Coalition

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

Gove calls on universities to improve A-levels

It may be a sleepy day in Westminster, but Michael Gove and his school reforms have lost none of their brilliant urgency. The schools secretary has today written to Ofqual — the body in charge of regulating the exams system — to ask that universities be allowed to involve themselves, much more closely than ever before, in designing and implementing A-levels. In the letter he sums up his plans thus: ‘I want to see new arrangements that allow Awarding Organisations to work with universities to develop qualifications in a way that is unconstrained — as far as possible — by centrally determined criterion.’ And he adds that this process should

Sunday

James Forsyth

Cameron must take on Whitehall

I doubt that, come the election in 2015, many voters will remember the row about putting VAT on pasties or Francis Maude’s advice to fill up a jerry can with petrol. But what will be on their minds is whether the government is competent and, to use that dread phrase, ‘in touch’ with their day to day struggles. It is for this reason that the key question about the last ten days is whether they make David Cameron realise that the civil service machine just doesn’t work anymore and that he needs to change the way he governs. The early indications on this front are encouraging. Those who have been

Peter Hoskin

Everyone’s a loser

Have the opinion polls ever looked more discouraging, overall, for the Tories during this government? Not that I can remember, although I’m happy to be corrected. Not only does YouGov’s poll for the Sunday Times (£) have Labour ahead by nine points, but there are also some pretty dismal supplementary findings. For YouGov, both David Cameron and the coalition score their lowest approval ratings since the start of this Parliament. For ComRes in the Independent on Sunday, 72 per cent of respondents reckon the government is ‘out of touch with ordinary voters’; 81 per cent say the government created ‘unnecessary panic’ over fuel; and so on. It’s probably no surprise

Peter Hoskin

Cameron needs a proper solution on party funding — and soon

Today’s ‘cash for access’ revelations (£) are, taken individually, less perturbing than last week’s. What we learn is that David Cameron (and other ministers) met with donors on occasions (and at locations) other than those already disclosed, and that Peter Cruddas was more involved with this process than Downing St would have us believe. There is very little added to the most serious allegation from a week ago: that big money donors could gain special insights in the policy process, or even involve themselves in it. But, taken as a whole, today’s revelations are extremely tricky for Cameron. Not only do they keep the story going, but they also highlight

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

A question of motivation

Flitting through the opinion pages this morning, there’s one headline that stands out far more than any other. It’s on Charles Moore’s column for the Telegraph, and it reads, ‘Even I’m starting to wonder: what do this lot know about anything?’ What follows underneath is effectively a catalogue of the ‘small things’ that may accumulate and cause voters to question both the coalition’s motives and its ability. I’d recommend that you read the article in full, but here is one passage from it that deserves highlighting. It concerns Francis Maude’s jerry can line: ‘But now that I have heard the Conservatives’ private explanation, which is being handed down to constituency

Thursday

James Forsyth

Davis takes the opportunity to strike

The fuel tanker strike is fast turning into a critical moment. The government, which has surprisingly few friends in the media, desperately needs something to move the story on from pasties and the politics of class. Cameron, also, has problems with his own side. On the World at One today David Davis, deliberately, hit Cameron where it hurts. He accused the Cabinet of looking like “they’re in a completely different world”. One thing that the post-Budget opinion polls have shown is just how shallow support for the coalition is: there’s still no sense of who Cameron’s people are. But I suspect that if this strike is beaten, then the Tories

Peter Hoskin

Choice — easy to talk about, a slog to deliver

The birth of the White Paper on public service reform was a tortuous business — but, now it’s been out for several months, the government is keen to make the most of it. David Cameron is launching an ‘updated’ version today, with a few new proposals contained therein. He also has an article in the Telegraph outlining those ideas, including the one that seems to be getting the most attention: draft legislation to give people a ‘right to choose’ their public services. It feels like both an important and potentially inconsequential moment all at once. Enshrining choice in the laws of this land is a powerful symbol that people shouldn’t

Peter Hoskin

Fuel for the political bonfire

Pasties and jerry cans — who’d have thought that yesterday’s politics would descend into a roaring debate about two such innocuous items? And still the hullabaloo goes on. Most of today’s front pages lead with one or both of the stories, although I’d say it’s the jerry cans that win out overall. Thanks to Francis Maude’s suggestion that ‘a bit of extra fuel in a jerry can in the garage is a sensible precaution to take,’ we’re seeing headlines such as ‘Pumps go dry as ministers provoke panic’. As with the pasty row, which James discussed yesterday evening, the political dangers of this stretch far beyond the actual matter at

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The politics of pasties

The row over the so-called pasty tax is a proxy. It is really a row about whether David Cameron and George Osborne get what it is like to worry about the family budget each week.   In truth, I suspect that they don’t. But I think the same probably goes for Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the vast majority of journalists. Most of the politics of class in Westminster, as opposed to the country, is the narcissism of small difference.   The best thing the coalition could do now is hold its nerve. The Budget did reveal that support for it is shallow. But, as one leading pollster said to

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Revealed: the grey recovery

Are pensioners doing their bit for the recovery? The agenda of ‘intergenerational fairness’ has arisen in response to the idea that they are not, and ought to be taxed more. Daniel Knowles has made the case, in our cover story this week. Carol Sarler responds to him. In the leader, we reveal some data hitherto undisclosed: the way the oldies are responding to the recession. They’re working as never before — the below graph shows (stripping out foreign-born workers) the change over the past decade: Between 2001 and 2011, all the employment increase for UK-born people was from pension-aged workers, while working-age employment dropped. This challenges the idea of the

Peter Hoskin

Your guide to Osborne’s fiscal rules

George Osborne’s two fiscal rules have been around since his very first Budget, delivered almost two years ago, so they’re hardly news. But they do underpin much of what he’s done since, including last week’s statement, so they’re also worth knowing about. Fraser touched on ome of the detail in a post last weekend, but here’s a supplementary guide for CoffeeHousers: 1) The deficit rule. This is the one that seems to cause the most confusion, perhaps because it has often been simplified — wrongly — as something like ‘eliminate the deficit by the end of this Parliament’. Fact is, the ‘end of this Parliament’ doesn’t come into it. And as for ‘eliminating

Peter Hoskin

Another five-point ‘pledge card’ from Labour

There is no PMQs today, so Ed Miliband is filling the time as gainfully as he can with a speech bashing the Tories. Unsurprisingly, he’s making rather a lot of last week’s Budget — particularly the 50p tax cut and the frozen personal allowance for pensioners — as well as of Peter Cruddas’s recent indiscretions. And so David Cameron will be described as ‘out of touch’ and all that. But there is something else with today’s speech: a prop, in the form of a five-point ‘pledge card’. I don’t think we’ve had one of these from Labour for a couple of years now, although they do tend to reserve them

Tuesday

Jonathan Jones

The government’s keen to avoid the petrol chaos of 2000

So, once again, we face the prospect of disruption at the pumps, as tanker drivers have voted for strike action over their terms of employment. According to the union Unite, their demands are ‘industry minimum standards and industry wide bargaining on pensions, terms and conditions, training and health and safety’. In all, around 2,000 drivers at seven fuel distribution companies voted, with 61 per cent of them in favour. A majority approved strike action at five of the seven firms, while at DHL and Suckling drivers rejected it. The government is, naturally, keen to avoid such a disruptive strike and has been quick to condemn it. Energy Secretary Ed Davey

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ perception problem

Introducing Ed Miliband, Labour’s best hope since Tony Blair. Oh, I’m kidding, of course — but it’s still striking that, this morning, Labour have their biggest lead in a ComRes poll for seven years. And the size of the lead? Ten points, but it could be even bigger. The Peter Cruddas revelations fell right in the middle of ComRes’s polling. Apparently, those interviews conducted after Sunday had Labour with a 17-point lead. Of course, you can slap every caveat across this that you like: we’re still ages away from the election; one poll does not make a trend; the 17-point figure is based on a subset of a subset of

Monday

Matt Cavanagh

Replacing control orders: an unsatisfactory compromise 

A small silver lining for David Cameron in the ‘cash for access scandal’: on a quieter day, today’s report on the coalition’s replacement of control orders with ‘Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures’ (TPIMs) might have got more attention. The report, published by the Independent Reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, makes for difficult reading for ministers. Before looking at the detail of the report, it is worth remembering that control orders were always a second-best policy. Their origin lies in the dilemma, which no government looks likely to solve any time soon, of what to do with someone whom the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism, but who cannot

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s Downing St dinners with donors

14 July 2010, dinner at No.10 Anthony and Carol Bamford Michael and Dorothy Hintze Murdoch and Elsa Maclennan Lord John and Lady Sainsbury Andrew Feldman Jill and Paul Ruddock Mike and Jenny Fraser Michael and Clara Freeman 28 Feb 2011, dinner in the flat David Rowland and Mrs Rowland Andrew and Gabby Feldman 2 Nov 2011, dinner in the flat Mike and Jenny Farmer Ian and Christine Taylor Henry and Dorothy Angest 2 February 2012, dinner in the flat Michael Spencer Sarah, Marchioness of Milford Haven

Peter Hoskin

Cameron u-turns on donor secrecy — but what now?

One distinct feature of the ‘cash for access’ row is that we’ve seen it all before. And not just the glutinous mix of politics and money, but also the debate over what should be done to fix it. Last November, Sir Christopher Kelly, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, released a report into the funding of political parties that featured many of the options we’re hearing today. It landed on 24 recommendations, of which one stood out: ‘the only safe way to remove big money from party funding is to put a cap on donations, set at £10,000’. But to prevent a subsequent shortfall in parties’ funds,

Peter Hoskin

The problem for Cameron is his proximity to the problem

The happiest news for David Cameron this morning is that the ‘cash for access’ story hasn’t quite made it onto every front page. But that’s it, really, so far as the glad tidings are concerned. All the rest is poison for No.10. The Prime Minister is now fighting off calls — including from his own MPs — to release the names of those donors who enjoyed dinner at his Downing Street flat. Labour are, of course, pressing for him to go further than an internal party inquiry, and launch an independent investigation instead. Today’s furore is not going to simmer down after a few days, or even after a few

Sunday

James Forsyth

Transparency, not state funding

Cutting the 50p rate was economically the right thing to do, but the politics of it are hugely complicated. The biggest danger is that it bolsters the sense that the Conservatives are the political wing of the privileged classes. For this reason, it is particularly unfortunate for the Conservatives that it is this Sunday that The Sunday Times has done an expose (£) on how potential donors were being lured with the offer of supper with Cameron and Osborne and the chance to influence policymaking. Labour are already trying to link the two, asking the Prime Minister to ‘provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The borrowing behind Osborne’s Budget

Will George Osborne’s refusal to look again at high levels of state spending become the greatest risk to Britain’s economic stability? There have been plenty of rude comments about the Chancellor’s supposed tactical ineptitude in the weekend press, but he has still managed to keep on borrowing and have almost no one notice. Osborne’s iron commitment is to spending, and a programme of cuts which total just under 1 per cent a year. His commitment to deficit reduction is flexible, as his three Budgets have demonstrated: Osborne spent the election campaign berating Labour for its lack of ambition in halving the deficit in four years. He’s now doing it in