When Lobbyists Should Be Seen & Not Heard

Tim Montgomerie is bang with THIS article. He talks about the number of NGOs and lobbyists at the conference and how they tended to hijack fringe meetings. I had my own experience of this at a Conservative Women's Organisation fringe where each of the first three questions came from NGOs. I then banned them from asking any more and got a round of applause for my troubles.

Lobbyists should recognise that party conferences are conferences for the party, and not for them. They may have paid a fortune for their passes, but they are there as observers and not active participants. Party conferences experience little enough conferring as it is, without time being taken up by those with a (paid) axe to grind intervening.

I should make it clear that I am not criticising lobbyists for doing what they do - they often perform a valuable task. But at times, they should recognise that they are best seen and not heard.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

So Where Has Obama Brought Peace To?

I supported Barack Obama's bid to be President, but I have to say I am baffled as to why he has been awrded the Nobel Peace Prize. To which country or region did he bring peace in the nine days between his inauguration and the close of nominations for the prize on 1 February?

I am afraid this award devalues the prize itself. I hope that in four years time President Obama has shown himself worthy of receiving the world's first anticipatory award!

EXCLUSIVE: My Interview With Michal Kaminski

On Wednesday morning I interviewed Michal Kaminski for Total Politics. He is the leader of the new European Reform Group in the European Parliament and has become a very controversial figure. I went into the interview with an open mind. I came out absolutely convinced that Kaminski doesn't have a homophlobic or anti Semitic bone in his body. We didn't just talk about those two issues though. We also talked about his life in Poland before the fall of Communism. I asked him about his father, who defected to Canada when he was a child and who he only saw once more before he died in the late 1990s. It was an emotional exchange, which saw him struggle to continue and tears appearing in his eyes - and mine. We in the West have little idea of what freedom fighters in the Eastern Bloc countries went through to achieve freedom.

Note: If any part of this interview is being quoted elsewhere please credit to to Total Politics magazine.

In the interview Michal Kaminski...

• Says he would never have been given NATO security clearance if there was any evidence of anti-Semitism in his past
• Accuses the New Stateman of shoddy journalism over its recent story attributing comments to Rabbi Shudrich, which he says he never made
• Says he is ashamed that Poles were involved in the Jedwabne massacre
• Claims he is proud that Poland was among the first countries to decriminalise homosexuality
• Says he would vote for civil partnership legislation in Poland but remains opposed to gay marriage
• Says he will accept an invitation to attend next year's Conservative Pride event
• Admits there are differences between the Law & Justice Party and the Conservatives over Lisbon.
• Says it is wrong to equate the European Commission with the Soviet Union
• Says he was wrong to praise General Pinochet

Iain Dale: What does it feel like to have become the new hate figure for the British left?
Michal Kaminski: I have put myself in a very strange situation! But I can tell you that if the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom is using his party conference speech to attack a 37 year old politician from Poland, it suggests to me that they are really desperate. Ordinary citizens have no reason to be afraid of my friends and the group, but it’s just a question of the brutal political game that is played here in Britain, especially with the very weak Labour Party. The fact is that my party in the European Parliament is stronger than the Labour Party. We have fifteen members in the EP; they have fourteen members. It shows how deep in crisis the Labour Party is right now and unfortunately, when you’re out of ideas and your record is very bad, for some politicians the only way to “improve” their situation is to brutally attack their opponents. But I think it will play against them, because people across Europe – not just in the UK – are interested in positive ideas, because they are facing real problems. They are losing their jobs, their businesses are in trouble and I think we have to address these issues at both a national and European level. We can discuss these issues with our leftwing opponents, but the dangerous thing is they do not want to discuss the issues. They want to attack people.
ID: When you were elected leader of the group had you any idea that this sort of thing would happen?
MK: No, not at all. I have been an active politician in Poland for the last twenty years and I run many campaigns myself, for myself. I was Mr Kaczynski’s presidential campaign chief. I twice faced election campaigns to the European Parliament. I was very active in Polish politics, so I was scrutinised by the Polish journalists and I was never accused of the kinds of things that have been levelled against me in Britain – never.
ID: Is that because Polish politics is very different?
MK: If we’re talking about anti-Semitism, in Poland we are quite sensitive about it. If you are regarded as an anti-Semite, it’s tough to survive in Poland, and I’m very happy about that. My country now has a very good record of fighting anti-Semitism and of being pro-Israeli, so if there were any doubts about my past I will give you the ultimate argument. When I became Secretary of State of Poland, I received a top NATO clearance, so it’s not about Polish politics now – it’s about a NATO clearance. I don’t think there can be any doubts about my political views and my past if I can receive a top NATO clearance.
ID: But what do you say to the allegations that were made in the New Statesman a couple of weeks ago?
MK: What I’m facing here in the UK is not only a very disappointing standard of political debate, but very disappointing standards of journalism. Rabbi Schudrich made a statement about the allegations in this magazine. He sent them a statement and they ignored it. They didn’t print it. Rabbi Schudrich made it very clear that he didn’t want to make any political statements about me, but he wanted to make clear that he has nothing against me and does not regard me as an anti-Semite. Come on. Just recently, I came back from Israel where I was received at the top level of government. I had my statement posted on the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. The Israeli ambassador to Brussels accepted my invitation to visit our group next week; can you imagine that the Israeli state would receive me if they had any doubts about my attitude towards the Jewish people and the state of Israel?
ID: This all seems to stem from comments you made about the Jedwabne massacre in 1941, where you said that it was wrong for the Polish prime minister to apologise for the whole of the Polish nation for what happened. Do you understand why people might draw the conclusions that you have views that you say you don’t?
MK: They have to read the whole of the statements I made during this time. And actually there is a BBC report from Poland quoting me, a young member of the Polish parliament at the time, and the Polish prime minister at the time, Mr Buzek – who is now President of the European Parliament – he even said that he agreed with me. Because what I was saying from the beginning was that it was a terrible crime and I am ashamed that the Polish people were involved in this crime.
ID: If you’re ashamed of that, why can’t you agree that there should be an apology?
MK: Because my point is, I don’t want to put this single crime – however shameful – on the same level as the Nazi policy towards the Jews. You see the difference? We had our underground state, we were occupied by Germans, and what those bandits did at Jedwabne was totally against Polish law, Polish customs and Polish culture. What the Nazis did was according to the state policies of the Nazi government. Do you understand the difference? Because there is a difference. Let’s say that you can feel ashamed of British hooligans, but no one will require an apology from the whole British nation for the actions of a few hooligans.
ID: I’m not sure that’s true – I feel ashamed about British football hooligans when they go abroad and I do apologise for my country.
MK: But the difference is that it’s not about judging the crime. It was a position shared by many politicians in Poland: we condemned the crime but we didn’t want to be put on the same side as the Nazis.
ID: Even though what you’re saying has a certain logic to it, logic doesn’t really matter in these sorts of subjects! I think you need to understand the other point of view.
MK: From the very beginning, when I was confronted with this accusation, I said that I fully understand the feelings of the Jewish people, and that I understand that after such allegations, they can ask me the questions and scrutinise me, because anti-Semitism is really bad. But what makes me angry is that the people who are using this anti-Semitic argument are in the political debate not to fight anti-Semitism, but just as a tool to fight opponents. They are actually undermining the global fight against anti-Semitism, because if you are making false allegations, people will think, oh, this is just politics as usual, whereas actually, this is something really important for me and everyone on this planet. I will repeat: I was in Israel, and I was actually attacked by the Polish anti-Semites. I was an enemy of the far right in Poland. I made a statement about anti-Semitism in Poland as a member of the European Parliament, and I have been attacked for this statement by the Polish far right. But it’s a political game, unfortunately practiced by some journalists, which I regret. Rabbi Shudrich is actually coming to Brussels to see me soon, and when he gave an explanation, they didn’t publish it, which they would do if they were really interested in the subject.
ID: So why not sue the News Statesman for libel? They are basically saying that you are an anti-Semite and that is damaging to your reputation.
MK: But I don’t want to heat up this debate. I think for every decent reader or observer of this subject, the explanation I am making and the statements from other people, like the Jewish Board of Deputies, they have done research and have nothing against me.
ID: But they have now written to David Cameron expressing “concerns” whatever that means.
MK: The main reason why we are attacked is because we are a new political force in the European Parliament, which is a real tectonic change in Europe, and they are not interested in a real debate about the future of Europe. They just want to smash opponents.
ID: If you came to the conclusion that all if this was really so damaging to the group that you couldn’t continue, have you ever thought about standing down?
MK: No, because there is nothing in my past that I have to be ashamed of. If I stood down, it would be read as proof that the accusations were true, and they are not.
ID: Let’s move onto the other subject people have got very excited about – homosexuality. You presumably accept that remarks you made some years ago were offensive to gay people? You called them ‘fags’.
MK: I used a word that is un-transferable into English, which homosexual people feel is offensive. So I said that I would never use it again, but it was in common usage at the time – even by the leftist politicians in Poland. We just discovered that the leftwing leader of the Polish parliament during an inquiry meeting used the same word about homosexuals. Today, we know more about homosexuals, and because they felt offended I said I would never repeat such words, and I think we have to respect people who feel that the language we are using is somehow offensive, and respect their right to be treated with civility.
ID: But I think it goes deeper than that. I think saying ‘I won’t use a particular word or language’ – that doesn’t address the main issue, that people who use that language often do have homophobic thoughts.
MK: But I have homosexual friends. There is a cultural context in Poland; Poland is not such an open society as Britain, but if you went back three years when Mr Kaczynski was prime minister, he had a press conference and he was also asked this question, and he said in our Law and Justice government we have homosexual people, it’s just they are not coming out, and it’s this cultural context. I have nothing against them. It’s deep in my belief that in a free society, your personal life and sexuality is your own concern. The state shouldn’t interfere, and shouldn’t prosecute. I’m very proud of the fact that Poland was the first European country to decriminalise homosexual relationships – that was back in 1928. We were one of the first countries in Europe and I’m proud of it. Obviously there is homophobia around the world and I regret it. I respect homosexuals. I am not judging people on what they do in their own sexual lives. I can have homosexual friends and homosexual enemies, just as I can have straight friends and straight enemies.
ID: But I think there is a difference in that everyone can have gay friends, but the proof is what you do as a political leader to deal with discrimination, to deal with hate, and undoubtedly – I have to say particularly so in Poland as opposed to here – there is a lot of homophobia. I think as a political leader, people can ask you to take a lead on that subject and it’s all very well sitting here in Britain and saying these things in a very liberal society, but in Poland it’s very different.
MK: But I’m saying the same in Poland, Brussels, and everywhere in the world. My position is quite clear and I don’t want to politicise this question, because I don’t think it’s in the interest of the homosexual community to make this question part of the political game, because if you are a politician – left or right, conservative, liberal or socialist, it doesn’t matter – you have to accept that there are homosexuals who have exactly the same rights as other citizens.
ID: Well do they? Do you have any civil partnership legislation in Poland? Gay marriage? Would you support this?
MK: I am opposed to gay marriage because Poland is a different society and I believe in differences. In Poland today, it would be very difficult to get legislation through on civil partnerships. If you are talking about civil partnerships between people of whatever their sexual preferences, I personally have nothing against them. What I am opposed to is imputing the word marriage to this kind of relationship, because I would say that for historical and cultural reasons, marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. In my view, it’s not a question of sexual orientation but a freedom issue. If I want to make a social commitment with another citizen I should be allowed to do it.
ID: But in Poland you wouldn’t be allowed to do it. There is no civil partnership legislation.
MK: No there is not, but I would say that we are at a different stage.
ID: No I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on marriage – I’ve always thought that marriage is a word that symbolises something religious, and in this country you can’t contract civil partnerships in a church, you have to do it in a licensed premises. But if a bill came before the Polish or European Parliament to legalise civil partnerships, would you vote in favour of it?
MK: I hope that this wouldn’t come up at the European level.
ID: Ok, well let’s take the Polish parliament. If you were still a member of it and it came to vote, would you vote yes?
MK: I would consider voting yes, but it depends on the subject. I have said in Poland that I don’t think that the state should interfere in personal relationships.
ID: Well it’s not a case of interfering in sexual relationships; it’s a question of allowing gay people to show commitment and maintain stable relationships, which as conservatives, we all ought to approve of.
MK: Yes I have nothing against it.
ID: Ok, what about gay adoption?
MK: I am against gay adoption.
ID: Why?
MK: Because it’s a sensitive issue, and a child is something that...
ID: But let’s look at this – I agree with you by the way, I think ideally a child should be raised by a man and a woman – but there are lots of kids nowadays who for whatever reason aren’t able to be raised by a man and a woman. And given the choice between putting a child in a children’s home for his or her entire childhood, or put in a stable home, regardless of whether the parents are of the same sex, surely it’s more important for the child to have a stable loving home?
MK: I’m sorry but I don’t think that my position is homophobic.
ID: I’m not saying it is – there are lots of people in this country who aren’t homophobic who don’t believe in gay adoption.
MK: That’s my position as well.
ID: Last night – I don’t know if you know about this – but the Conservatives held an event called “Pride” which is basically a gay party, which I co-hosted. I nearly called you to bring you along, but thought, actually, that would have been unfair on you and it would overshadowed the whole thing, so I didn’t do it.
MK: But I would have had no problem attending – quite the opposite. I would have been happy to address them.
ID: Alright, well next year let’s invite you along to this event.
MK: I would be more than happy.
ID: Let’s move on to European issues. When you first started having discussions with the British Conservatives about forming a group, why was it attractive to you and your party?
MK: We share the same views about the future of Europe. We share the same vision of a more democratic, flexible, business friendly European Union and I think also we share a commitment to keeping the EU as a union of independent states. We don’t want a European federal state. We Poles only gained our independence twenty years ago. I think we are happy with the EU and for us it’s a symbol of the changes in our country; but on the other hand we don’t want to replace one empire with another one. But I don’t like it when people compare the Soviet Union to the EU. There are no victims of European Union – there were millions of victims of the Soviet Union. You can’t compare a totalitarian state with the EU.
ID: Similar bureaucracy?
MK: Oh but come on, the EU bureaucracy is not sending anyone to jail or to Siberia or kill anyone.
ID: Have you read a book by Paul Van Buitenen, who’s the chief accountant in Brussels. When he blew the whistle on all the corrupt practices that go on the European Commission, he was followed by secret police.
MK: Ok, but it’s still not the same. I’m a champion of changing Europe, it’s just I don’t like to compare them. Jewish people, homosexual people – they were prosecuted in the Soviet Union and the scale of that crime is just too big to have this argument. But I think we are making a change in Europe. And the best proof of it as a speech given by Mr Schulz in the European Parliament, in which he accused Barroso of changing the old habit in the EU, where everything is agreed between the biggest groups – socialists and the EPP – and now he made a coalition with the conservatives and got a result, because of our revolts.
ID: Who is Mr Schulz?
MK: He is the chairman of the socialist group in the European Parliament. We believe in a free market economy. We believe in transatlantic cooperation. We believe in supporting the state of Israel. So we have much in common in terms of internal and international policy.
ID: What about the democratic side of the EU, because they basically blackmailed Ireland into supporting the Lisbon Treaty. You’ve been quoted as being fully in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.
MK: Not fully in favour.
ID: You think it should go through?
MK: I worked with the president who signed the treaty. I am not satisfied with Lisbon at all, but it was in my opinion a huge step forward, if you take into account that the Lisbon Treaty replaced the European Constitution.
ID: They’re basically identical though.
MK: No, it’s not identical.
ID: That’s what the British Conservative Party is saying; David Cameron is saying they are identical, that’s why he wants a referendum.
MK: There are differences in perspective. I fully appreciate the position of the British Conservatives – they have a right to make it. There is a perspective in Britain and a different perspective in Poland.
ID: Do you think it’s acceptable for the European Commission to act in the way that it has done with the Irish people? The Irish rejected it.
MK: I think it’s very unfair in terms of repeating only those referendums that are “failed” in the eyes of the European bureaucrats. It’s very unfair.
ID: But there are clear differences between the Conservative Party and your party’s stance, and are there other issues where you don’t agree?
MK: There are differences. We never said there could be one united pan-European party. It would be a bad sign because we believe in a Europe based on the national state, so we could never agree to a pan-European party with one agenda. Because we are different; Poland is different to the UK, and Czechs are different to the Poles even though we are close neighbours. We believe in differences. But there is very broad platform on which we agree.
ID: Let’s go back to your teenage years, growing up in a communist state. The British left like to say that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had not part in the end of the Cold War – the Cold War ended because the Soviet Union collapsed of its own free will. Give us your perspective on this.
MK: I decided that if we were going to have a free Poland I would be a conservative.
ID: But how did you even know anything about conservatism?
MK: From the BBC, from Radio Free Europe. You don’t understand what it was like to live in the country where you have to hide the radio under your bed, just because you want to have that information about the western world and not just communist propaganda. For us, the leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan was a shining example of the success of a free market economy, democracy and the rule of law. It was a time in which this leadership led to the collapse of communism. I said it in my first speech to the European Parliament: I want to thank Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan because of their leadership in this very difficult time.
ID: Your father defected, and it must have been quite difficult to come to terms with the fact that your father wasn’t part of your life.
MK: I went to meet him in Canada, in Toronto, 1988, when the system had softened. It was one of the most moving moments in my life when I met him there. He died ten years ago and I’m really sorry that he can’t see what I achieved in my life. [eyes well up]
ID: So Reagan and Thatcher had an impact on you and presumably a lot of other people at the time. Did you believe that Poland would be free?
MK: Yes I believed it. It was deep in my heart. It was very important to my family. And when we received our democracy, I was involved in it from the very beginning. But I never expected that I would end up as Chairman of the conservative group in the European Parliament! It’s unbelievable and I’m sorry that my father couldn’t see it; it’s really fantastic what we’ve achieved. With all the differences we are talking about, life in Poland now – if you come to Warsaw – it feels like a western state, it’s a western capital. However, it’s on the east of Europe. I am really proud of all the achievements my country has had over the past twenty years. I think I am making a parallel between Thatcher’s leadership back in the eighties and hopefully with the new British leadership that is coming. I hope it proves the second phase of changing Europe. We changed it peacefully in 1989, and it was a great achievement and now we have to change it because I think it’s great that we can live in a Europe without borders, in a Europe that is a zone of tolerance and democracy – I cannot say free market economy because we are still very far from it! But we have to go forward.
ID: Obviously British Conservatives will be very pleased that you regard Thatcher and Reagan as political heroes, but then there is again something that comes to blacken the cloud – you’re quoted when meeting General Pinochet as saying “this is the most important meeting of my whole life”, well what was that about?
MK: To reiterate: we lived in this country subject to communist propaganda. We had little access to the real information, so for many Poles – not just me – this defence of Pinochet was across centre-right political parties in Poland and other eastern European countries at that time. It was my mistake, I admit it. I think every politician has the right to some mistakes. I made this mistake by just reversing the communist propaganda. It was a mistake that decent people of the left made when they were living under rightwing dictatorships – the kind of mistake where you just reverse the black and white propaganda. Today I know much more about Pinochet and I will never call him a hero again. It’s a question of context.
ID: How much does your own religious faith underpin your conservatism?
MK: My conservatism isn’t based on my religious faith, but on my life experience, my own ideas – but religion is important to me. Religious strength can vary throughout your life – c’est la vie as the French say – but my political beliefs are my political beliefs.
ID: So if we meet at next year’s Conservative Party conference, what do you hope to have achieved by then?
MK: Great question!
ID: That we don’t have all these questions again!
MK: First of all, I hope I prove I am a decent conservative, as all the accusations against me were false. Secondly, for the next party conference I would like to have a larger party group than we have today – though it will be hard work to achieve this. I will say next year’s conference will be a conference of the ruling party of Great Britain.
ID: I think I’m right in saying they didn’t let you speak on the platform at this year’s conference.
MK: No, but I had a fringe meeting.
ID: Next year you would like maybe to speak on the platform?
MK: I’m not sure my English is good enough!
ID: Your English is good enough to do it. Well, thank you very much and I’m sorry I upset you with some of those questions.
MK: No, that’s politics. It’s tough, but we’ll survive.

Dannatt Explains Why He Said Yes to Cameron

Last night, a friend of mine attended a lecture by Sir Richard Dannatt, and thought you might like to share some of his thoughts...

Fulfilling a long-standing commitment to a leadership charity of which he is a trustee, General Sir Richard Dannatt last night gave the Windsor Leadership Trust Annual Lecture, entitled "Leadership in Turbulent Times". He broke with the tradition that the lecture be given under the Chatham House Rule and spoke and took questions on the record.

Sir Richard first gave his reflections on leadership, referring to the importance of the trio of team, task and the individual. Although inevitably using military language and examples, his clear exposition of the need for clarity of mission and the exercise of moral courage reached out to the diverse audience. He made explicit reference to his own personal faith and asserted that faith in something - although not necessarily a religious belief - is often vital for a leader.

The lecture alone would have more than satisfied under normal circumstances, but everyone wanted more from the man of the moment. Step forward Martyn Lewis (former BBC journalist and now a successful businessman) who proceeded to question Sir Richard and chair a wider discussion.

Lewis's opening question asked Sir Richard when he had started discussions with David Cameron, what had been offered and when and, crucially, whether he was already considering a move into the political arena whilst still leading the Army.

A seasoned politician would have deflected some of the question but Sir Richard was clear that his straight style was not going to change. "I don't know David Cameron well," he revealed, before going on to explain that DC called him while he was on a fishing holiday in Scotland in the last couple of weeks and that he took the call whilst standing in the river "quite deep and with a long line out".

Responding to a direct question about why he felt the need to enter the political arena, Sir Richard was clear. "The defence of our realm, the safety of our citizens and the welfare of our armed forces" was oft repeated as he explained that he views the current situation, especially in Afghanistan, as too important for him to feel comfortable taking on the role as a commentator, admitting that he hopes that a more executive role will offer the opportunity to make things happen.

Sir Richard's strong moral code and track record of speaking his mind will lead, on occasion, to challenging conversations with his new political colleagues. He has already said he won't give DC an easy ride when he thinks he's wrong. And former military colleagues will undoubtedly find it awkward to manage the uncharted territory of so senior an officer sitting in a suit with politicians when he was so recently in uniform with them. But Sir Richard as a Minister in a future Conservative administration is a very real possibility - he says that is what he anticipates will happen should DC become Prime Minister. Such significant challenges are not beyond the man who spoke last evening and, if others also rise to the challenge, the reward will be a contribution from a man of experience and absolute integrity who is dedicated to the service of his country.

Reflections on the Conference

First of all, a heartfelt apology. I know I have been a useless blogger this week. I always find it difficult to do good blogging at conferences. This year, for some reason, I just couldn't motivate myself to blog much. It was partly that I didn't go into the conference hall much, partly that my schedule didn't allow much free time, and partly that I was completely dog tired, having got between three and four hours sleep a night. Anyway, I realise it's not good enough and I have let down my readers. Normal service will now resume.

I've been going to party conferences for 25 years. This one has been by far the most enjoyable. It was great to meet so many of my blogreaders, and I was delighted that more than 250 of you came to my blogreaders party last night at the City Inn. A good time seemed to be had by all, and I think everyone agreed that Steve Nallon (pic) was brilliantly funny. I certainly don't regret that I got a comedian to do a turn rather than a politician! Thanks again to Chartwood and City Inn Hotels for their kind sponsorship.

Manchester was a great venue for the conference. A high standard of hotels (I can highly recommend the Manchester City Inn), and a superb conference centre contributed to a really enjoyable week. The exhibition felt like a real exhibition and I suspect the stands got a much higher level of traffic than normal. The avenue of shops was a great innovation.

Politically, it was a good week to be a Tory. The media tried their best to whip up a split over Europe, but no one bit. The usual suspects managed to keep their gobs shut, thereby proving that a degree of internal discipline is sometimes no bad thing. Chris Grayling's 'gaffe' over General Dannatt never caught fire and apart from that there didn't seem to be any queasy moments.

The Pride event was attended by more than 650 people and was a triumph for all those involved in its organisation. Scott Seaman-Digby, CCHQ's commercial director, and his colleague Eugene Keane deserve massive credit for having the idea, driving it forward and making it such a success. Even Ben Summerskill couldn't spoil it by his ridiculous decision to boycott it. He proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he and Stonewall are leftist puppets. He first of all said he wouldn't go because of Michal Kaminski - the same Michal Kaminski who held exactly the same post as leader of the European Reform Group when he accepted the invitation. What changed in between? Nothing. It's very sad that he and the other small band of protesters couldb't see beyond their party political blinkers and bring themselves to acknowledge that the Conservatives have made huge strides in this area. I have to say that hosting this event was a little outside my comfort zone. I'm not used to speaking in nightclubs but a couple or three WKD blue vodkas did the trick! Not bad for a teetotaller... Pity I hadn't done the same on Monday night when I made my first attempt at stand up comedy.

Another highlight of the week was the Total Politics fringe meeting on Trust with Dominic Grieve, Peter Oborne, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Anthony Seldon and Chris Bones. I doubt if there was a fringe meeting in the whole conference which had speeches better than those at this event.

Politically the two highlights of the conference were George Osborne's speech on Tuesday and David Cameron's speech today. George's speech was described the most risky speech I have heard in 30 years by John Pienaar. Some said it marked his coming of age. No one can now say the Conservatives are policy-lite in this field any longer. His speech really seems to have made people think and that's no bad thing. I don't really like the mantra of "We're All in This Together" because it sounds a little trite, but I've heard worse (remember Sharing the Proceeds of Growth?).

David Cameron's speech this afternoon was in stark contrast to Osborne's. There was some tough talk but he shared a vision of the kind of Britain he wanted to see and used some very optimistic language. His attacks on Gordon Brown worked well and he showed a real passion. It was a speech seeking to seal a deal with the concerns of those who are not yet convinced by Cameron as a person or his own brand of politics. It was light on policy details, but so it should have been. Other members of his team provided enough meaty proposals during the course of the week. What I wanted from Cameron was what I got - a total contrast to Gordon Brown's machine gun speech last week.

Most Embarrassing Moment of the Week: Almost falling asleep in a fringe meeting I was chairing ... while I was actually talking

Idiot of the Week: Ben Summerskill

Speech of the Week: George Osborne

Conference Video Report: Day Three

Here's my report from Day 3 of the Tory Conference. Click HERE to watch it. Do watch the last section where I talk to Jeremy Paxma about his thoughts on what David Cameron will say tomorrow. Vintage Jezza.

Come to My Blogreaders Party (And Fringe) Tonight!

With Special Guest: Steve Nallon,
the voice of Margaret Thatcher (and many others) in Spitting Image

And why not come to the Total Politics fringe at 6pm today which is discussing the subject
TRUST: HOW WE LOST IT & HOW TO GET IT BACK

Speakers: Dominic Grieve, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Peter Oborne, Anthony Seldon, Chris Bones

6pm to 7.30pm, City Inn Hotel

* The City Inn is a 10 minute walk from the conference centre. Walk down Portland Street and turn right when you get to Aubern Street. The City Inn is 150 yards down Aubern Street on your left.

Day Two at the Conference

I am sorry for the lack of blogposts today - it's been a busy one at the conference. I always find it difficult to blog during conferences. No facilities have been provided for bloggers so I have to rely on my Blackberry rather than my laptop. I think I ought to get one of the small laptops with permanent Wifi in future.

What did you all make of George Osborne's speech and what he had to say? This afternoon I spoke to a range of political and media personalities to ask for their thoughts. Listen to Michael Crick, John Pienaar, Shazia Awan, Ken Clarke, Jon Craig and Suzanne Moore.

Click HERE.

Podcast Interview with Tory Radio

Yesterday I recorded a nice little podcast chat with Tory Radio's Jonathan Shepherd. We talk about...

• Total Politics
• Latest developments in blogging
• New blogs to watch - my top tips
• The role of internet campaigning
• Lord Ashcroft's investment in ConHome & PoliticsHome
• Election night radio coverage
• The Damian McBride affair
• Labour's dirty tricks
• The Right Wing bloggers' duty of care
• Expectations for the Tory conference
• What I thought of the Labour conference
• The party leaders' debate
  

Listen to it HERE.

Why Prisoner Rehabilitation Matters

It's always good to step outside your comfort zone, and last night I did that in spades, when I formed part of the cabaret for the Arts Alliance Music in Prisons fringe event. My participation stemmed from THIS blogpost I wrote back in November 2008, when I criticised Jack Straw for banning prisoners from taking part in comedy workshops. Following the media hysteria, Jack Straw cancelled all arts projects in HMP Whitemoor and issued a Prison Service Instruction to all Governors, telling them that, when making decisions about arts interventions, they must ensure projects “meet the public acceptability test” and consider how the activity might “be perceived if open to media scrutiny.”

I followed Libby Purves and Jonathan Aitken, and several acts featuring ex prisoners who were there to showcase their talents. I won't say I was very good, because I wasn't, but it did make me think I would quite like to go on a stand up comedy course.

Surely if rehabilitation is to mean anything, the arts have a key role to play in helping prisoners discover some self esteem and maybe a talent they never thought they had. Our prison system is set up for punishment, but rehabilitation takes a back seat.

I hope under a conservative government that will change. Being tough doesn't just mean locking people up and throwing away the key. A tough politician will take tough choices - and that means locking fewer people up and devoting more resources to preparing prisoners for life on the outside. Only in that way will reoffending rates drop.

Day One at Conference

Each day this week I am doing a conference diary for Policy Review TV (a sort of 18 Doughty Street reincarnated). Today I spoke to David Cameron, Peter Hitchens, Michael Dobbs and Nicky Campbell, among others.

Click HERE to watch the 4 minute video.

My Conference Itinerary: Tuesday

8.45am Steve Richards & David Davis IN CONVERSATION, Trafford Suite, Midland Hotel
12.30pm Chair Conservative Women's Organisation Fringe, Charter 4
3pm Speak at fringe on Conservative Airports Policy, Bar 38, Great Northern Warehouse, Peter Street
4.30pm Film for Policy Review TV
5.30pm Attend APCO reception
9.30pm Host Pride Party, Spirit Bar, Canal Street

Best Wishes to Betsy Duncan Smith

A couple of weeks ago I learned that Iain Duncan Smith's wife Betsy is undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. As Michael Crick has now blogged about it and explained that IDS isn't therefore able to come to conference this year, I wanted to express my good wishes to her for a speedy recovery and allow my blogreaders to do the same in the comments.

The Top 100 Most Influential People on the Right: 50-1

Here is the second and final part of the Telegraph Top 100 People on the Right List. You can see the 100-51 list HERE. To read the biographies of those in the Top 50 click HERE. The article explaining the choice of the panel, printed in today's Telegraph follows...

In compiling the annual list of the 100 most influential people on the Left or Right of British politics, we came very close to putting someone whose identity we do not know at number 2 in both lists. We will call him or her “Deep Moat” – the Whitehall whistle-blower who shook British politics to its foundations by leaking the entire database of MPs’ expenses claims, published by the Telegraph.

Even before that expenses scandal, David Cameron was doing well as leader and as a prospective prime minister. But then a pretty good year turned into what is likely to be the year before he becomes prime minister. Of course, anything can happen in politics and there is still some time before polling day, but the election is now the Conservatives’ to lose. Cameron remains at number one because of what he made of the opportunity offered him.

It did not have to be that way: some of the worst stories from the expenses scandal involved Conservative MPs. Andrew MacKay, number 29 in last year’s list, was the most high-profile victim, but the mud did not stick to the Tories in quite the same way as it has done to the Labour government. That was largely because Cameron was rock-solid in his response – quick off the mark, tough in dealing with offenders in his own party and consistent in articulating what people felt about the scandal. Admittedly, a scandal like this is easier to deal with in opposition, but it could easily have been fluffed.

The Left’s only other route back, the economy, has also provided fertile ground for Cameron. His tougher stance at Prime Minister’s Questions and stubborn battles over the need for cuts mean he has had an outstanding year as Prime Minister designate.

The story in the rest of the shadow cabinet, the Conservative Party and the broader Right of British politics is more mixed. There has been relative stability in the top 25, but significant numbers of MPs have slipped down, often because of the need for a period of silence on their part following the expenses scandal.

There are also seven new entries in the top 25. Kenneth Clarke pushed his way in because of his dogged fight against Lord Mandelson. Eric Pickles and Theresa May climb the rankings for similar reasons – they add a weight of experience to the attack. It is likely that a Cameron cabinet will include a good proportion of former ministers and many more experienced hands are coming back in to front-line politics now that power is clearly within the Conservative Party’s grasp.

While Cameron has been good at wielding the axe when needed, as Alan Duncan recently discovered, many in the top 10 stay put, representing a unified team. The only interloper is MEP, columnist and Telegraph blogger Daniel Hannan, who has bounced up from 86 to 10. In Hannan, the Right of the Conservative Party found a voice. There is always a tipping point in opposition politics when the prospect of victory becomes apparent: Hannan seems to have decided that this moment has come, and that the Cameroonies needed reminding that they are leading the Conservative Party and not New Labour Mark 2. His verbal assault on Gordon Brown in the European Parliament was a YouTube sensation, but he has also articulated a radical view of localism and stirred up heated debate over the role of the NHS. Assuming the Tories form a government, he is unlikely to rank quite so high next year, but on his performance this year he has earned his high place.

Hannan was not the only one to find success online. Another maverick entry, for his contribution to the unsettling of No 10 alone, is the blogger Guido Fawkes, up 50 places. Again, he is unlikely to be here next year, unless the scoops keep coming, but his role in the Damian McBride email scandal placed him front and centre in one of the biggest political stories of the year.

While a significant number of middle-ranking MPs have slipped back over the year, a couple have bucked this trend. Damian Green has continued his steady climb towards the top 30. He had a good expenses crisis, and with the lifting of the investigation into leaks on immigration (which saw him arrested in the House of Commons), his trajectory towards a big job in the government continues. However, the real star this year, rising 82 places to 14, is Philip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury and a key player in the battle over public expenditure.

While shadow chancellor George Osborne concentrates more on general political strategy, it has been Hammond who has taken the fight to the Government on the deficit. The political strategy work that Osborne has been doing is set to continue after the election, with stories of a joint administration, or West Wing-style office combining the staffs of the Chancellor and PM. Although this might not survive the actual transition, the core of Osborne’s team will be central to implementing the project and so his backroom team, Matthew Hancock, Rupert Harrison and Rohan Silva, make a joint entry at number 39.

Financing the general election campaign will not be cheap, and the Government holds the advantage in the pre-election period. The £2.5 million recently given to the Conservative Party by City supporters should even the playing field considerably. That included £1 million from the property tycoon David Rowland, a high new entry, who returned to live in the UK to make the donation and has promised more in the future.

By the time we compile the next list, of course, there will have been a general election. Of the candidates who might be returned for the Conservatives, one of the most impressive, Priti Patel, makes an entrance at 75. She is contesting a new Essex seat with a notional Conservative majority of around 7,000 and is expected to be a leading member of the new intake. In fact, all of the future cabinet and most of the future ministers in a Conservative government are contained in the top 100. Many of the future special advisers and the think-tankers, donors and campaigners who will shape the administration are here.

But there are two names that might surprise you, and give a clue as to the way in which the old linear political spectrum – statism on the Left, free-market on the Right – has been disrupted. Lord Mandelson (18) and Lord Adonis (80) are both ministers in this Labour government, But, like it or loathe it, they are also architects and supporters of policy positions that will be central to Cameron’s government. Mandelson, as Business Secretary, has pursued business-friendly policies, and he might also succeed in shifting Labour back towards the fiscal centre, giving the Conservatives an easier task in power. Adonis, now the Transport Secretary beating the drum for high-speed rail, created the academy schools, a Blairite legacy on which Michael Gove’s bold education policy for parental control of schooling would build.

In both cases, many of the policies they advocate would sit as much at home in a Right-of-centre government as they do in a Left-of-centre one, thus qualifying them for both lists. The godfather of New Labour, Lord Mandelson, is therefore the most influential player on the Left and in the top 20 on the Right. It’s hard to think of a better epitaph for the age of Blair.

Iain Dale and Brian Brivati drew up the list with the help of a panel of experts from the Telegraph and elsewhere. Those working for the paper were excluded, unless they held other positions that gave them influence.

1 1 David Cameron MP
2 3 George Osborne MP
3 5 Andy Coulson
4 4 Michael Ashcroft
5 2 Boris Johnson
6 6 Steve Hilton
7 7 William Hague MP
8 8 Michael Gove MP
9 10 Edward Llewellyn
10 86 Dan Hannan MEP
11 17 Samantha Cameron
12 9 Michael Spencer
13 12 Margaret Thatcher
14 96 Philip Hammond
15 36 Eric Pickles MP
16 15 Liam Fox MP
17 58 Kenneth Clarke MP
18 NEW Peter Mandelson
19 19 Oliver Letwin MP
20 21 Tim Montgomerie
21 23 Iain Duncan Smith MP
22 16 Francis Maude MP
23 18 Patrick McLoughlin MP
24 77 Theresa May MP
25 33 Jeremy Hunt
26 14 Chris Grayling MP
27 54 Damian Green MP
28 11 Andrew Feldman
29 25 Dominic Grieve
30 31 David Davis MP
31 38 Matthew Elliott
32 20 Andrew Lansley MP
33 37 Greg Clark
34 85 Guido Fawkes
35 28 Thomas Strathclyde
36 22 Charles Moore
37 13 Sir Simon Milton
38 24 Nick Herbert MP
39 NEW Matthew Hancock, Rupert Harrison, Rohan Silva
40 57 Nicholas Boles
41 87 Nigel Farage
42 42 Michael Hintze
43 49 Jill Kirby
44 55 James O'Shaunnessy
45 48 John Redwood MP
46 47 Lord Harris of Peckham
47 NEW David Rowland
48 26 Stephen Gilbert
49 27 Robert Edmiston
50 66 Kit Malthouse

Fringe: In Conversation With David Davis (Over Breakfast)

Steve Richards has asked me to publicise a breakfast IN CONVERSATION fringe The Independent is hosting tomorrow morning from 8.30am in the Trafford Room at the Midland Hotel in Manchester. The guest is none other than David Davis.

I do hope the Indy puts on a bit of food. I spoke this morning at a Google breakfast fringe - which was great. Apart from the fact that there wasn't any breakfast. Serves me right for turning up late...

Conference Caption Competition

Talking to the New Statesman's James Macintyre at the New Statesman party last night. So, who's saying what?

In Praise of Party Agents

Yesterday evening I gave an after dinner speech at the Conservative Conference to 180 party agents and their guests. I will admit to being somewhat nervous at the prospect having been to one or two of these boozy events in the past. However, I shouldn't have worried as they were all in the mood for a laugh and the speech went very well. Unusually for me I actually wrote a script. Normally when I give after dinner speeches I might make a few notes during the course of the meal, but for such a big event I decided that to wing it might be a little dangerous.

As well as the funny bits, I went to great lengths to tell the agents how much I value their work on behalf of the party. It was just as well I was there to do that as there were hardly any elected representatives there - a single MP (Charles Hendry) and four MEPs. What a disgrace. No wonder the agents feel unloved and unwanted. These are the people who are fighting the ground war. Even if this internet age, their work is absolutely vital. It is often a truism that a candidate is only as good as their agent. A good agent can be worth hundreds if not thousands of votes. Here's a short extract from the serious bit of the speech

I have always been a staunch supporters of party agents. I learnt my politics at the feet of the great Phyllis Reeve and Audrey Barker in Norwich, when Dawn Bayman and Geoffrey Harper were leading lights in Eastern Area. I remember Geoffrey once saying “The best election is one when the candidate goes on holiday from the Nomination Day till 5 minutes after the declaration”.

At the last count I have played my own part I recruiting more than a dozen agents to the party over the years. I think it is true to say that in many cases, a candidate is only as good as their agent. But too few candidates in this party enjoy the services of a professionally trained agent. That is slowly changing, but it is far too slow. I was horrified to find out that CCHQ blew half a million pounds on an advertising campaign to recruit Friends of the Conservative Party – the campaign recruited only a few hundred people. Just think how many agents that money would have trained.

I remain an absolute supporter of the profession – and it is a profession. It’s not a 9 to 5 job, it’s very badly paid and you all have to deal with people who you wouldn’t normally allow over your doorstep – and that’s just the MPs.

How many MPs are there here tonight? Thought so. Let me tell you, in the unlikely event of me ever becoming an MP I would regard it as my duty to attend this dinner, to say thank you for all the hard work you put in on our collective behalves throughout the year.

We all, and I include candidates, MPs and agents in this, we all have a job of work to do over the next seven months – and I don’t just mean winning the election. We all have to show that politics can be an honourable profession and that it’s mostly inhabited by good people. We can’t achieve that in just seven months but I do think that as well as fixing the economy, restoring people’s trust in politics and politicians is going to be the key challenge of a Cameron government.

MPs have got to stop feeling sorry for themselves – let’s face it no one else does . Candidates need to show they’re going to honour the people who elect them by being transparent and honest, and agents need to do what they do best. And that’s win elections.

So enjoy the week, don’t talk to journalists, certainly don’t talk to bloggers, be nice to the 'legal necessities' [candidates] and then spend the next seven months slogging your guts out. And in me you’ve got someone who will always appreciate it.

And I meant it.

Conference Itinerary: Monday

With Special Guest: Steve Nallon,
the voice of Margaret Thatcher (and many others) in Spitting Image

MONDAY

8am Speak on panel at Google Breakfast on online campaigning, Midland Hotel
9.15am Radio 4 interview on candidate issues
9.30am Record One Show interview on prisoner rehabilitation
3pm Speak on blogging with Tim Montgomerie at Party donors event (invite only)
4pm Interview Liam Fox for Total Politics
5.45pm Attend Welsh Conservatives reception
7.30pm Speak on panel Channel 4 News Twitter event, Midland Hotel, Lancaster Suite
8.30pm Attend Eric Pickles' Chairman's Reception
9.00pm Attend Network Rail Reception
9.45pm Attend Spectator Reception
10.45 Attend South East Conservatives Reception
11.15 Attend Essex Conservatives Reception
11.45pm Do a stand up comedy turn (don't ask) Speak at Music in Prisons cabaret, Ruby Lounge, off Piccadilly Gardens

Stars in the East

I recorded a 5 minute piece for the Politics Show East today about who I thought might be the eastern region stars in a Conservative Government.

Click HERE to watch. Scroll in to 41.20 mins.

Should UKIP, the SNP (Ahem, and BNP) Be Included in the Debate?

Shane Greer toasted (I was going to write roasted, but thought better of it) UKIP Deputy Leader David Campbell-Bannerman on 5 Live last night over his suggestion that the leader of UKIP should be included in a leaders' debate. Shane pointed out that UKIP does not stand in every constituency and surely the debate should be restricted to those parties who have elected representatives throughout the UK.

Today Nigel Farage has entered the fray and says he ought to be given a place. And there was me thinking he had resigned as party leader.

Alex Salmond thinks he should be in the arena too. How strange. I thought the SNP wanted nothing to do with the Westminster Parliament.

Both he and Farage are threatening legal action if they are not included.

Any lawyers out there care to pass judgement?

Of course if UKIP are given a place, there can be no reasonable argument to deny one to the BNP or Greens. I can see this ending in tears.

Tory European Policy in Three Tweets

I have to say that Tory candidate Louise Bagshawe has articulated Tory European policy in three tweets better than either David Cameron or Eric Pickles did this morning.

Here's our policy on Lisbon: we oppose it, and we want a referendum. And if it's not ratified by polling day, we'll have one. And if it is?

If it is, we'll announce what we do about its lack of legitimacy then. The Tories: crossing bridges when we come to them.

Labour hates it when David Cameron is pragmatic. It's sweet how desperate for a Euro-split they are. This sceptic is fine w/ being practical.

There, not difficult, is it? Even Kevin Maguire is capable of understanding the logic of that position. On second thoughts...

The Top 100 Right Wingers in Britain: 51-100

For the third year the Daily Telegraph is publishing a Top 100 People on the Right list. A few weeks ago I chaired a panel which consisted of three Telegraph journalists, two Tory MPs and three political commentators which drew up the list. Here's the first part, running from 51 to 100. You can read the short biogs HERE on the Telegraph site. The second figure denotes the position last year.


50 66 Kit Malthouse
51 NEW Michael Fallon
52 53 Andrew Haldenby
53 32 Stephan Shakespeare
54 40 Anthony Browne
55 NEW Philip Blond
56 60 Ed Vaizey MP
57 61 Annabel Goldie
58 89 Caroline Spelman
59 NEW Douglas Carswell
60 41 Stuart Polak
61 NEW Arminca Helic
62 NEW Peter Davies
63 71 Desmond Swayne MP
64 64 Dame Pauline Neville Jones
65 52 David Willetts MP
66 46 John Maples MP
67 68 Margaret Eaton
68 74 Justine Greening
69 62 Andrew Mitchell MP
70 35 Lord Hurd of Westwell
71 39 Lord Trimble
72 70 Jesse Norman
73 51 Nick Bourne AM
74 73 Neil O'Brien
75 NEW Priti Patel
76 67 Shireen Ritchie
77 75 Sayeeda Warsi
78 90 Sir John Major
79 78 Peter Robinson
80 NEW Andrew Adonis
81 80 Margot James
82 94 Philipa Stroud
83 83 Lord Tebbit
84 NEW Andrew Tyrie
85 NEW Rory Stewart
86 110 Michael Howard MP
87 95 Shaun Bailey
88 82 Stephen Greenhalgh
89 99 Nadine Dorries
90 NEW Jeremy Middleton
91 79 Baroness Shephard of Northwold
92 NEW Kirstie Allsop
93 NEW Grant Shapps
94 98 Owen Paterson
95 NEW Timothy Kirkhope MEP
96 NEW Sarah Wollaston
97 NEW Anya Hindmarch
98 NEW Chloe Smith
99 NEW John Bercow
100 72 Don Porter

The Top 50 will be published tomorrow.

The Conservative Conference Fringe List

For the last three weeks MessageSpace have been using a site called FringeList.com to advertise fringe meetings at each of the party conferences around the blogosphere. It's a free service, although you can pay for an enhanced listing. Guido explains it like this...

Guido is using Fringelist.com to organise his schedule online. Register for the service and it will send you free text reminders for events you add to your schedule. The service integrates with Blackberry, iPhone and desktop calendars. Or you can just print out the schedule on paper.

It integrates with social media networks Facebook and Twitter, tells you what the most popular event is, letting you search the Fringe to find out who is speaking where and when. If you want to know where Hannan is, just search for his name. You will get a free text reminder telling where you are supposed to be before the event starts. It is hangover proof.

It is very social, you can see where your mates are going : tory.fringelist.com/goers. For example you can see where Guido is going tory.fringelist.com/guido.fawkes

It costs several hundred pounds just to get a listing in the official conference guide. I suspect in future people will think it's more cost effective to publicise it through sites like FringeList.

UPDATE: You can access all my fringe events on FringeList HERE.

Marr & Cameron In No Score Draw

I've just finished watching Andrew Marr's interview with David Cameron. It was curiously uninteresting. Marr interrupted Cameron's answers every ten seconds which led to it being rather disjointed. He didn't really lay a glove on Cameron, but on the other hand Cameron wasn't sparking on all cylinders either.

The only moment of 'squrim' came when Cameron was asked how much his personal wealth was. Marr clearly viewed this as Cameron's 'pill popping' question. I thought the best answer would have been "I'm worth a good bit less than you, Andrew".

Cameron was calm and strong on Europe, reasoned in his explanation of the new welfare and employment proposals, and made clear that election debates should take place during the election campaign as well as in advance of it.

So all in all a pretty low key and headline free interview. You can probably file it under 'job done'.

Quote of the Day: Stephen Nolan

"Something I never thought I'd ask on national radio...
but what does Iain Dale taste like?"
Stephen Nolan on Radio 5 Live

I'd better explain. Stephen was talking to a man who has a condition which means that he tastes words. When he heard my name, he said he tasted lamb. Sadly, I wasn't quick enough on the uptake to mention Norman...

My Conference Itinerary

With Special Guest: Steve Nallon,
the voice of Margaret Thatcher (and many others) in Spitting Image

Several of you have asked which fringe events at the conference I will be speaking at or chairing. here goes...

SATURDAY
Midnight: Appear on the Stephen Nolan Show on Radio 5 Live from Manchester

SUNDAY
7.30pm Guest Speaker at the Agents' Dinner, Britannia Hotel (ticket only)

MONDAY

8am Speak on panel at Google Breakfast on online campaigning, Midland Hotel
3pm Speak on blogging with Tim Montgomerie at Party donors event (invite only)
7.30pm Speak on panel Channel 4 News Twitter event, Midland Hotel, Lancaster Suite
10pm Do a stand up comedy turn (don't ask) Speak at Music in Prisons cabaret, Ruby Lounge, off Piccadilly Gardens

TUESDAY

12.30pm Chair Conservative Women's Organisation/Fawcett Society fringe event: WHAT WOMEN WANT FROM POLITICS IS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, Conference Centre, Charter Room 4 with Theresa May, Angela Knight & Angela Mason

3pm Speak at Conservatives for Air Travel fringe: "Conservative Airport Policy: A Victory for NIMBYism?". Bar 38, Peter Street.

9.30pm-1.30am Co-Host Pride Party, Spirit Bar, Canal Street. Tickets £15 from conference information stand.

WEDNESDAY

6-7.30pmpm Chair Total Politics fringe event: TRUST IN POLITICS: HOW E LOST IT & HOW TO GET IT BACK. Speakers: Dominic Grieve, Peter Oborne, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Anthony Seldon, Chris Bones. City Inn Hotel, 1-3 Piccadilly.

8pm Host IAIN DALE'S DIARY BLOG READERS PARTY, City Inn Hotel, 1-3 Piccadilly, with special guest Steve Nallon, the voice of Margaret Thatcher in Spitting Image. Prepare to be entertained!

THURSDAY

8am Chair Chamber of Shipping breakfast: Capping our Carbon: Can the shipping industry reduce its emissions?", with Julian Brazier MP and others. Midland Hotel, French Room

*******

And if you see me, Blackberry in hand, wandering around the conference centre, do come and say hello. I won't bite!

ConHome Poll Proves Its Independence

Today's Independent front page illustrates the dilemmas sites like ConservativeHome (and this one) are going to have to wrestle with between now and the next election. The headline is

CAMERON FACES REVOLT OVER EUROPE

The story is based on a poll of 2,200 Conservative activists by ConservativeHome on the issue of Europe. It reveals 8 out of 10 want a Lisbon referendum come what may and four out on ten would like to withdraw from the EU. I'm not sure why those results are especially surprising, but by releasing the poll on the eve of the Tory conference, it does little to help the party. Indeed, one could reasonably assert that it causes quite a bit of damage, in that it allows the media to focus on a subject which has caused bitter divisions in the past.

The counter argument is that ConservativeHome can do what it likes. It is not an official party organ. It styles itself as the voice of the grassroots, and in part exists to put pressure on the party leadership to head in a certain direction. Fine. I am not suggesting the ConHome - or indeed this blog - should become uncritical lapdogs of the party, but there is a time and a place for everything. I would submit that now is neither the time nor the place for releasing a poll question like this.

This is a very important party conference for David Cameron and the Conservative Party. Unity is everything. We know what happens when parties appear disunited. Support seeps away. To highlight an issue which has in the past been extremely divisive on the eve of a party conference could be seen at best as ill judged, and at worst divisive.

There are of course, very helpful aspects to the poll. 92% express their full support for David Cameron and 99% expect him to form the next government, for example. But it was clear that the media would only pick on that part of the poll which could be controversial.

Still, it rather pokes in the eye those who thought that Lord Ashcroft's purchase of ConservativeHome would castrate it, doesn't it?

UPDATE 10.30am: Tim Montgomerie has left a comment...

Fair comment Iain but I think on the day Lisbon takes a giant step towards ratification it was a legitimate decision to publish. Lisbon represents a massive transfer of power and grassroots Tories are right to be worried.

Party members have little power in modern politics and the ConHome poll gives them a little more. I'm proud to do that.

I agree that it's an important Party Conference but it's not an eve-of-poll election. We'd behave differently (and will) if it was.

MyConservatives.com Launches

Take a look at MyConservatives.com, which I wrote about yesterday. It was launched this morning and is getting some good reviews. It's way ahead of anything the other parties are doing and for the first time brings together the ability to fundraise and campaign online. From what I have seen of it it is a sort of Facebook for politics.

Congrats to the CCHQ team who have been working on it for some months. I hope to make full use of it as a candidate in the near future :)

Oh, and I love their Error 404 page... chum.

Will This Be a Sad Day for Democracy?

Today is an important day in the Republic of Ireland. It goes to the polls and votes (for the second time) on the Lisbon Treaty. I have no great hopes that the Irish will do the right thing and consign this treaty to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. They thought they had done that the first time. In this referendum campaign all the vested interests have been out there issuing dire warnings about the consequences of a 'no' vote, and it seems they will get their way. If so, it will be a sad day both for democracy and the cause of national sovereignty.

(Not) An Apology from the Daily Mail

UPDATE 12.20am: It seems I have been hoaxed and that the apology I posted earlier was not in fact from Peter McKay at all. This is what he has written in his Ephraim Hardcastle tomorrow (Friday)...

Tory blogger Iain Dale complains about an item here yesterday. I mentioned that Dale, who is gay, is hoping to become the Tory candidate at Bracknell, Berkshire, and invited subscribers to PinkNews, the homosexual website, to attend the open primary on October 17, saying: 'You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.' Dale says my comment - 'Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally likeminded chaps to their cause?' - is homophobic, as is my description of him as 'overtly gay'. He has complained to the Press Complaints Commission, and suggested his readers email complaints. I have nothing against Dale. Nor am I homophobic. But if he wants to become an MP, surely he'll have to become a little less sensitive. Incidentally, the Tories are having their first gay pride event at their Manchester conference next week. They'll promote a new 'gay-friendly' logo, Conservative Pride. Isn't life grand?

Isn't it just. Oh well, PCC here I come.

UPDATE 9.30am: Peter McKay has confirmed it didn't come from him.

I have just received this message from Peter McKay, the editor of the Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Daily Mail.

Hi Iain,

I must say I'm quite surprised at the furore created by the piece in my
column yesterday. As regular readers will be aware the EH section is meant to be
a lighthearted gossip piece and is certainly not meant to be taken
seriously.

However I understand that perspectives on these things are different for
different people and realise that though no offence was intended, you did indeed
find the piece offensive.

I'm certainly happy to offer my fullest apologies for any offence caused
and reflect that I may have made an error of judgement on this occasion.

Of course I'll happily through a few bobbies in the direction of your
nominated charity and hope that all is now fine and dandy.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours etc

Peter

I accept the apology and shan't be taking the matter any further. I think the point has been made, not just by, but by the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of you who have been in touch with the Mail and the PCC. Thank you all for your support. It means a lot.

I think there are two lessons here. Don't take this sort of thing lying down. Fight back and you can get a result. It wouldn't have been possible without the internet, though, would it?

It is all very well for me to do this. I am in a position to. But what about if it had happened to someone else without the facilities to do what I did today? Think on that.

I am going to ask the Daily Mail to make a donation to Help for Heroes.

UPDATE: I shall also be asking for the article to be removed from the Daily Mail website.

Mr Miliband's Banana Skin

It looks like David Miliband sunk into the gutter with his attacks on Conservatives this morning during his speech at the ghost town Labour conference. He accused the Conservatives of consorting with fascists, reckoned Eric Pickles was somehow defending the Waffen SS and that Michael Kaminski is an anti semite. Pretty strong stuff for a man in charge of British diplomacy. It's also further evidence of the desperate tactics he is deploying in order to keep himself in the post election leadership race. William Hague isn't best pleased. He has just issued this statement...

David Miliband’s smears are disgraceful and represent a failure of his duty to promote Britain’s interests as Foreign Secretary. He has failed to check his facts. He has just insulted the Latvian Government, most of whose member parties have attended the commemoration of Latvia’s war dead.

Just because Latvia is a small country does not give the Foreign Secretary the right to put cheap party spin before the national interest.

His accusation of anti-Semitism against Michal Kaminski is shameful and is based on remarks which the Chief Rabbi of Poland has said were misrepresented. This kind of shoddy politics should be beneath a Foreign Secretary.

It is also indecent to allege that Eric Pickles, who has an admirable record campaigning against anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, was defending the Waffen SS. Mr Miliband should withdraw that suggestion.

David Miliband would be well to reflect on what he said in his speech and his motives for saying it. He's always been someone in the Labour Party I had some respect for. But this sort of behaviour makes me wonder whether he is really cut out for top flight politics.

Tories About to Launch New Online Strategy

A couple of days ago Tim Montgomerie wrote about a new Conservative web initiative which is launching this Friday. It's the first tangible sign that Sam Coates has quickly brought a new campaigning aspect to the Tories' web presence and very welcome it is too.

As Labour leave their conference in Brighton I get the sense that Labour's new media-savvy people are much more focused on jockeying for position for the post-election online world than doing anything meaningful as a governing party going into an election. Labour quietly updated their "membersnet" network a few weeks ago. It says it all that they haven’t launched it with any fanfare at their conference. On paper they can make a good case that it has some useful features, but the website itself feels as outdated as its name. If this is what they’re going into the election with then they’re in trouble. They seem obssessed with Twitter.

As one of the key people behind Obama’s campaign said last week, Labour haven’t given their online operations the finances or freedom they need. Yes, there might be some bitterness behind that criticism but the fact remains that Labour need a serious web development agency if they are going to take online campaigning seriously, and it's odd that Obama's people were spurned in favour of the unknown Tangent Labs.

Labour also has embarrassingly low levels of participation - despite several relaunches - on LabourSpace, and although the new look LabourList has improved a lot in recent months its recent redesign is somewhat naff.

The LibDems are big on using Twitter etc but aren't moving forward in a serious way - it doesn't help that they've lost two people (Rob Fenwick and Mark Pack) who genuinely knew and understood online campaigning to the private sector.

Of course, since the announcement of Lord Ashcroft’s investment in PH/CH there’s been a lot of talk about the centre-right's use of the internet. A lot of it has been misinformed, and a lot of it has confused the very different things of the Conservative Party’s online operation and the conservative movement’s online presence. It has also been based on the generalisation that the centre-right's use of the internet is all top-down, big money driven.

That's not a fair picture of the conservative blogosphere, and, as Tim Montgomerie has posted, it's not the way the Party is going either. The Conservative Party will be taking things to a whole new level at conference in terms of online organising and fundraising.

I’ve seen what they’re working on (yes, shock horror, I admit, they have given me a briefing) and it has the potential to really overshadow anything the other parties - indeed any party outside the US - will have for the election. Instead of focusing on tools for hardcore activists like the other parties do, they're making no distinction between party members and non-members who support a particular candidate or issue.

Whilst Labour et al seem preoccupied with Twittering, the Conservatives seem more serious in the way they are harnessing the internet. The digital agency they're working with on this - LBi - is the biggest in Europe and you only need to look at the list of their clients to know that a partnership between them and the Conservative Party is serious business.

The party is starting to apply its rhetoric about post-bureaucratic age etc to itself, and that is very welcome. Now that they’ve started in this direction there can be no going back. Naturally they will err on the cautious side to start with, but in the same way the internet has transformed many business models and social interactions I expect they will open it up more and more as they go along.

I've been quite critical of the Conservative web strategy up to now, arguing that it is too safe. The website is viewed as a PR opportunity, not a mechanism to engage with people and build an online activist and fundraising facility. That changes with this new site. And about time too.

The Hateful Daily Mail

Just by writing this blogpost, I will probably damage my chances in Bracknell. Some will say 'if you can't take the heat...'. But I am damned if I am going to stay silent when I see a national newspaper indulge in a homophobic attack on me. A year ago, the Richard Kay column in the Daily Mail printed a fairly vile column about my civil partnership - full of innuendo and just plain nastiness. Today, the Ephraim Hardcastle column goes one better. Here's what they had to say about Bracknell...

Overtly gay Tory blogger Iain Dale has reached the final stage of parliamentary selection for Bracknell, telling PinkNews: 'I hope any PinkNews readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate.

You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.'

Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Overtly gay. Nice. Anyone who has ever met me will have a good laugh at that one. I wonder if Peter McKay, the editor of Ephraim Hardcastle ever describes himself as "overtly straight". Just imagine if I was Jewish and the same words had been used.

Overtly jewish Tory blogger Iain Dale... Isn't it charming how Jews rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Get my drift? And of course the payoff line is something out of the Nick Griffin handbook. As Stephen Glenn points out, I do not rally anyone to my cause. I don't even ask for support - I just encourage people to attend. Normally I would think it's just not worth bothering with, and accept that in politics you have to take the rough with the smooth. But I'm afraid I have had it with the Daily Mail and their particular brand of hate. In my view, this breaches section 12 of the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct. So I have sent in a formal complaint. Perhaps readers might like to do the same.

I wish to complain about an article about me in the Ephraim Hardcastle column of the Daily Mail today. I believe it breaches Section 12 of the PCC code.

The story refers to my application for the Conservative candidacy for the parliamentary seat of Bracknell and in my opinion breaches section 12 of the Code of Practice on discrimination, which states that "i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability".

The paragraph in the Ephraim Hardcastle diary column rests specifically on the fact that I am gay. It describes me as “overtly gay”, which to anyone that knows me is ridiculous. It is designed to be pejorative. The article concludes: "Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?". This is clearly pejorative, snide, unkind and sneering - and in breach of the code of practice. It is designed to hurt, and designed to make readers of the column think less of me as a political candidate. My sexual orientation is irrelevant to my decision to stand as a candidate in Bracknell.
I hope you will investigate and ask the Mail to apologise.

I'm not holding my breath, but if I just ignore it, it will encourage the Mail to think that they can print it and get away with it. I really thought that we had got away from this sort of thing and it's very sad that we haven't. Attack me for my beliefs and actions, by all means, but for this? The only thing which will make the Mail sit up and think again before it does it again is for there to be a backlash. If you want to tell the Mail what you think, I'd encourage you to email the column's editor peter.mckay@dailymail.co.uk or email the editor Paul Dacre. Be rational - don't abuse them. Just calmly explain why you believe this column is wrong.

If by standing up to the Daily Mail, and drawing attention to this issue, it hijacks me in Bracknell, then that will be a bitter blow to have to take, but if I sat back and just accepted this sort of thing, what sort of person would that make me? And worst of all, if I did say nothing, it would just encourage them to do it again to someone else in the future. I simply cannot do that.

I will live in hope that the local media in Bracknell will approach the issue of a candidate's sexuality in a mature and adult way, and give it a massive shrug of the shoulders.