Liberal democrats

Growing opposition to the alternative vote

The indispensible Anthony Wells has news of the latest You Gov poll. Voting intentions are by the way at this stage of the parliament, but the Tory lead holds at 7 points on 42 percent. Of far more interest is the narrowing gap of those in favour of the alternative vote. As Anthony notes: ‘Up until now it has shown a pretty consistent lead for AV of around about 10 points, in last night’s figures referendum voting intention had narrowed to AV 39%, FPTP 38%. Very, very early days of course and there is no reason to think polling this far out has any predictive power, but the initial lead

Clueless Chuka

Given that the Labour leadership campaign is so dull, we should thank Chuka Umunna for cheering us up with his comedy economic analysis. Now on the Treasury Select Committee, he has regaled us with an ‘Open letter to George Osborne’ where he makes many entertaining points. It’s worth looking at, because it sums up a few errors swirling around the Labour benches.   1)   During our exchange, you insisted your budget was “progressive”… you stood by your decision to apply a 10 percent cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on JSA for more than 12 months. Osborne has to use words like “progressive” to assuage the

Clegg and the coming of liberal conservatism

Nick Clegg is a liberal, and just in case you’d forgotten that fact he gave a speech today in which the word features some 64 times.  As it was made at the think-tank Demos, it’s a touch more wonkish than his recent efforts on cutting back the state – but still worth a read for those who want a general sense of how the coalition sees itself. The main purpose of the speech is, I suspect, political.  It says, to any of Clegg’s sceptical colleagues, that the government’s agenda is liberal, liberal, liberal all the way.  From cutting state spending to Michael Gove’s schools reforms, the goal is to “disperse

Cable manoeuvring on the road to nowhere

Vince Cable has floated a solution to university finance, but he’s also politicking and I wonder what David Willetts, the Higher Education Minister, makes of it. The coalition agreement does not mention a graduate tax. The agreement merely states that the government will wait for the Browne Report into university funding. When in opposition, the Liberal Democrats did not support Browne because he was likely to recommend increasing tuition fees. Cable has pre-empted Browne in partisan spirit. If he can convince the government to adopt a graduate tax, he will have abolished tuition fees, which would do him no end of good with Lib Dem voters. It’s typical Cable: eye-catching,

Alex Massie

A Lib Dem Surge!

Surprise, surprise: Liberal Democrats like being in government. This, mind you, is only a surprise if you believe the carefully-constructed line, much-loved by the Labour party and some sections of the press, that Liberal Democrat members are appalled by Nick Clegg’s decision to take the party into government in partnership with those wicked Conservatives. This, we’re often told, was some kind of betrayal even though Clegg’s always been happy to concede that he’s a liberal not a Social Democrat. True, there’s polling which suggests there’s been some decline in Lib Dem support (though not for the coalition parties combined vote) but these polls are, I think, all-but meaningless given that

Meetings galore

All of a sudden, the coalition partners can’t get enough of their backbenchers.  Last night, it was David Cameron meeting the 1922 Committee to reassure them about their mutual relationship.  And, today, Nick Clegg is going on an “away day” with that half of his party which isn’t in government, all to explain his close affair with the Tories.  Presumably, flowers and chocolates will be involved. The Clegg meeting, in particular, is worth dwelling on – and Sam Coates and Greg Hurst do just that in an insightful article for this morning’s Times.  For those who can’t travel beyond the paywall, here’s the line which stands out: “Lib Dem MPs

Labour still don’t get it

As Pete asked at the weekend, will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems? Ed Miliband has mumbled that he wouldn’t oppose a possible Lib-Lab coalition, but that’s about it. According to the irreproachable Lord Mandelson, David Miliband and Ed Balls were opposed to a coalition and presumably remain so. Labour has greeted the government’s Liberal Democrats with jeers and contempt, particularly over the VAT rise, which passed last night without amendment. Now, John Denham, an arch-pluralist who has long dreamt of forming a ‘progressive coalition’, has told the Fabian Review that Nick Clegg would be the price of any Lib-Lab coalition. Only Mandelson seems to have grasped the brilliance

Will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems?

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

Montgomerie’s Law & the Coalition’s Future

Tim Montgomerie makes a prediction: Call it Montgomerie’s Law of the Coalition (launched in The Times (£)). This Coalition is heading for breakdown or it’s heading Leftwards. The Left of the Liberal Democrats will demand an end to the Coalition if Nick Clegg doesn’t get more and more concessions from David Cameron. If the Coalition fails it will be broken by Liberal Democrats in left-leaning constituencies. Think Scotland, Wales, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Liverpool. Think Ming Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Simon Hughes. Well, maybe. And, sure, the government is not likely to tilt to the right. But that doesn’t mean it can’t maintain its current, moderate course. Yes, that means there will be

Cable’s aspirations

“Aspiration” tends to be a convenient word for politicians, in the sense that any policy that they can’t implement now can be glossed over as something they want to do in future. But, if Vince Cable’s interview with the Times is anything to go by, it could become a troublesome word for the coalition. Speaking about the Lib Dem’s election promise to scrap university tuition fees, Cable says that: “It is an aspiration, but we’re highly constrained financially and we have got to try to work out ways of doing it. I’m not Father Christmas.” But nowhere does the coalition agreement say that scrapping tuition fees is an “aspiration”. Instead,

Bring on people power – but Cameron will still need to get his hands dirty

You’ve got to hand it to him: David Cameron knows when to dish out the charm. Just days on from news about cuts to their pay-offs, he is today giving a speech to civil servants in which he purrs that they “the envy of the world”. Not that he withholds the stick, though. The meat of the speech is a series of measures designed to make the operations of Whitehall more transparent and its actors more accountable. Which, lest it need saying, is something I’m all in favour of. But it’s worth noting that much of this “post-bureaucratic” agenda will still require strong central control to work properly. Take Cameron’s

Just pointing out…

There is a great letter in The Times this morning from Saul Gresham of West Glamorgan. He writes: ‘Surely we should have several options from which to choose in the referendum? It seems incongruous to be voting by first past the post on such a matter.’ Touché.

Clegg believes

There’s an snappy little anecdote in Steve Richard’s column today, which bears repeating in these parts: “Clegg is in a similar position in relation to his party as Tony Blair was over Iraq. Blair used to go around telling his colleagues: ‘It’s worse than you think. I believe in the policy.’ Clegg is known to have told friends after George Osborne’s Budget: ‘The good news is I’m not a patsy. The bad news is I believe in the Budget.'” Nothing I’ve seen or heard over recent weeks has dented my opinion from before the election: that Clegg is, in relative terms, a fiscal hawk with a strong reformist bent.  Indeed,

The malleability of ringfences

Rachel Sylvester is on top form in the Times today, and I’d urge CoffeeHousers to delve behind the paywall (or borrow someone’s copy of the paper) to read her column.  Its central point?  That ministers are discovering ingenious ways to exploit and undermine the ringfenced health and international development budgets.  The Home Office is saying that drug rehab programmes should fall under health spending.  The Foreign Office is trying to pass off some of their spending as development, and so on.  And, crucially, the Treasury seems to be going along with it: “The Treasury seems to be tacitly endorsing this approach, with officials emphasising that departmental boundaries are artificial.” As

Gove puts democracy ahead of bureaucracy

Michael Gove’s welcome freeze on Building Schools for the Future will invite tomorrow’s press to claim only that this means 715 various building projects are not being carried out. In fact, what it means is that the fund will be open for the Swedish-style new schools. The budget will be transferred from bureaucratic priorities to those of communities, as expressed by those who wish there to be a new school. One of the great tragedies of the politicians’ stranglehold over education is that they just love huge, shiny buildings to point at, complete with new whiteboards and all the latest gadgets. The Swedish experiment has shown the parents care not

Boris is keeping the faith

Both Tim Montgomerie and Bernard Jenkin report that Boris has not lost the faith: the Mayor of London is opposed to ditching first past the post. This runs contrary to what was reported in the Times this morning. It makes sense: Johnson’s contempt for coalition government is open – it is highly unlikely that he’d advocate a reform that might entrench it. It also adds to the growing narrative of Boris Johnson protector of the traditional right. Cameron’s position on voting reform is intriguing. As Iain Martin notes it’s as clear as mud, and deliberately so. The preservation of the coalition is everything. Cameron is far too canny to campaign

Alex Massie

DC & AV

A droll post from Iain Martin on David Cameron’s murky views on changing the voting system. It is possible, as Iain says, that Cameron’s public position – he’s in favour of keeping FPTP is, shockingly, also his private and unchanging view: Theory Three? Outlandish this one. Cameron is wedded to first-past-the-post, thinking of it as a system that has stood his party and country in good stead — putting the voters in charge rather than the political class meeting in semipermanent session to stitch-up the next coalition to protect its interests. (This seemed to be his view a few months ago). But to save the system, he has to con

The coalition’s spending cuts are forcing Labour into a corner

It’s becoming a familiar drill: another morning in Westminster accompanied by new spending cuts from the government.  Today, it’s the schools budget which is being trimmed to the tune of £1.5 billion, with the cancellation of Labour’s plan to rebuild some 700 schools.  But there are also reports of cuts to civil service pay-offs, and even of legislation to make it tougher for the unions to protest those cuts.  After yesterday’s news, the Treasury is clearly on a roll. Of course, the main political reason for all this early activity is that the coalition hopes to get much of it out of the way while the public is still on

Alex Massie

The Liberal Unionist Club

Welcome to the Liberal Unionist club, Fraser! It won’t surprise regular readers that I think your latest post is spot-on. While we’re taking names, let’s also add John Rentoul to the list. His Independent on Sunday column this week concludes: This is where I think that Cameron is misunderstood. It seems to be generally assumed that, for him, the coalition is flag of convenience, hoisted to help navigate out of the tricky situation produced by the election. I think not. I think he sees it as a chance for a permanent change in favour of liberal conservatism, a label he has always been happy to apply to himself. The coalition