And another thing…

WE’VE ALL been having fun with Dave’s scrapping and melting down of his “cast iron” guarantee to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

And at 4.00 pm, the cast-iron laddie will take to the rostrum to explain a new policy which he hopes will be an effective sticking plaster over the newly exposed European wounds in his party. He’s been lucky in at least one respect: whatever he says will be lost in the acres of coverage of Kelly’s report into MPs’ expenses; so, for the time being at least, Dave’s difficulties won’t be too high up the media agenda.

Apparently he’ll announce a “manifesto mandate” to be obstructive and rude to foreigners, or something, which will go down well enough with his rank and file.

But all this dancing around the issue is getting silly. Dan “I’m not as mad as I look, honestly” Hannan MEP was on Newsnight last night insisting that a future Cameron government should hold a referendum on Europe. Which aspect of Europe? asked Paxo, reasonably enough. Doesn’t really matter, provided there’s a referendum, replied the party’s Great White Hope.

You know what he meant. I know what he meant. Paxo knew what he meant. There’s a more than 50 per cent chance that Hannan knew what he meant: the overwhelming majority of rank and file Conservative Party members want a referendum on withdrawal from the EU.

All this shilly-shallying over Lisbon, over the proposed repatriation of specific powers, none of this really matters to most Tories. The big issue for them is not a refinement of the UK’s relationship with Europe; it is Britain’s membership itself of the EU, and they will not rest until they get it.

Cameron would unite his party if today he were to announce exactly that (although there would then be the bear trap of which way any government led by him would campaign during the campaign).

Of course, not all Tories go along with the foamers; Ken Clarke, distrusted by most of his party, has reportedly pulled out of his appearance on today’s The Daily Politics. A straw in the wind, perhaps?

WHAT does it say about David Cameron’s Conservative Party that their (newest) rising star, Daniel Hannan MEP, wouldn’t have been given house room in John Major’s party?

Hannan’s well-known anti-Europeanism (he left the European People’s Party in advance of his leader’s reluctant decision to make such a move official policy) has made him the darling of the party. If this were the 1990s and Hannan were a member of the government, he would have been included among Major’s famous “Cabinet bastards”, those right wingers whose rabid hostility to Europe so undermined the government’s credibility.

In his now famous speech in the European parliament, in Gordon Brown’s presence, Hannan deliberately plagiarised John Smith’s devastating put-down to Major: “He is the devalued prime minister of a devalued government.” On Channel 4 News last week, following a package pointing out the factual inaccuracies Hannan had got away with in his speech, he acknowledged Smith had used the phrase first, and that it was “an extremely apt phrase” at the time!

I thought Cameron was supposed to have “detoxified” the Tory brand by shifting the party into the centre ground? But the fact that Hannan’s popularity among Tory activists has forced Cameron to send him a note of congratulations shows that Cameron is as beholden to the right of his party as any of his predecessors.

I wonder what Ken Clarke’s private views are on Hannan? More to the point, just how far to the right has the Conservative Party shifted when Daniel Hannon has replaced Michael Heseltine as the conference darling?

TORY conspirators hoping to get rid of Ken Clarke, The Only Other Tory the Public Can Stand The Sight Of (the other being Boris), will have had a boost to their campaign from The Sun’s editorial today:

KEN Clarke is a class act, but he’s no team player.

The old warhorse seems unable to accept he is not leader of the Tory Party despite many attempts. He is not even Shadow Chancellor.

Yet in one casual, undisciplined outburst, he has taken it upon himself to rip up the Tories’ most popular tax pledge.

David Cameron must be cursing the day he brought Ken in from the cold.

Spot on.

I EXPECT Gordon Brown now regrets his use of the infamous phrase “British jobs for British workers” during his first leader’s speech to Labour conference in 2007.

At the time I recall seeing a number of raised eyebrows among a number of ministerial colleagues (the number of eyebrows in question, lest you ask, was an even one; the number of ministerial colleagues, I’m not so sure). This was an unexpected commitment and not one that we could interpret in the same way that many of the media and – crucially – those watching at home, might wish to. 

I’ve no doubt the Prime Minister meant exactly what Pat McFadden, the Minister of State at the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), recently said he meant: that British workers have the right to expect that they will have sufficient skills to compete on an equal basis with foreign workers.

Nevertheless, it was pretty obvious at the time how the media and others would interpret the phrase, and you have to ask what has become of the poor, benighted soul who came up with the phrase in the first place and recommended its inclusion in Gordon’s speech. Siberia, anyone?

As far as the so-called wildcat strikes are concerned, what’s intriguing is that a quick search through Conservative Home and Politics Home has unearthed only one Tory front bencher willing to talk about their remifications and causes: none other than Ken Clarke, the Shadow Business Secretary.

You’ve got to hand it to Ken, he’s got cojones, hasn’t he? Other senior Tories won’t want to touch this story with a 3.07 metre (10 feet) bargepole because it has “Europe” written all over it. Yet Ken, who’s only too well aware of the suspicion with which his party regards him because of that same subject, wades in with his size eight Hush Puppies. Workers’ anger, he claims, stems entirely from the downturn and is aimed, not at foreign workers, but at the government.

He may have a point. And Ken, unlike virtually all of his Shadow Cabinet colleagues, can, without any perceptible effort, defend European employment directives with conviction and sincerity.

Personally, while acknowledging the hard fact of European law when it comes to employment practice, I have absolutely no problem with stating that I would, given a chance, always want to discriminate in favour of British workers and British manufacturers on the fairly simple basis that this is Britain and I’m a representative of British voters in Britain’s sovereign parliament (whisper it: the clue’s in the name).

DAVID Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, on 1 October, 2008:

We will also back marriage in the tax system.

Ken Clarke, Shadow Business Secretary, December 2008:

I got rid of the married couples allowance [when I was Chancellor]… I really don’t think it’s anything to do with politicians whether you [get married] and most of the younger people I know don’t seem very keen on it. My view of Conservatism is that it’s not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system – my wife didn’t put up with me because I was getting £150 by way of tax allowance. This is social engineering for God’s sake and when I joined the party we weren’t in favour of it.

THE QUESTION about whether or not the UK is heading for bankruptcy is a subject of intense disagreement… in the Shadow Cabinet.

On 23 January, David Cameron said: “If we continue on Labour’s path of fiscal irresponsibility, at some point – and it could be very soon – the money will run out.”

Earlier this month, George Osborne said that Gordon Brown had already “bankrupted Britain again.”

Yesterday, on The Andrew Marr Show, Cameron’s latest appointee to the Shadow Cabinet, Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke, said: “I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility. Though, I mean I’m as gloomy as most people… I think it’s very important to realise the constraints of a responsible opposition.”

The Daily Telegraph adds:

However, Mr Clarke, although acknowledging that the British economy is facing serious problems, criticised international financiers who have said the UK economy is “finished”. Mr Clarke said: “Sterling’s already collapsed probably by a greater amount now than any time since the Second World War because the foreign exchange markets have lost confidence, but I don’t think it helps for people to start dramatising it.”

“I must say my reaction was I am gloomy, I expect 2009 to be bad but…it’s not going to be calamitous.”

Clarke’s pointed comment about the importance of realising “the constraints of a responsible opposition” are the most significant part of this exchange. He’s basically warning Cameron and Osborne not to be silly. Quite remarkable courage for a man only recently appointed, not only to contradict his leader but to offer a lesson in opposition.

Now, before you start typing in the comments box, let me make it clear: this post is not about the liklihood or otherwise (otherwise) of the UK going bankrupt. It’s about divisions – quite serious divisions – among the most senior and high-profile members of the Conservative Party on a very serious economic issue.

The schism is there. Deal with it.

A RULE about reshuffles is that, whether in government or in opposition, they tend to be initially welcomed by the media. If doubts emerge, it is only in the aftermath, 24-48 hours later.

So the Tories have done well so far to dominate the political headlines on the day a second tranche of cash is to be shoveled into the black hole that is our banking system. And there are some interesting and intelligent moves: Grayling has done well in both his recent positions – transport and DWP – and it will be intersting to see how effective his rottweiller approach will be at Home Affairs.

Theresa May will probably be glad to have her second stint as Shadow Leader of the House finally end. Alan Duncan will enjoy his weekly jousts with Harriet Harman during Business Questios on Thursday mornings. As Coffee House rightly says this afternoon, Dominic Grieve should probably not have been given Shadow Home Secretary last summer when David Davis resigned, and he may well be more suited to Shadow Justice Secretary.

Two negative points, though: I share the disappointment of the business community and a sizeable number of Tory MPs that Cameron has not shifted Theresa Villiers out of transport (though I accept that would have been difficult following a week when he gave her such unambiguous support in her campaign against economic growth Heathrow’s third runway).

And then there’s the DD question. Having accepted the argument for bringing back at least one of the so-called Big Beasts, what is Cameron’s reason for not bringing back David Davis, especially after his tacit admission today that DD’s replacement has not performed well?

Having won the argument for Clarke’s return, DD’s supporters are unlikely to allow the prospect of his eventual return to the front bench disappear from the headlines or from Tory blogs.

THE BBC website doesn’t appear to have it yet, but Iain Dale does: Ken Clarke is returning to the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Business Secretary.

This is a very clever move by Cameron; KC is undoubtedly the biggest of the Big Beasts. He’s still (I assume) popular among the electorate and has that priceless quality for a politician: he comes across as an ordinary bloke. He speaks Human and doesn’t sound – has never sounded – like a political “Speak Your Weight” machine.

And try as I might, I can’t actually come up with a plausible reason for criticism. Damn, hate it when that happens.

INTRIGUING rumours at Westminster – despite the House not returning until next week.

I’m reliably informed that the recent vocal campaign to have Ken Clarke reinstated to the Shadow Cabinet is but a feint, a ruse to disguise the true intent  of KC’s apparent supporters: to bring back David Davis.

The former Shadow Home Secretary is considered one of the so-called “Tory Big Beasts” whose presence is sorely missed on Cameron’s front bench. With end-of-year polls showing a severe narrowing of the Tory lead, there is much complaining in the tearoom (or will be when it reopens for business next Monday) that, given the economic circumstances, Do-Nothing should be much further ahead than he is. Hence the increasingly voluble demands for DD’s return.

I suspect DD’s supporters, though, are being unrealistically optimistic: I can’t see Do-Nothing caving into this pressure in the same way he caved in over the Shadow Cabinet’s day jobs. He can’t afford another high profile defeat at the hands of his own party.