This second piece of a mini-series on what should be in the manifesto argues that May must show those on modest incomes the good that Government can do.
That the pursuit of Farron was legitimate doesn’t mean that they, or anyone else, should feel happy about it – or the bigger trends of which it was part.
I feel we have gone too far in publishing and overly political manifestos which make it difficult to govern subsequently.
This first piece of a mini-series on what should be in the manifesto argues that the Conservatives must get serious about living within our means.
Above all, don’t neglect the obvious. May is vulnerable to Tory revolts – as the NICs debacle proved. She wants a real working majority.
The industry is highly competitive and can’t afford to subsidise peak-time travel. If prices don’t ration a finite number of packages, something else will.
Today’s papers show she already has a tough time pleasing everyone.
The Education Secretary must navigate skilfully to get the proposals safely to port.
The Opposition’s promise to extend the policy is opportunistic, expensive, and unjust. The Conservatives must do what is necessary and right.
During a meeting with other disgruntled Conservative MPs, George Osborne allegedly told the Education Secretary: “Now you see why I didn’t do this.”
Inspectors need more discretion to allow for special circumstances, and parents an avenue to appeal decisions by head teachers.
While it is no surprise that the current party leadership has leapt at his new idea, neither the moral nor the economic arguments stack up.
Yes, Livingstone named him 12 times when interviewed by me this week. Plus: Saudi Arabia uncovered, Michael Howard unmuzzled. And: In memory of Helen Szamuely.
The Education Secretary is grappling with reform of the national funding formula for schools at a time when spending on them is under pressure.
We are keen to gather views from interested parties (such as businesses, industry groups, politicians, academics and others) about what would happen.