Coalition

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Hughes leaps to the coalition’s defence

Simon Hughes is defending his party’s core interests with singular ferocity. Today, he has turned on Labour’s decision not support the AV bill. Hughes told the BBC: ‘They can’t, in any logic, oppose the idea that you have equal numbers of voters per seat. And they are trying to pretend somehow putting equal numbers of voters per seat proposal to go with AV makes it something they can’t support. It is an indefensible position, they are playing games, and their new leader will hugely embarrassed by this decision.’ It’s clever politics from the point of view of the coalition: get the Lib Dems to attack Labour’s apparent duplicity from the

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The immigration battle

Why is Vince Cable kicking off about immigration? Sure, to cause trouble – this is what he sees as his role. His ego can’t quite fit in that department. But the pledge to have immigration in the “tens of thousands” was not in the coalition agreement. At the time, David Cameron said this was an oversight and that it was still government policy. But as James said in his political column in the magazine, a great divide has emerged between policies in that bald coalition agreement and those mentioned verbally. The policies in the documents are now deemed sacrosanct, and things not in it – like the extraordinary pledge to

David Blackburn

Who should make the concessions to appease the AV rebels? Cameron or Clegg?

The honeymoon has been spoilt by a bout of food poisoning: Tory dining clubs have decided to obstruct the AV bill. More than 50 Tory MPs will rebel because they believe the referendum should be held on a day other than May 5th and that the referendum should not be binding unless turnout exceeds an agreed minimum. Labour, already masters at opposition, will oppose the bill on the grounds that it includes changes to electoral boundaries – a reform that would lessen the in-built bias in favour of Labour, but which it haughtily considers ‘gerrymandering’. For the sake of the coalition, Cameron owes it to Clegg to at least deliver

Tuesday

David Blackburn

A worrying poll for the Tories

Ipsos-MORI’s July political poll will make uncomfortable reading for the coalition as the summer break looms. It has the Tories on 40 percent, Labour on 38 percent and the Lib Dems on 14 percent . It is just one poll – the Tory lead is usually around 7 points – but the Lib Dems’ crisis is real enough. George Eaton’s spot on when he says that Labour’s resurgence is ‘impressive’. The worry is that cuts have not yet been felt, and that the Lib Dem position can only get worse. The coalition has all sorts of possible plans to protect the Lib Dems. With growth as it is, Osborne could

Peter Hoskin

More grist for the welfare reform mill

How many incapacity benefit claimants could actually work? Well, we get a sense of the answer with some figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions today. They show that, of the people who have gone through the new Work Capability Assessments so far, some three-quarters are able to look for a job. Scale that up for everyone on incapacity benefits, and it suggests that around 1.8 million claimants could return to the labour market. Although the numbers are eye-catching, they’re not entirely surprising: similar figures were published when the WCA was introduced under Labour.  And it could be worth holding fire until the necessary review of those assessment

Peter Hoskin

The coalition’s summer challenge

How striking that, as another Parliamentary term draws to a close, all the talk is of some sort of union between the Tories and the Lib Dems.  There was Mark Field’s blog post about an electoral pact, yesterday, of course.  But now Rachel Sylvester follows it up with an article in the Times outlining a possible “metrosexual merger” between the two parties.  And Paul Goodman has a piece in the Telegraph suggesting that such a merger may well be in the offing. In many repsects, all this chatter is testament to the early success of the coalition.  What we have seen over the past few months has, on the whole,

Monday

David Blackburn

Cameron’s foreign policy is music to the ears of a resurgent FCO

Tim Montgomerie observes that the FCO now stands for Foreign and Commerce Office. David Cameron is determined to conduct British foreign policy in our economic interest. And, in that spirit, he is off to charm India in the hope of gaining access to that enormous emerging market – last week’s magazine has exhaustive coverage of the trip. Tim also claims that the Foreign Office won’t like this ‘redirection of their mission’. I’m not so sure. From what I hear, the Foreign Office is loving it; it’s just like old times. The FO was marginalised under the previous government; Labour cut staff in embassies and consulates around the globe. The coalition

Peter Hoskin

The coalition must tread carefully over electoral pacts

Well, Mark Field has certainly got Westminster talking with his suggestion that the Lib Dems and Conservatives might not oppose each other in marginal seats come 2015. It’s the kind of idea that has been sloshing around for a few weeks now, but having it relayed through a Tory MP’s blog post gives it a little extra punch. And so plenty of questions abound. What would this mean under AV? Who would do better out of it? Is it sensible for both parties to effectively make the next election a referendum on the coalition? etc. etc. But one question doesn’t seem to be getting enough airtime: what would this mean

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

System failure aids another EU power-grab

David Cameron’s so-called “referendum lock” is supposed to ensure no more powers are handed to the EU. His thinking, bless him, is that if he just keeps a low profile and doesn’t sign any extra treaties then things won’t get worse. This fundamentally mistakes the way the EU works. As we say in the leader for this week’s magazine, ever-greater integration is hardwired into the system. An example we cite is the coming European Investigatory Order, which Theresa May has naively described to other ministers as a tidying up exercise (Jack Straw said the same about the EU constitution).  As we put it: “Another power grab is looming. Plans are

Saturday

James Forsyth

AV, what is a Conservative to do?

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share

David Blackburn

The Brokeback coalition

It’s the silly season. The Newspapers have been trawling for anti-coalition quotes from MPs, their wives and their dogs. They’ve found two. Tim Farron, the defeated candidate for the Lib Dem deputy leadership, said yesterday that David Cameron had a ’toxic brand’ and it wasn’t his job to cleanse it. Well, the latter is certainly true, and Lib Dem benches are concerned by plummeting polls and intense flak from Labour. David Cameron will make a very public effort to grant the Lib Dems concessions on civil liberties and fairness in the tax system, a pre-emptive tonic ahead of cuts.    There is disquiet on Tory backbenches – there always is.

Friday

James Forsyth

Bluntly speaking

Crispin Blunt has been unceremoniously slapped down by No 10 for saying that the ban on parties in prisons will be lifted. The Coalition is following a liberal line on criminal justice but it has no desire to pick a fight on the question of whether prisoners should be allowed to party in jail. A look at The Sun and The Mail this morning show why Downing Street dumped on Blunt so fast. The Mail followed up yesterday’s critical coverage of the Coalition with a devastating front-page assault on Blunt and his arguments. The Sun, which has been extremely supportive of the Coalition, also went for Blunt. Its leader denounced

Thursday

David Blackburn

The coalition prepares for trouble

Labour’s relentless pursuit of the cancelled Sheffield Forgemasters’ loan is finally paying dividends. The government maintain that the loan was cancelled because the directors did not want to reduce their shareholding. It has emerged that, possibly, the directors did in fact offer to reduce their equity – a point that Jack Straw attempted to make at yesterday’s dire PMQs. Today brought more intrigue. A major Tory donor advised the government to cancel the loan, on the grounds that it was not necessary and possibly illegal on EU regulations. Pat McFadden, the sepulchral Shadow Business Secretary, has demanded answers from Vince Cable, trying to break the coalition’s united front at its

David Blackburn

Already, the anti-war lawyers leap on Clegg’s slip

Never one to miss the bus, Phillipe Sands QC has informed the Guardian that an international court would be ‘interested’ in Nick Clegg’s view that the Iraq War was illegal. Sands continues with his favourite homily: ‘Lord Goldsmith never gave a written advice that the war was lawful. Nick Clegg is only repeating what Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair on 30 January 2003: that without a further UN security resolution the war would be illegal and Jack Straw knows that.’ Well, that would be right but for Goldsmith’s draft advice of the 12 February 2003, and his final clarification on 7 March 2003. Goldsmith remains a brilliant commercial lawyer; international

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Another one in the eye for Vince

I feel for Vince Cable, who has morphed from Sage to Crank in a matter of weeks. Imagining himself as the scourge of the tuition fee, Cable floated the idea of a graduate tax recently. This pre-empted the Browne report into university funding and disregarded the coalition agreement, which states that all questions would be deferred until the Browne report’s publication. It was, in other words, posturing. The BBC reports what has been rumoured in Whitehall: the government is not giving serious consideration to a graduate tax, which would have incurred enormous upfront costs. Politically, the Liberal Democrats must abolish tuition fees, or at least tame their impact on the

Tuesday

James Forsyth

Ashcroft poll suggests that the Tories might do better under AV than first past the post

A Lord Ashcroft poll of marginal seats suggests, intriguingly, that the Tories could do as well—if not better—under AV than first past the post. Now, this is, obviously, just one poll. But it is the first one that looks the effect AV would have in all the various types of marginals. My first reaction to this poll was that it was striking that Ashcroft had chosen to publicise it, most of his polling remains private. His decision to public it suggest that, at the very least, he is not vehemently opposed to AV. This poll will lead to more Tories taking a closer look at AV. The traditional Tory view

David Blackburn

Osborne keeps it simple

George Osborne has talked of simplifying the tax system for years, and today he launched the OTS, The Office for Tax Simplification. The OTS will be chaired by Michael Jack, s Treasury minister in the Major government, and John Whiting of PWC and Chartered Institute of Taxation. The OTS looks suspiciously like a quango, but some public bodies are necessary and welcome. The tax system is unintelligible, and, needless to say, Gordon Brown complicated it further with morass of stealth taxes, tax credits and new loopholes opened more by chance than design. This has particularly affected small businesses and the OTS will identify salient businesses taxes and recommend their simplification.

Monday

James Forsyth

DC’s trip to DC

There are some British politicians who are obsessed with American politics, who could at this moment tell you who is most likely to pick up the open Senate seat in Colorado or pride themselves on their ability to name every Republican and Democratic vice presidential nominee since the war. But David Cameron isn’t one of them. Rather, Cameron takes a rather more hard-headed approach. At times this lack of emotional attachment has translated into a lack of empathy; giving a speech on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 which was designed to distance himself from the policy of the then US government was not particularly sensitive. But Cameron’s relationship with Obama

David Blackburn

Green gold

Most of Tim Yeo’s proselytising on climate change must be resisted. He calls for a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions in the short-term, which would paralyse Britain’s already geriatric economic competitiveness. He also endorses a policy that would push consumer energy prices to punitive levels in the hope that their behaviour is moderated. And he is adamant that David Cameron’s Husky photo-op was the last word in political positioning. But, his central point, one shared with John Redwood and Peter Lilley, is unanswerable: ‘Working towards a low carbon economy is not a “luxury”; it is essential to our future prosperity. If we fail to decarbonise our electricity industry, our transport

David Blackburn

The return of the Big Society

It’s back. David Cameron is re-launching the Big Society, the least captivating idea in British politics. There is nothing wrong with the central idea: the grand plan to decentralise power to local communities. Terminology was a problem. The Big Society sounded infantile and patronising. The detail was lost in a morass of wonkery. The overall vision was contradictory: ‘people power’ was the end, community organisers were the means. The authors of the Big Society erroneously assumed that people care about community. But community is a turn-off for many, and the Big Society sounded like one enormous management meeting from which there is no escape. From Westmoreland to Richmond-upon-Thames, voters hated