Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.
And so the expenses scandal rumbles on. This morning’s Telegraph lead with home-flipping allegations against Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. And now it’s emerged that the Met have referred the cases of four parliamentarians to the Crown Prosecution Service. All of which makes Brown’s decision not to mention expenses in the Queen’s Speech seem even more unwise.
The Financial Times supplement this weekend contained profiles of the world’s leading climate experts, including – the magazine promised – the world’s leading sceptic. I quickly leafed through the pages to see who had been picked as the whipping boy, expecting to see a Danish name. No, not that of Bjørn Lomborg, who became (in)famous for his book The Sceptical Environmentalist, but that of Professor Henrik Svensmark. In the end, it was Richard Lindzen. But it is Svensmark’s research that may prove the greatest challenge to the prevailing consensus on climate dynamics. The Danish scientist, author of The Chilling Stars, become noted because of his research into cosmic rays and
Brother Liddle asks “Why is it unravelling for Dave?” and, while this may be a mild exaggeration, it’s true that, in as much as he can ever look jaunty, there’s a spring in Gordon’s step right now. Perhaps, Labourites dare to dream, the worst is over? Maybe. One poll showing the Tory lead cut to just six points is a pretty shoogly nail upon which to hang your hopes. Nevertheless, the story of the day is this alleged mini-revival. In the end it may be no more than a dead cat bounce, but, just for a moment, let’s assume it’s not. So, how to explain it? Firstly, Labour’s core vote
The blogosphere is alight with all kinds of chatter about yesterday’s Ipsos MORI poll for the Observer, which showed Labour closing the gap between them and the Tories to 6 points: from James Macintyre’s claim that the Labour fightback has begun to Nick Robinson’s call for calm. Myself, I’m on Team Robinson. Sure, the poll is an eye-opener for CCHQ – but, by itself, it’s hardly evidence of a tidal shift in voting intentions. Indeed, going off two very useful posts by Anthony Wells and Stephan Shakespeare, there’s a considerable chance that this is a rogue. Polls will always be imperfect, but they’ve been particularly volatile recently. Since party
Peter Mandelson has already claimed that the Tories and the Sun have “effectively formed a contract”, but today Ben Bradshaw takes the insinuations even further. Here’s the relevant passage from his interview with the Guardian, with my emphasis in bold: “Echoing the views of the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, Bradshaw says of News International and the Tories: ‘There is no doubt there’s a deal … The Tories have basically subcontracted their media and broadcasting policy to News International. It’s brazen.’ He fires off a list of Tory policies – including a commitment to TV news free from impartiality rules and Cameron’s promise to rein in the media regulator, Ofcom –
So the dividing line persists. Today, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron will talk about “going for growth” at the CBI’s annual conference. But it all, more or less, comes down to the same, dreary “investment vs cuts” line that we’ve heard countless times before. According to the Times, Brown is going to say that growth is the best way of tackling the deficit, rather than those nasty Tory cuts. And, what’s more, “he hopes investment from China will drive the recovery”. Of course, growth will have a role to play in reducing the deficit. A vibrant economy will have a better chance of tackling record deficits and debt levels
…here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the weekend: James Forsyth welcomes David Cameron’s emphasis on growth, and highlights an important member of the class of 2010. Peter Hoskin looks behind the closed doors of Brussels, and observes a fine line between love and hatred for Peter Mandelson. David Blackburn identifies where to start cutting, and wonders what should be included in a British Bill of Rights. Daniel Korski says it’s good that EU job picks are undemocratic. Martin Bright hopes he’s wrong about Labour’s situation. Susan Hill looks at the divide between real life and virtual life. Rod Liddle wonders why it’s unravelling for Dave. Alex
Martin Bright argues that “the British people deserve a hung parliament”. I’m not sure that’s quite correct. It might be more accurate to say that David Cameron’s Conservatives have not quite convinced the electorate that they merit a large majority. (Nor, for that matter, have Labour persuaded anyone other than true believers that they merit a fourth term.) Of course, this too is a little unfair since, given the current constituency boundaries, the Tories need an overwhelming victory to gain a comfortable majority. If all else were equal, a six point win would be comfortable enough. But all else is not equal and so the Tories could win convincingly in
A new opinion poll puts the Tory lead down to just six points, the lowest for quite a while. It’s only one poll, of course, but it does tend to support what I was saying last week about this being a fairly promising time for Labour (with the polls in the week leading up to its Glasgow by-election victory registering a ten per cent lead for the Tories). This will come as a shock, I suppose, both to those of you on here who assumed Labour’s decline was irreversible – and also to the presumably penniless dumbo nerds at Political Betting who cannot see the wood for the trees. The
I can’t help thinking that the Observer’s Ipsos/Mori poll this weekend was something of a blip. What exactly has the Labour government done to narrow the gap in the last week or so? I hope I’m wrong, because I think the British people deserves a hung parliament, which would be the best result of the next election. I have been saying for some time that the Conservatives do not have the strength in depth to form a credible government and that the electorate faces the most unappealing choice since 1970. Nothing I have seen recently has made me change my mind. Andrew Rawnsley has written the best of the political
The success or failure of Cameron’s EU policy rests in part on the promised British Bill of Rights. What is clear is that Tories are unclear what should be included in it. One question that is yet to be answered is whether aspects of the constitution should be entrenched? Writing on the Blue Blog today, Michael Howard writes: ‘Any decision about these rights requires a balancing of competing rights. The fundamental question is who should be responsible for striking that balance: elected MP’s or unelected judges? On terrorism, Parliament twice, after great debate, reached its view. Yet twice the judges have held that Parliament got it wrong. In doing so,
One of the main charges against the choice of Herman van Rompuy as the first permanent European Council President and Catherine Ashton as the EU’s foreign affairs supremo is the supposed “undemocratic” nature of the selection process. People who opposed the Lisbon Treaty have been particularly critical of the conclave-like decision-making. Daniel Hannan called it a “stitch-up that demeans democracy”. But it is hard to believe those critical voices, including on Coffee House, really want a democratic process as opposed to simply finding another thing to dislike about the EU (a fair position, but just not the same). Let us think through for a moment what a democratic election would
So far as Downing Street is concerned, this morning’s Sunday Times cover is a presentational nightmare. It reports that Peter Mandelson is calling on Brown to make him Foreign Secretary – a move which would create all kinds of internal difficulties for the PM. Sounds a little bizarre to me: we all know that Mandelson would, in theory, like the role which was once occupied by his grandfather, but would he really want it under such controversial circumstances and for what would likely be only six months? Perhaps not. But, true or no’, it still feeds into the idea that the government is divided and self-obsessed. It’s also the kind
It is now 12 years since the Queen was first obliged to enter the Palace of Westminster and deliver a speech studded with the most awful New Labour clichés. Over the years, Her Majesty’s dismay during the state opening of parliament has become steadily more visible — and little wonder. As Labour ekes a fifth year out of this parliament, it is bowing out with perhaps the most fatuous and futile agenda of its 13 years in power. But one which, nonetheless, offers useful insights into why this government failed. It was, as a gleeful but unnamed minister said, ‘one of the most political Queen’s Speeches in history’ — this
Michael Portillo believes that a future Tory government, like those that came before it, will not succeed in cutting public spending. I agree with Pete: public finances are so parlous that cuts have to be made. Demolishing the state is not an overnight job; it will take time and cost money, and so it should because the stakes are too high for a quick fix, cowboy politics solution. But, immediate savings are to be made through efficiencies. ‘Efficiency savings’ are derided as being insubstantial. Such an analysis is simplistic. Endemic waste is perpetuated by irrational systems. The Department for Work and Pensions runs an administrative budget of £2.7bn. That is colossal – half
I’ve just been looking up the history of Lady Catherine Ashton, who was appointed last week to the post of Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Union. Nothing too taxing, just a quick browse through Wiki (which is almost always wrong, I grant you) and some other background stuff. It does occur that short of being a field officer for Al Qaeda she could not possibly have followed a career more damaging to Britain, nor more emblematic of where we are now. She began as an administrator for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an organization so stupid even the Russians burst into laughter when its name
Today’s Times carries a cracking account of all the wheeling and dealing that went on during the EU jobs fair this week. Here are some of the most striking points that I’ve culled from it: i) Brown rejected advice from Mandelson and other ministers that he should try and secure one of the EU’s financial roles for a British candidate. ii) There are claims that Brown was “persuaded” into accepting the EU High Representative role for Britain by Europe’s Socialist leaders along with José Manuel Barroso. iii) There are also claims that Brown did a deal with the French to get Baroness Ashton appointed, by which a French MEP, Michel
Eighty years ago this week, the institution in which David Cameron and his closest lieutenants learned their trade was born. The press is fascinated by his membership of the Bullingdon Club, but Cameron owes a thousand times more to the apprenticeship he served in the Conservative Research Department. How dreary those words sound, and how modest the press release on 17 November 1929 announcing the foundation of the new body: ‘In view of the growing complexity of the political aspect of modern industrial, Imperial and social problems, Mr Stanley Baldwin has decided to set up a special department charged with the task of organising and conducting research into these matters.’
Ever the contrarian, Michael Portillo makes a case that you don’t hear from many on the right in his interview with Andrew Neil on Straight Talk this weekend. George Osborne has given “a fair amout of detail” about the Tories’ debt-reduction plans, he says, but that could be the wrong approach: “I wouldn’t seek probably to give very much more detail …. You know, I was with Margaret Thatcher when she came in to Government in 1979, we faced a big public spending problem. It was terrible. It was a hard slog but she didn’t cut public spending. I was Chief Secretary between ’92 and ’94 – big public spending
Among a batch of unpopular blogposts, this is the one that will get Coffee Housers to grab their pitchforks and hunt me down. Because I think the appointments of Belgium’s Herman Van Rompuy, as president of the European Council, and Britain’s Catherine Ashton, as EU “high representative” for foreign affairs, are not bad at all. First, I have to eat my words. I thought Gordon Brown would fail to shoehorn a Briton into a top EU job. Credit goes to him and Britain’s diplomats, chiefly Kim Darroch, the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels. Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Brown did what he should have done: he pushed Blair