Coalition

The coalition is doing pretty well, thank you very much. In case last week’s rebellion of the 91 on Lords reform and continuing tensions over Europe had you fooled, up pops the Prime Minister this morning with a soothing comment piece in the Sunday Times.  David Cameron tries to shrug off Lords reform within three paragraphs of his op-ed. ‘What’s far more significant is that we are working together on so much else – and after last week, it’s vital that everyone reminds themselves of that fact,’ he argues. As part of his health-check piece, the Prime Minister details signs that the coalition is functioning well. When he mentions the

Perhaps what most depressed the Liberal Democrats this week was the sense that the two main parties were rejecting the idea of coalition. One described to me how depressing he found it during the Lords reform debate to watch the Labour front bench revelling in every Tory intervention on Nick Clegg. At the top of the Lib Dems, there’s now a real worry that both Labour and the Tories would try and govern as a minority government after the next election if there’s another hung parliament rather than form a coalition. This would lock the Liberal Democrats out of power.  All of this makes Andrew Adonis’ comments in The Times

One instructive way to think about Tuesday’s vote on Lords reform is, do you want to have proportional representation used to elect people to the Westminster parliament? I suspect that most people on the centre-right would answer no to that question, and with good reason. In the current British system, PR would work against the centre-right’s political interests.   It is for this reason that the term rebel is a bit of a misnomer for those Tories trying to thwart the coalition’s plans for Lords reform. The likes of Andrew Griffiths, an adviser to Eric Pickles when he was party chairman, and Angie Bray, a former Central Office staffer, are

There’s long been a certain amount of speculation in Westminster about how long the coalition will last. This topic used to be the sole preserve of those who were sceptics of it; it was a question hoping for the answer not that long. Enthusiasts for coalition, took it as a given that it would last to 2015. But today Matthew Parris, one of the commentators who has been most welcoming of the coalition, writes, ‘I’m close to despair and no longer confident that the coalition can continue even into next year.’   When even the coalition’s friends are saying this, then it is time for the Prime Minister and deputy

I have been waiting more than two years for this government to say or do something really radical. By this I don’t mean taking the Blairite revolution to its logical conclusion (or is it reductio ad absurdum?) by introducing pseudo-markets deeper into every area of the public sector and reforms to the welfare state New Labour certainly considered but never dared to carry out. But what was genuinely counter-intuitive for the Labour Party is not necessarily so for the Conservatives. For Tony Blair to embrace the private sector, distance himself from the trade unions and challenge the received wisdom of Labour’s state-ism was a genuine break with the past. For

The coalition’s plan for House of Lords reform will go to Cabinet on Tuesday. It could have a trickier time there than expected: some Tory Cabinet ministers who favour an elected Lords are deeply unhappy about the idea of using regional lists. But, even before Cabinet, one active Tory big beast has come out against the proposals. Boris Johnson savages the idea in his Telegraph column, declaring it to be ‘a bunch of tidy-minded Lib Dem nonsense.’ He makes the standard Tory arguments against it: the Lords works as it is, two elected chambers would inevitably clash and reform will just expand the numbers — and cost — of the

Michael Gove’s plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a beefed-up O-Level are, as Brother Blackburn observed earlier, threatened by the Conservatives’ coalition partners. It seems quite probable that Gove’s proposals will be watered down following the usual “consultation” with the Liberal Democrats. This will, understandably, vex Tories. Gove’s proposals have considerable merit even if, as always, the advantages of his plans are (partially) offset by their drawbacks. As successive governments have discovered it is difficult to build an education system that is demanding, universal and equitable. There must be winners and losers and the argument is chiefly about defining those terms. Today’s developments also demonstrate that neither partner

Opponents of an elected House of Lords have been flexing their muscles in the last few days. Yesterday, Archie Hamilton, a Tory peer and former chairman of the 1922 Committee, and a sceptic of the coalition’s plans for an elected Lords, put down a manuscript amendment on the Financial Services Bill, on which the government was defeated. This means that the bill will have to go through a full committee stage. This is just a little indication of how much more difficult the coalition could find getting its legislation through the upper house once the Lords reform debate has started in earnest. So much of the proceedings in the Lords

A firestorm has torn across Westminster overnight, since Nick Clegg instructed his MPs to abstain from today’s opposition motion demanding that Jeremy Hunt be referred to Sir Alex Allan, the ministerial standards supremo. Numerous Tory backbenchers have taken to the airwaves to condemn their perfidious coalition colleagues. The Mail has the most complete record of the rage. One MP vowed revenge on the liberals. Another described the abstention as ‘an act of war’ before Cameron and Clegg appear before the Leveson inquiry. And Peter Bone said that the Lib Dems ‘are not fit to be in government because they can’t accept collective responsibility.’ Downing Street tells a different tale. ‘There

David Cameron finds himself in the same boat as Dr Frankenstein. Baroness Warsi, a political creation designed to bring Toryism to sceptical ethnic minorities in which Cameron has invested heavily, may have to be neutralised as she is engulfed by two inquiries. Paul Goodman writes of Cameron and Warsi’s awkward relationship in today’s Telegraph, and he makes three observations borne of his experience working with Warsi during the last parliament. They are: 1) That responsibility had been ‘placed on the shoulders of a politician of no independent standing and with zero parliamentary experience.’ 2) That Lady Warsi’s views on extremism aren’t Cameron’s.      3) That Warsi’s position is impossible: ‘condemned to

There is a cracking scoop in today’s Mail on Sunday. An anonymous Tory backbench MP has excoriated George Osborne’s performance as Chancellor. The MP repeats many of the arguments made by Fraser on Thursday, as the latest lines of the Budget were excised. Osborne is, apparently lazy, uninterested in economics and hubristic. The MP implies that Osborne’s mind is not sufficient to pull this off as chancellor. He writes: ”[Nigel] Lawson used to say that he had to work 18 hours a day and virtually gave up alcohol just to keep on top of things when he was Chancellor. And he had a formidable intellect to start with.’ Osborne’s shortcomings,

There is now a general acceptance that the Tories’ 2015 election manifesto will contain a pledge, dare one say a cast-iron guarantee, that voters will be offered a referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU. James first revealed this in his magazine column a few weeks ago. The aim is to see off the surge from UKIP, prevent Labour from opportunistically seeking Eurosceptic ground, and to counter Boris Johnson’s popular adoption of the People’s Pledge. Since then it has been taken as read that George Osborne is responsible for this gambit, which is reasonable given that he is the Tories’ chief strategist, and a likely contender in a future leadership

It has become the conventional wisdom in Westminster that Jeremy Hunt’s career will turn on his appearance before the Leveson Inquiry tomorrow. Friends of Hunt have today been arguing that the Inquiry’s focus should be on how he carried out the quasi-judicial role. They are saying that once appointed to it, Hunt behaved — unlike Vince Cable — properly. They concede that Hunt’s texts to Fred Michel were overly familiar. But they maintain that, unlike Adam Smith’s texts, they gave away nothing about the state of the bid process. On the charge that Hunt misled Parliament, when he told it on the 25th of April that ‘I made absolutely no