As a party known for strong economic management, we must work doubly hard to avoid appearing to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
We publish the letter referenced by Ed Vaizey in this afternoon’s debate.
The Prime Minister can afford to play down ideology, safe in the knowledge that the contrast with the Opposition is greatly in her favour.
There is more to do, but the Home Secretary has a track record of seizing an opportunity to do the right thing.
Any cut-off date needs to be fair and legally water-tight, as well as commanding public and political support. In the end, the inquiry opted for the triggering of Article 50.
Under-trained asylum caseworkers are rejecting clinical evidence, leading to misery for genuine applicants and expensive court defeats.
And also how it will achieve its industrial strategy. Or try to.
Public opinion will not back a generous approach if abuses are allowed.
Anonymous claims will be gathered and treated as the truth. “Because it’s called ‘The Truth Project’, you see? It becomes true, because I say it’s true!”
The Prime Minister conceded “there were stories around” but said she could not “intervene on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay”.
At the heart of her speech was not so much a new interventionism as a Church-formed moralism, a sense of public service – and a Good Samaritan Moment.
Dame Lowell Goddard argues that the sheer scope of its retrospective aspect makes the job impractical.
To date, she has seen foreign affairs through the prism of domestic security rather than that of intervention abroad.
The need for extra resources will not go down a storm with Hammond. But if we want a system that is effective, fair and trusted, we should resource it accordingly.
This measure, introduced on the Prime Minister’s watch when she was Health Secretary, simply isn’t working.