Liberal democrats

Cable teaches Umunna a lesson about the past

If you were in a particularly soggy mood, you’d almost feel sorry for Chuka Umunna. He’d managed to force Vince Cable into the House this afternoon, to announce the coalition’s plans for curbing executive pay a day earlier than planned, and he must have been feeling pretty swell about it. This was, on paper, the initiative seized; a chance to prise open the Business Secretary’s differences with his Tory colleagues. But, in practice, it was something completely different. In practice, Cable dispatched his opponent with ruthless ease. You might even have found yourself in the unthinkable position of cheering him on. A large part of it was Umunna’s petty, needling

James Forsyth

Benefitting the Tories

The longer the row over the benefit cap goes on, the better it will be for the Tories. The cap chimes with the public’s sense of fairness. Polls show massive public support for capping benefits at £26,000 a year for non-working households (the cap won’t apply to the disabled or war widows), and if Labour oppose it, they’ll be handing the Tories a stick with which to beat them. Chris Grayling has already declared that tonight’s vote in the Lords is ‘a test of Ed Miliband’s leadership’. Those who argue that the cap isn’t fair because it will force people to move out of their house are missing the point.

Lib-Dem-a-rama

There are Lib Dems everywhere today, CoffeeHousers, and they’re differentiating like crazy. We had Nick Clegg himself on the Andrew Marr show earlier, waxing lukewarm about Boris Island, and there have been moments of assertiveness from his party colleagues as well. Here’s a quick round-up: 1) Chris Huhne. The embattled energy minister hasn’t taken to the airwaves today, but he is omnipresent nonetheless. A good portion of Clegg’s Marr appearance was devoted to him, with the Deputy Prime Minister stressing that ‘he has been crystal clear that he denies any wrong doing’ — but not quashing the idea that Huhne would lose his job if those denials turn out to

Lansley’s headache becomes a migraine

Now that the three party leaders have each pronounced on capitalism, domestic politics is returning to its familiar battlegrounds. And there are few more familiar battlegrounds, for this government, than the NHS. Earlier this week a couple of unions came out completely against Andrew Lansley’s health reforms, despite his previous efforts to accommodate their concerns. And now we learn that the Commons health select committee, chaired by the former Tory Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell, is set to criticise those reforms as well. According to the Observer, a report that they’re publishing this week will raise a common complaint: that it’s tricky for the NHS to both reorganise and find efficiencies

Will Huhne survive this?

What odds, this morning, on Chris Huhne retaining his ‘Survivor of the Year’ crown at this year’s Spectator Parliamentarian Awards? I only ask because The Sunday Times has dropped its challenge to hang on to its emails with his former wife, Vicky Pryce, about those speeding points. They’ll now be handed over to the police, and shuffled into their evidence folders for this case. The Prime Minister’s spokesman has said that Cameron still ‘has confidence’ in Huhne — but all this does at least raise the prospect of a reshuffle. If the Energy Secretary is found guilty, and had to depart his ministership, then he’s likely to be replaced by

Lansley’s health problems return

Another day, another exercise in obstructionism from the unions. Only this time it’s not Ed Miliband that they’re complaining about. It’s Andrew Lansley and the government’s health reforms. The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives have said that the entire Health Bill should be dropped. They have shifted, as they put it rather dramatically, to ‘outright opposition’. Which must be annoying for Lansley, given how he took time to ‘pause, listen and engage’ last summer, and adjusted his Bill accordingly. That whole process was meant to anaethetise this sort of disagreement, but the tensions clearly persist and could indeed get worse from here. It’s telling that

The Lib Dems’ differentiation strategy, pictured

As revealed in Rachel Sylvester’s Times column (£) today: “Richard Reeves, Mr Clegg’s political adviser, draws a graph that plots ‘Government unity and strength’ against ‘Lib Dem identity’ as two lines, one going down and the other up, between 2010 and 2015. The lines cross in 2012. ‘Every minute of every day between now and the election we will turn up the dial on differentiation,’ says a strategist.” So I’ve pasted my own version of the Reeves graph above to, erm, get it on paper, as it were. Of course, it’s not surprising that the Lib Dems — or, indeed, the Tories — would do more to distinguish themselves as

Gove’s Royal yacht proposal in full

This morning’s Guardian scoop about Michael Gove’s suggestion that the nation should present the Queen with a new Royal yacht for the Jubilee is the talk of Westminster. But the full correspondence indicates that Gove was not proposing any taxpayer funding for a new Britannia.   Gove refers to ‘David Willetts’s excellent suggestion for a Royal Yacht’. This proposal was made in a letter from Willetts to the Prime Minister on the 5th September, which was copied to various colleagues. Willetts writes that Rear Admiral Bawtree sees The Future Ship Project for the 21st Century ‘as a potential replacement for the Royal Yacht Britannia’.   Willetts says that ‘The proposed

Clegg versus vested interests (and the Tories)

‘Another week, another speech about the evils of capitalism.’ So joked Nick Clegg at the start of his speech to Mansion House earlier, and there was some truth in this particular jest. All three parties are jostling to be seen as the harbingers of a new economy at the moment — one that doesn’t reward failure; that benefits everyone ‘fairly’; that won’t seize up as the old one did; that etc, etc. Ed Miliband sketched out his rather insipid vision for this economy last week; David Cameron will hope to do a better job later this week. Today, though, was the Deputy Prime Minister’s turn. So what did Clegg say?

Simon Hughes speaks out against the benefit cap

In the Cameroon effort to redefine the politics of fairness, the benefit cap of £26,000 a year is key. When George Osborne announced it in his 2010 conference speech, he explained it – rightly – as a matter of fairness that ‘no family on out-of-work benefits will get more than the average family gets by going out to work’.   The Tories were also aware of just how potent a wedge issue it would be. If Labour opposed the cap, they would be in favour of some households in which no one is working receiving more from the state than the average salary people achieve by working. This is, to

Uncivil service

Political cultures differ. In Iran, for example, hyperbole is expected in all political conversations. So slogans always call for ‘Death to the US’, and nothing less. In Britain, of course, the use of language is more even-tempered, but other rules apply. Blaming the civil service for failure is considered OK, but charging an individual official, even a Permanent Secretary, for the same is considered off-limits. If a minister were to try it, then he’d be accused of trying to pass the buck on towards defenceless officials. But, as Camilla Cavendish points out in today’s Times (£), failure is often also the fault of senior officials who, despite problems in the

Where will the Welfare Reform Bill go from here?

Yep, it’s that battle over ‘fairness’ again. Labour peers, along with a decent scattering of Lib Dems and independents, believe that some of the government’s money-saving welfare measures are unfair – which is why they voted them down in the Lords last night. Whereas the government, of course, thinks quite the opposite. Their proposed limits to Employment and Support Allowance are designed, they say, to affect those who either can work or who have a relatively good level of income already, while keeping the ‘safety net’ in place for everyone. And that’s fair not just to benefit claimants, but also to other taxpayers who are contributing towards the system. Which

Ed Miliband lives to flop another day

Miliband survives! That news should steady Labour nerves. For today at least. Their leader has the knack of turning near-certain defeat into absolutely-certain catastrophe, but he bumbled through PMQs this afternoon without suffering a serious setback. He has so little ground from which to attack the government that he had to lead on a niche issue. Rail fares. He asked the prime minister why the operating companies have managed to hike prices by 11 per cent on the busiest routes. Cameron: ‘Because of a power given to them by the last Labour government.’   With that lethally terse response the PM sat down. To his credit, Miliband wasn’t rattled. But

What’s more important to Cameron: actual fairness or presentational fairness?

James has already blogged the Sunday Telegraph’s interview with David Cameron, but some other things stand out from it — and not just the PM’s unthinking attack on Ed Balls either, for which he has since apologised. Take these paragraphs on tax, for instance: ‘The Prime Minister effectively rules out any move towards a “mansion tax” — a levy on high-priced properties proposed by the Liberal Democrats — or indeed any new tax on wealth. “I don’t believe, generally speaking, we should be looking at endless additional taxes.” However, he signals that the 50p top rate of income tax, on earnings above £150,000, will remain for the time being, despite

The scale of Clegg’s Lords challenge

Tucked away on page 15 of today’s Times, there’s an insightful story about Lords reform (£) by Roland Watson. And it’s insightful not just for the new information it contains, but also for the familiar truth it confirms: reforming the House of Lords is going to be one helluva difficult task. You see, while both halves of the coalition committed to a fully- or ‘mainly-elected’ upper chamber in their respective manifestos, only one half of the coalition is particularly eager to force it through now. As the Times story says, Nick Clegg’s proposed Bill has already endured a ‘serious re-writing’ to make it more palatable all round, but even so:

Dave talks film, finances and Europe

It was the second of the Today Programme’s New Year’s interviews with the three party leaders today; this one with David Cameron. And there was plenty to digest from it. So much, in fact, that we thought we’d bash out a transcript, so that CoffeeHousers can read it through for themselves. That’s below, but before we get there it’s worth highlighting a couple of things that Cameron says. First, his point that ‘we’ve seen a level of reward at the top that just hasn’t been commensurate with success’, which is another volley in the battle against the ‘undeserving rich’ that James mentioned yesterday. And then his extended admission, in reference

The coming battle over the ‘undeserving rich’

Who can be toughest on the ‘undeserving rich’ is shaping up to be one of the main political battlegrounds of 2012. David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s comments today on tax avoidance are an attempt to get ahead of this debate.    Clegg, though, is keen to make this issue his own. As I say in the politics column this week, he is planning a big speech later this month on ‘responsible capitalism’. He will use it to argue that there need to be more checks and balances within companies and call for more shareholder power over executive pay. One Cleggite tells me, in reference to the Labour leader’s conference speech

Where ‘constructive engagement’ could become destructive

Those ‘cross-party talks’ over social care haven’t started quite yet, but the positioning has already begun in earnest. In response to a letter by a gaggle of experts in today’s Telegraph — which urges politicians to ‘seize this opportunity for urgent, fundamental and lasting reform’ — both David Cameron and Andy Burnham have tried to sound utterly reasonable and mutually accommodating. The word ‘constructive’ is being deployed generously by all sides. In his interview with the Today Programme, however, Burnham did also hint at what’s likely to be the main area of contention. ‘Councils right now have been given brutal cuts to adult social care budgets,’ he observed, ‘and it’s