The political logic of the Prime Minister’s choice is solid enough. But we’re past the stage where his Sunday statement can simply be taken on trust.
The schism between between Tory Eurosceptics and Europhiles has been overcome; now another divide must be healed.
Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing nobody. Even Lisa Nandy, who seems more alert than most of her rivals, has fallen into this trap.
I have lost count as to how many Tories I have recently met who assume that we will be in power for the next ten to fifteen years. That worries me.
Housing played a small role in the 2019 election, but the first piece in a new mini-series notes that home ownership is the key driver of voter behaviour.
He will be the Prime Minister who will either lose Scotland, or kill nationalism. There is no longer any in-between option.
At the last election strong early poll leads seduced them into shifting resources from marginals into far more hostile territory, with disastrous results.
Treat claims of a communalist election with suspicion. The evidence suggests that ethnic minority voters prioritise domestic issues over foreign policy ones.
There has been no agreement between the two parties. And the whole thrust of our campaign is to colonise the centre ground, not retreat from it.
Boris Johnson is already appealing to Blue Collar voters who are fed up with Labour’s betrayal of Brexit and the values of working people.
And what of our voters who would be repelled by a pact with it? I can see the Lib/Lab slogan already: “Vote Blue, get Farage”.
I still want to avoid a second referendum. But unless we can make progress towards Parliament supporting a deal, those calls are going to grow.
How the pro-Leave Spartans, not pro-Remain or pro-Soft Brexit Tories, could end up whipless – and barred from contesting a general election as Conservatives.
The fundamental mistake of the Brexiteers domestically is that they have mistaken a moral argument for a political one.
The unwise Westminster trend is to invent increasingly elaborate ‘explanations’ for such views, rather than take them literally.