at the latest three big moves by the leadership - on Secret Courts, Media regulation and now Immigration. We can argue the whys and wherefore of these policies, but if we are meant to be now pursuing a strategy of strongly differentiating ourselves from the Tories, I would suggest that this is a curious way of going about it. We look less liberal than them. Which is quite an achievement.  

I've always said the non -differentiation strategy was a mistake from the start. But it was the road we went down. If we're going to make it work we need to start reminding people of what we believe in our hearts

The last couple of weeks makes me wonder if the leadership in Westminster hasn't rather forgotten that napkin. 

Nick - its time to be all liberal again. Could you get on with it please

Here's the new Norman Baker Single and Video

 And in case you've forgotten: here's the last Lib Dem to appear in a pop video...