Nadine Dorries's readmission shows Cameron is running scared of UKIP

The timing of the move is a political gift to Ed Miliband.

Six months after the Conservative whip was suspended from Nadine Dorries following her stint on I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!, it has finally been reinstated. It's undoubtedly the right decision, but the timing of the move is awkward for Cameron. Only after rumours that the MP for Bedfordshire was considering defecting to UKIP (now confirmed by Dorries) was she brought back into the Conservative fold. As I reported last week, the Tory whips have been pushing for her readmission for months but George Osborne, who was still furious about Dorries's "arrogant posh boys" barb, was unwilling to back down. Now, with Nigel Farage threatening to secure her services, he has curiously had a change of heart. As the Spectator's Isabel Hardman (who broke the story) points out, it says little about the leadership's principles that the decision was entirely motivated by political considerations, rather than out of concern for Dorries. 

The timing of the move is also a gift to Ed Miliband, who mocked the Tories for running scared of UKIP in his response to the Queen's Speech. After Peter Bone and Jacob Rees-Mogg called for a pact or coalition with Farage's party, Miliband quipped: "They used to call them clowns. Now they want to join the circus." He went on: "The whole point of the Prime Minister’s Europe speech in January was to ‘head off UKIP’. Tory MPs were crowing that the UKIP fox had been shot. It was job done. Mission accomplished. Only it wasn’t. The lesson for the Prime Minister is you can’t out-Farage Farage."

The Dorries move allows Miliband to claim that, in addition to determining the Conservative Party's EU policy, the UKIP leader now also dictates who can and can't be a Tory MP. Farage may not yet be in office, but he is most certainly in power. 

Nadine Dorries was suspended from the Conservative Party after appearing on ITV's I’m A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!

George Eaton is political editor of 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.