Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.
If there’s one thing the financial crisis has proved, then it’s that the heads of global financial institutions are fickle with their favour – for stimulus one minute and against it the next. Still, I suppose every little helps. Last night, Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank spoke to Jeff Randall and gave George Osborne a resounding vote of confidence.
Here is a selection of the blogosphere’s reaction to Cameron’s speech. Fraser Nelson notes that Cameron has resuscitated the Big Society. James Forsyth urges Cameron to concentrate on people power. Peter Hoskin ponders a peculiar speech from the Prime Minister. David Blackburn wonders what to make of Cameron’s disavowal of laissez-faire. Alex Massie asks if Britain is up to Cameron’s challenge. Michael White notes that Cameron’s joviality will keep the welfare dogs at bay. Andrew Porter delivers his verdict on Dave’s ‘slick’ performance. Tim Montgomerie describes it as ‘forgettable’. Toby Helm thought it ‘a profound disappointment’. And Nick Watt notes the resurrection of Lord Kitchener.
David Cameron was speaking in odd circumstances today. He was talking to a party that was back in power after more than a decade in opposition. But unlike Tony Blair in 1997 he couldn’t devote his speech to a celebration of that both because his party did not win a majority and because of the situation the country is in. To compound this, Cameron was speaking a fortnight before the spending review; further tying his hands in terms of what he could say. Politically, the principal argument that Cameron wanted to make was about fairness. He was trying to move fairness from being purely about redistribution to one about
Pressure brings out the best in David Cameron and right now he’s coasting. He gave, as Pete and Fraser have said, a subdued speech. The content was there but his delivery was calm, except on two occasions when he spoke rather than read the autocue. He attempted to sell the Big Society (third time and no luckier). Then he said, with conviction, ‘I don’t believe in laissez faire.’ Those six words are pure Tory Reform Group, pure Iain Macleod, pure One Nation. He evoked that traditional form of Torysim with a firm description of how his government seeks to empower people as responsible groups not just free individuals. A theme
There were moments, I confess, when David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative party conference this afternoon was oddly, disconcertingly reminiscent of George W Bush’s second inauguration speech. Each address was soaring, passionate and heroically optimistic. Bush foresaw a world transformed; at least Cameron’s ambitions are limited to remaking this sceptered isle. If Bush serves as a warning that words are not enough it might also be said that words are still required. There was, as Andrew Neil immediately pointed out, little that was new in the Prime Minister’s address but, frankly, after the child benefit hash that was no bad thing. What we heard, however, was perhaps the most coherent
This was the perhaps the lowest-octane speech David Cameron has ever given to the Tory conference. He didn’t need to give the speech of his life, for once – so he didn’t. He dutifully ran through all the various points of government policies, but there were too many of what Art Laffer calls MEGO figures (my eyes glaze over). It’s odd, because Cameron can speak so well when he needs to. Compared to the speeches we heard yesterday – from Gove and IDS – it was oddly uninspiring. He spoke about his government’s “beating, radical heart” with no real enthusiasm – as if he received the speech only recently, and
Ok, so that was a peculiar kind of speech from David Cameron – neither wholly successful, nor wholly unsuccessful. In terms of its general tone, it was much as we expected: a dose of bitter realism about the public finances, lacquered over with heavy optimism about what the country can be. But its content was more surprising, brave even. For this was the moment when the Big Society returned with a vengeance. In truth, we haven’t heard much in recent months about the idea that framed the Tories’ election campaign. Coalition seemed to have displaced it from the Cameroonian lexicon, if not their thinking. But it made an early appearance
1537, PH: And Cameron ends on that note, calling on the public to get involved in fixing society: “So come on: let’s pull together. Let’s come together. Let’s work, together, in the national interest.” Standing ovation. More reaction on Coffee House shortly. 1537, PH: This is good, liberal-conservative stuff from Cameron. He says that the government recognises that it is there to push power to the people. “I know the British people: they are not passengers, they are drivers.” 1535, PH: Strong line: “Mine is not just a vision of a more powerful country, it is of more powerful people.” 1536, PH: The Big Society returns, with a lenghty section
Ah! Ticket speculation, how we’ve missed you! Or not, as the case may be. According to Bob Woodward Hillary Clinton could be drafted in to replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket in 2012. (Biden would be moved to Secretary of State, apparently). The Stenographic Sage muses that “It’s on the table”. I’m going to guess that a) it’s not actually on the table and b) even if it were on the table it won’t be picked up. Why? Because putting Hillary on the ticket would be an admission of failure and, should Obama be re-elected, leave him weak and in many ways less powerful than his Vice-President. The entire
The best form of defence is attack. Liam Fox distracted conference from the various rows that have afflcited it by castigating Labour’s abysmal record on defence. He was helped enormously by the terrorist outrage in Sanaa, the Yemen – a cowardly atrocity that reinforces his observation that ‘the country’s finances are wrecked and the world is more dangerous than at any other time in recent memory.’ He recited the refrain that cuts are regrettable but necessary, before adding that, thanks to Labour, Britain has to fight on with less. Serving the interest on Labour’s debt costs the same as an extra four aircraft carriers, 10 destroyers, 50 C17 cargo planes
Who’d have guessed that David Cameron would go into his conference speech on the backfoot? This was supposed to be a moment tinged, if anything, with jubilation: the first Tory PM for thirteen years addressing a party that seems to have fallen in love with him. But instead we’ve got the child benefit row, and with it apologies, rebuttals and hasty repositioning. It is to Cameron’s credit that he can breath the two words that evade other, more culpable politicians: “I’m sorry”. But on the eve of his big speech? Far from ideal. This exercise in damage limitation may have slightly eased Cameron’s situation today – but it has put
It’s no surprise that the Coalition’s plans to take child benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers is dominating the news. It’s the boldest move the government has made so far and may yet prove to be the most reckless. So far, this attempt to sell social justice to the Conservative base has spectacularly backfired. I am beginning to wonder whether the Tories do fairness and equality as badly as the Labour Party does immigration. The volume of hostility to the plans means that almost every other policy announcement has been drowned out. However, Iain Duncan Smith did something really remarkable today by reviving the 1980s Enterprise Allowance Scheme. This is something
David, while one should never discount incompetence as the guiding force behind anything the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party proposes in this instance I fancy indifference – rather than self-interest or incompetence – is behind Aunt Annabel’s apparent admission that the party won’t take a view on the Alternative Vote. At present elections in Scotland are run using four different electoral systems: FPTP (Westminster), Additional Member System (Holyrood), Single Transferable Vote (council elections), Party List (European Elections). In other words, there’s precisely nothing sacrosanct about FPTP and, indeed, the case against it has been conceded at both the Holyrood and council level. This being so, what’s the point of pretending
Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, made an odd admission at a fringe event last night. Asked how she would campaign against AV next May, she disclosed that there wouldn’t be a concerted campaign because ‘people have already made-up their minds’. I’m told that David Mundell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, sat in impassive agreement while the audience raised its collective eyebrow. Conservatism hasn’t scaled Hadrian’s Wall for twenty years. Representation is thin because residual loathing for Thatcher and Major runs deep. Loud partisanship against AV may incite the hostile populace to vote for it out of spite. Discretion looks the better part of valour. There is
Rachel Sylvester’s Times column (£) today concentrates on the philosophical divide at the heart of the government: [E]ven as ministers go to the wire in their negotiations over the “what” of the Comprehensive Spending Review that will be published in two weeks’ time, the Conservatives in the Cabinet are divided on the crucial issue of “why”. For some Tories, the recession has created the perfect opportunity to reduce the size and scope of the State. For others, the smaller State will be a by-product of the decision to hand power down from the centre to local people. The overwhelming imperative to reduce the size of the deficit — which is
The first Boris vs Ken poll of the season carries an obvious health warning: there are other candidates to come, not to mention another one-and-half years of the current mayoral term. Yet Tories might still be pleased that their man is 9 points ahead of his predecessor and main rival at this stage. And that’s even with Labour beating out the Tories, in the same poll, when it comes to London’s general election voting intentions. Andrew Gilligan puts two and two together to create a striking parallel: Boris is more popular than the Tory party in London, whereas Ken is less popular than Labour. Stir in the fact that Livingstone
Courtesy of Ben Brogan, one of the most noteworthy passages from David Cameron’s appearance on Today this morning: ‘Jim Naughtie: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable? David Cameron: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent… JN: Is that a yes? DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.’ It is certainly the most assertive that Cameron has been on the subject since the advent of the coalition, but a couple of questions remain that prevent it from being utterly unequivocal. First, what timeframe is the
Michael Gove means business. His case is simple: standards have fallen; it is time to be radical. Under Labour, Britain fell from 4th to 14th for science, from 7th to 17th for literacy and from 8th to 24th for mathematics. With a fervour that was nothing short of zealous, Gove promised that the ‘injustice will end’. His ministerial career has had a difficult start – his message often lost under Ed Balls’ righteous indignation. Having faltered, he is beginning to re-direct his rhetorical emphasis to more fertile ground. Where once he wanted to empower parents, he now wants to empower teachers – no doubt to attract recalcitrant teaching unions to
Perceptions count and the coalition are perceived to be vulnerable on crime. Its policy of reducing the number of prisoners on short-term sentences has been caricatured as a reduction in sentencing per se, a liberal assault on the consensus that prison works. I don’t agree with that analysis (which overlooks that excessive sentences in disorganised and overcrowded prison can create habitual criminals, who cost society in perpetuity thereafter) but readily concede that it’s easy to traduce the government as soft on crime, and I was surprised that Ed Miliband didn’t do so last week – as were plenty of Tories. In fact, opposition comes from within the Tory party, even from the
It was all so Osborne-a-go-go earlier that we didn’t have chance to mention Boris’s speech to the Tory conference. By way of rectifying that oversight, here’s footage of the Mayor of London taking on the trade unionists who have organised a Tube strike today. His proposal that at least half the members of a union should vote in a strike ballot for it to be valid – which drew enthusiastic applause from the crowd – is something that he has discussed with the government before now: