Politics

Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.

Monday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Who will follow Cameron?

Matthew d’Ancona’s piece in the new GQ on who’ll succeed David Cameron as Tory leader has been much discussed today. Matt says that Jeremy Hunt ‘is the man to watch’. But I think Hunt’s problem is that he is too like the current leader—telegenic, personable and pragmatic—and parties tend to opt for a successor who is a bit different from what they’ve just had. Boris Johnson would, of course, be very different from Cameron. But as Matt notes, if Boris returns to Parliament early it will be regarded as a declaration of intent. Boris’s greatest weakness is that he’s seen as great fun but not a man of substance. The

James Forsyth James Forsyth

A sensible policy change

Tucked away in Nick Clegg’s statement confirming that the referendum on AV was going to be on the 5th of May next year, was the abandonment of the controversial 55 percent rule for a dissolution of parliament. This has been replaced by a far more sensible arrangement. If the government cannot win a confidence vote, there’ll then be 14 days for one that can command the confidence of the House to be formed. If that does not happen, then there’ll be an election. However, if a government wants to dissolve parliament then it’ll require a two thirds majority. But it is still unclear how this rule could be made to

David Blackburn

Boris is keeping the faith

Both Tim Montgomerie and Bernard Jenkin report that Boris has not lost the faith: the Mayor of London is opposed to ditching first past the post. This runs contrary to what was reported in the Times this morning. It makes sense: Johnson’s contempt for coalition government is open – it is highly unlikely that he’d advocate a reform that might entrench it. It also adds to the growing narrative of Boris Johnson protector of the traditional right. Cameron’s position on voting reform is intriguing. As Iain Martin notes it’s as clear as mud, and deliberately so. The preservation of the coalition is everything. Cameron is far too canny to campaign

Alex Massie Alex Massie

DC & AV

A droll post from Iain Martin on David Cameron’s murky views on changing the voting system. It is possible, as Iain says, that Cameron’s public position – he’s in favour of keeping FPTP is, shockingly, also his private and unchanging view: Theory Three? Outlandish this one. Cameron is wedded to first-past-the-post, thinking of it as a system that has stood his party and country in good stead — putting the voters in charge rather than the political class meeting in semipermanent session to stitch-up the next coalition to protect its interests. (This seemed to be his view a few months ago). But to save the system, he has to con

Peter Hoskin

Is Boris the only Tory losing faith in FPTP?

While we’re on the subject of Boris, this article by the Times’s Sam Coates is worth noting down.  It suggests that the Mayor of London has “lost faith” in our first-past-the-post voting system, and has declined the opportunity to campaign in its favour.  And while he remains an “agnostic” about the alternative votes system, he is more inclined towards it after “the election and the successful creation of the coalition”. Now, Boris’s views are Boris’s views – so we shouldn’t read too much into the story.  But it will still reinforce the idea that more and more Tories are coming around to AV.  And it could fuel fears that the

Peter Hoskin

How Boris is influencing the coalition’s battle against the unions

This morning’s Times devotes its front page to how the government is borrowing Boris’s ideas for combating the unions.  But Spectator readers might remember that James foresaw this situation in his politics column.  Here’s what he wrote back in October: “…an agenda is being discussed to curtail the ability of unions to call for industrial action. Boris Johnson’s office is floating the idea of minimum required turnouts for strike ballots. The Mayor of London has in his sights the RMT union, which represents many tube drivers and likes to strike first and ask questions later; this June the RMT walked out after a ballot in which less than a third

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 5 July 2010

…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the weekend. Fraser Nelson ponders David Cameron re-alignment of our party politics. James Forsyth on the Tories’ move to campaign against AV, and reports on the growing rift between Cameron and Lord Ashcroft. Peter Hoskin says that the Treasury is playing a very smart game, and outlines the coalition’s choice on Incapacity Benefit. And Alex Massie welcomes two converts Liberal Unionism.

Peter Hoskin

The coalition’s spending cuts are forcing Labour into a corner

It’s becoming a familiar drill: another morning in Westminster accompanied by new spending cuts from the government.  Today, it’s the schools budget which is being trimmed to the tune of £1.5 billion, with the cancellation of Labour’s plan to rebuild some 700 schools.  But there are also reports of cuts to civil service pay-offs, and even of legislation to make it tougher for the unions to protest those cuts.  After yesterday’s news, the Treasury is clearly on a roll. Of course, the main political reason for all this early activity is that the coalition hopes to get much of it out of the way while the public is still on

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Liberal Unionist Club

Welcome to the Liberal Unionist club, Fraser! It won’t surprise regular readers that I think your latest post is spot-on. While we’re taking names, let’s also add John Rentoul to the list. His Independent on Sunday column this week concludes: This is where I think that Cameron is misunderstood. It seems to be generally assumed that, for him, the coalition is flag of convenience, hoisted to help navigate out of the tricky situation produced by the election. I think not. I think he sees it as a chance for a permanent change in favour of liberal conservatism, a label he has always been happy to apply to himself. The coalition

Sunday

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s realignment of our party politics

When the coalition was first formed, I expected it to collapse in months. But, then, I was expecting the type of coalition that I’d seen in the Scottish Parliament when Labour and the Lib Dems kept their distance (and their mistrust). But what has emerged is a far tighter coalition – and one that may even end up in a merger. Cameron has been very generous to the Lib Dems, in both Cabinet places and policies. But since then, he has just grown more generous. In the News of the World today, I wonder if he’s playing for keeps.   It was great to welcome Nick Clegg to The Spectator’s

James Forsyth James Forsyth

No 10 moves to place trusted Cameron supporter at the top of the No campaign

Imagine that we find out on May 6th next year that the Liberal Democrats have taken a pasting in the Scottish Parliament elections, done badly in the Welsh Assembly ones, lost seats in English local government and AV has been defeated. In these circumstances, Nick Clegg would face loud and sustained calls from within his own party to quit the government. Charlie Kennedy’s warning would have come true.  It would be situation critical for the Coalition. For this reason, I suspect that David Cameron wouldn’t shed any tears if the AV referendum passed. As I write in the Mail on Sunday, Number 10 has moved to install Rodney Leach, of

Saturday

The Spectator

Letters | 3 July 2010

No Alternative Sir: James Forsyth’s article on George Osborne’s machinations for a Conservative majority (‘Osborne is becoming the true Tory leader’, 26 June) at the next election failed to mention the most crucial matter — the Alternative Vote. We can assume there will definitely be a referendum on AV; so the only question is what the country’s decision will be. A casual perusal of the election result by constituency leads any reasonable person to see that, if Lib supporters put Lab second and vice versa, then the Conservative party can never again have a majority. And for those who say some socialist party supporters may put Tory second — no

Charles Moore Charles Moore

The Spectator’s Notes | 3 July 2010

Unpublicised, David Cameron has been conducting some unusual job interviews in Downing Street. In hour-long, one-to-one, informal conversations with each candidate, he is looking for the next head of our armed forces. The man he chooses will replace Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff. So far, the Prime Minister has seen the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, and the Vice-Chief of the General Staff, General Nick Houghton. This week, he will see the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards. This way of doing things is unprecedented in peacetime. What normally happens is that the outgoing CDS and the Defence Secretary find the

Peter Hoskin

Hague caught in the middle

When General Petraeus called for a “united effort” on Afghanistan earlier, he might as well have been addressing our government.  Between David Cameron’s and Liam Fox’s recent statements, there’s a clear sense that the coalition is pulling in two separate directions.  And it’s left William Hague explaining our Afghan strategy thus, to the Times today: “‘The position on combat troops is as the Prime Minister set out last weekend. By the time of the next election, he hopes we won’t still be fighting on the ground. We are working towards the Afghan national security forces being able to stand on their own two feet by 2014,’ but there is ‘no

Peter Hoskin

The side effects of the AV debate

Ok, so the general public doesn’t much care for this AV referendum – and understandably so.  But at least it has added a good slug of uncertainty into the brew at Westminster.  Already, curious alliances are emerging because of it – Exhibit A being Jack Straw and the 1922 Committee.  And no-one’s really sure about what the result of the vote will be, or whether it will deliver a killing blow to the coalition itself. But regardless of what happens on 5 May 2011, it’s clear that one group is already benefitting from the prospect of a referendum: the Labour leadership contenders.  Until now, they’ve been distinguished by their indistinguishability

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The Ashcroft report

One thing that the AV referendum might do is revive the debate in Conservative circles about why the party did not win a majority in the general election. As the most striking example so far of the price of Coalition, it is likely to start off some grumbling about why the party is in position where it has to govern with the Lib Dems. Interestingly, on this front, Francis Elliott reports in The Times today that Lord Ashcroft has nearly finished his review of the campaign and that an ‘early draft is said to be unsparing in its criticism of Mr Cameron and his inner circle.’ But Ashcroft has yet

Andrew J. Bacevich

Obama is in hock to the hawks

At the turn of the 20th century, an army of half a million Tommies imposed Britain’s will on the Boers, yet this nominal victory served chiefly to accelerate the downward spiral of British power. Foolishly attempting to recover its imperial holdings in Indochina after the second world war, France succeeded only in showing how weak it had become. In 1979, the seemingly mighty Red Army marched to folly in Afghanistan; within a decade the Soviet Empire disintegrated. Now comes the United States, seemingly intent on reprising the Russian experience, with Barack Obama — ironically, unexpectedly, perhaps even against his better judgment — serving as chief enabler. Once again, an inability

Friday

The Spectator

The week that was | 2 July 2010

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson lists 190 Tory manifesto pledges that have been ditched. James Forsyth says that George Osborne’s plans for a Tory victory are in motion, and wonders if Cameron will soften his stance on AV for the sake of the coalition. Peter Hoskin scrutinises the Treasury’s leaked unemployment figures, and catches the Milibands up to no good. David Blackburn thinks that Osborne’s amateur days are over, and doubts that this government’s foreign policy will not change.   Susan Hill considers policing. Rod Liddle wants to boycott the Guardian. Alex Massie praises Ken Clarke’s prison reforms. And Melanie

Peter Hoskin

David Davis: the coalition hasn’t got a way of negotiating with the Tory party

I doubt No.10 will be all that charmed by David Davis’s comments on Straight Talk with Andrew Neil this weekend, but they should certainly take note of them.  They contain some substantive points about the government’s relationship with Tory backbenchers, and points which Davis is not alone in making.  The key passage comes when he discusses the watered-down capital gains tax hike: “I don’t think a victory over [the Lib Dems], I mean, it’s quite interesting, we tried to design this, whatever you want to call it, I don’t know whether it’s a rebellion or a difference of view, to really be a precursor to what’s going to happen over

David Blackburn

Hague is an administrative revolutionary, not the second Canning

For a man of such rhetorical talents, William Hague’s foreign policy speech was strikingly bland. His eloquence escaped him and he sounded like David Miliband – earnest, conscientious and often unintelligible. The similarity didn’t end there. Hague was very pleased with his observation that a multi-lateral world requires bi-lateral relationships; but even David Miliband had grasped that – who could forget his stable shin-dig in India? Hague’s speech was dominated by the expression ‘network world’ and he said that Britain’s diplomacy must address new strategic needs. In fact, Hague said very little that was new. Britain’s relationship with America would remain close; European alliances would rest on co-operation not coercion;