Liberal democrats

Guido’s got the inside track that the Beeb have been told not to take the weekend off, and the Tory lead has been cut to five points in the Telegraph’s Ipsos Mori poll. A five point lead is hung parliament territory and Labour could win the most seats – further evidence, as if any were needed, that the force is with Labour. There are a couple of other reasons he may go now. Peter Hain has written an article for the Guardian, wooing Lib Dem voters (more on that later) – could that article be a prelude to the big announcement? Fourth quarter growth figures have been revised upwards, to

He’ll have to because nobody else will. As Robert Peston says ‘Poor RBS, poor Britain’ – today’s figures are catastrophic. Peston’s been digging and the news gets worse: ‘But perhaps the most chilling numbers are these: we as taxpayers put in £25.5bn of new equity into this bank last autumn, the second instalment of the £45.5bn we have invested in total; but over the past year, the equity of this bank has increased by less than £16bn to £80bn. So almost £10bn of the £25.5bn we’ve only just put into RBS has already been wiped out by losses. Which, I think, is probably the best measure of the degree to

With even Michael Portillo predicting a hung parliament, what would Britain’s post-election government actually look like if the Tories did not secure an over-all majority.   The Tories could form a minority government, hoping to persuade enough MPs from other parties, but principally the Liberal Democrats, to vote with them on the key issues. Such a government would be inherently unstable, lurching from vote to vote and dependent on the relationship between a Prime Minister Cameron and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, as well as between George Osborne, the would-be Chancellor, and Vince Cable, who many think is a more qualified potential occupant of No 11. Party leaders would

Two seriously worrying polls for the Conservatives today. One is a Sunday Times/YouGov poll, showing a Labour recovery reducing the Tory lead to six points  well into hung parliament territory and the lowest since December 2008. The other is a PoliticsHome poll in the News of the World, according to which: Cameron’s approval rate has been steadily falling, and Brown’s similtaneously rising – the difference between them has halved, in recent months, from 90 points to 45 points. If the election is a 39-33 split, then the Tories end up with just ten more seats than Labour and are dependent on coalition with the LibDems. A result like this, against

Contain yourselves, CoffeeHousers.  I know that we’re all really excited about today’s Parliamentary vote on an alternative vote referendum (it is, after all, something our Prime Minister has described as “a rallying call for a new progressive politics”), but it isn’t a done deal just yet.  That “new politics” might still be put on hold. Indeed, things could get messy for Brown in just a few hours time.  You’d expect him to win the vote, what with Labour’s majority and the creeping sense that Downing St very much wants this to happen.  But even the slightest hint of a Labour rebellion, or of Lib Dem disquiet, and the story could

Gordon Brown is usually at his most patronising when confronting Nick Clegg. Last week, however, hectoring gave way to affection. Brown was almost tender. Of course, this sudden change has an obvious explanation. Brown and Clegg are brothers in arms: devotees of electoral reform, or so the Road Block would have us believe. Robert McIlveen laid counter-arguments against Brown’s opportunism and Boris Johnson repeats them in his Telegraph column today, concluding: ‘There is one final and overwhelming reason why Britain should not and will not adopt PR – that it always tends to erode the sovereign right of the people to kick the b––––––s out.’ The Lib Dems have been

On Thursday, the Legg report will be published along with Sir Ian Kennedy’s judgements on those MPs who have appealed against Sir Thomas Legg’s judgement of how much they should repay. The Commons will also be publishing a record of all lunches, dinners and receptions MPs held for outside groups in the Palace of Westminster in the last five years. This is going to be an intriguing document and one that I suspect could set off another series of scandals. First of all, people will cross check this list against the list of electoral donations and there are sure to be some ‘cash for access’ controversies. There will also be

The government broke off relations with the Muslim Council of Britain over Daoud Abdullah, its deputy secretary-general, signing the Istanbul declaration, which the government believed encouraged attacks on British forces if they attempted to enforce a weapons blockade on Gaza. Last week, the government retreated; inviting the MCB back in despite Daoud Abdullah’s signature remaining on the document. The question now is whether the Tories are going to go along with this surrender. The first test of this is a fundraiser that the MCB is holding on the 22nd of February. The invitation boasts that Jack Straw and Nick Clegg will be attending and says that Chris Grayling has been

So Gordon is selling himself as a champion of the middle classes.  There is, as various commentators have pointed out, more than a little bit of hyposcrisy about that.  But the thing that strikes me most about our PM’s change of tack is how similar it is to Darling’s honesty over cuts last weekend.   Like Darling’s admission, it represents some sort of progress for Labour: on paper, the politics of aspiration should play better – and have wider appeal – than the crude class war that they’ve engaged in recently.  But, also like Darling’s admission, it highlights just how inconsistent the government have been over the last few months. 

There’s something quite refreshing about David Cameron’s plan to offer a tax break to married couples.  It says, simply: this is what I believe.  And it does so in spite of polling data and strategic arguments to the contrary.  This is one area where you certainly couldn’t accuse the Tory leader of caring too much about what other people think.  But refreshing or not, that doesn’t make it good policy.  Of course, there’s a tonne of empirical data which demonstrates the benefits of marriage.  That’s important and persuasive.  But, as I’ve written before, there are reasons to doubt the efficacy of a tax break in particular.  And I don’t think

After the hubbub about Hewitt ‘n’ Hoon’s plot to unseat Gordon Brown, PMQs is perhaps a distant memory. It’s certainly made my review a little later than usual. But better late than never, as today’s clash was a bloody and intriguing contest with both party leaders on combative form. Cameron seemed unusually relaxed, glib and self-confident. Perhaps he’d been tipped off about the plot. Or perhaps he’d been thrilled by the sight of his beautifully groomed coiffure in the bathroom mirror this morning. If he spent as much time on his manifesto as he did on his hair there’d be no talk of a hung parliament. But this didn’t seem

Yesterday was all Labour, Tories, Labour, Tories.  So, today, enter the Lib Dems.  Nick Clegg has an article in this morning’s Times which, to be fair, is actually quite noteworthy.  His main point?  That the Lib Dems are a party in their own right, and will not be engaging in “under-the-counter deals” with the Big Two: “This year’s general election is likely to be the most open and unpredictable in a generation. So you have a right to know where we stand. I can promise voters wondering whether to put an “X” against the Liberal Democrats that there are no backroom deals or under-the-counter “understandings” with either of the other

Woah, hang on there. A Labour and Conservative coalition in the event of a hung Parliament? Crazy talk, surely? But that’s what Martin Kettle devotes his column to in today’s Guardian. It’s only unthinkable, he writes, “until you start thinking about it.” Hm. So rather than dismissing the prospect out of hand, I thought I’d register one particular complaint against it. While many of Kettle’s arguments about the fracturing of the party system and the blurring lines between the main parties make sense, the idea that they might coalesce in the aftermath of this year’s election ignores one crucial factor: the Labour leadership. Let’s just say, for the sake of Kettle’s argument, that Gordon Brown achieves

So there we have it.  There will be televised election debates between the three main party leaders during the next election campaign, after all.  The first will be on ITV, then there’ll be one each on Sky and the BBC.  Talk about good TV for political anoraks. Like Tim Montgomerie and Mike Smithson, I suspect that Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be happiest with the news.  Both of them, particularly Brown, need potential game-changing events like this to make some progress in the polls.   As for Cameron, he’d probably be better off not giving his opponents a chance to make inroads into the Tories’ poll lead.  But he

According to a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s People (reported by the paper’s political editor, Nigel Nelson, on Twitter): “1% more people would rather have G.Brown than D.Cameron round for Christmas dinner.” There’s better news elsewhere in the poll for the Tories: the gap between them and Labour is back in double digits.  It’s the Tories on 40 percent, Labour on 28, and the Lib Dems on 18.

Well, Nick Clegg’s reponse to the Labour chief whip’s Christmas card made me smile: “Both myself and Nick Brown have good reason to be embarrassed. I posed for pictures in ridiculous fancy dress 20 years ago – and he is an MP for the Labour Party.” Hat-tip for the picture: the FT’s Jim Pickard

So MPs have until the end of today to declare whether they’re appealing against Sir Thomas Legg’s request that they repay certain expenses claims.  Three have already done just that, one from each of the main parties: Jeremy Browne, Frank Cook and Bernard Jenkin.  You imagine that more may follow throughout the day, especially given the rumblings that the Legg review contained a fair few errors. Now, it’s only fair that MPs have a right of appeal – but you still wonder what it will mean for the expenses saga more generally.  From the public’s perspective, a swathe of appeals could look like MPs resisting reform.  From Parliament’s perspective, it