The Boris and Dave show rolls on

Mayor of London reiterates that he will staunchly oppose serious cuts to the capital.

He may be a headache for David Cameron at times, but we can be sure of one thing: grassroots Tories love Boris. After a worthy but dry address by David Willetts, the atmosphere in the conference hall tangibly changed as Boris took to the stage this morning; photographers crowded around the front stage and the over-excited crowd clapped and shouted out comments (of the "hear hear!" variety). Amid the predictable strike-bashing, light xenophobia (directed at the French), and what the man himself termed "lip-smacking Tory Party Conference style law and order fervour" was a robust argument against cuts to London's infrastructure.

Boris joked about "my friends at the Treasury", putting forward the line that a London fuels the entire economy of the UK. Nearly every place he listed - and it wasn't short - in which jobs have been created by the vast London transport industry was met with rapturous applause. Funnily enough, at a conference where the over-riding theme is "the mess we've been left in" by Labour, justifying the need for brutal cuts ahead of the comprehensive spending review, Boris was met with enthusiastic cheers as he made the case for protecting London. One suspects that the grassroots would applaud him even if he were advocating out-and-out socialism.

Amid the jokes, there was a serious point, and perhaps a warning to Conservative high command -- he repeatedly stressed that there were "tough" arguments ahead. As the leaked letter from Liam Fox last week demonstrated, spending cuts are all well and good in principle, but when it comes to their own remit being affected, the most die-hard Tories appear to think twice. The oft-noted tensions between the Mayor and the Prime Minister will be one to watch -- Boris will not accept cuts without a fight.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.