Uk politics

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

The coalition’s big choice on Incapacity Benefit

The coalition’s plan for moving claimants off Incapacity Benefit and into work is, at heart, an admirable one.  For too long, IB has been used a political implement for massaging the overall unemployment figures, and it has allowed thousands of people to wrongly stay unemployed at the taxpayers’ expense.  There is, quite simply, a moral and economic case for reform. But that doesn’t mean that Professor Paul Gregg’s comments in the Times today should be ignored.  Gregg is one of the architects of the current system for moving claimants off IB, and he raises stark concerns about how that system is currently operating.  The main problem, he says, is the

Peter Hoskin

The side effects of the AV debate

Ok, so the general public doesn’t much care for this AV referendum – and understandably so.  But at least it has added a good slug of uncertainty into the brew at Westminster.  Already, curious alliances are emerging because of it – Exhibit A being Jack Straw and the 1922 Committee.  And no-one’s really sure about what the result of the vote will be, or whether it will deliver a killing blow to the coalition itself. But regardless of what happens on 5 May 2011, it’s clear that one group is already benefitting from the prospect of a referendum: the Labour leadership contenders.  Until now, they’ve been distinguished by their indistinguishability

Friday

Peter Hoskin

David Davis: the coalition hasn’t got a way of negotiating with the Tory party

I doubt No.10 will be all that charmed by David Davis’s comments on Straight Talk with Andrew Neil this weekend, but they should certainly take note of them.  They contain some substantive points about the government’s relationship with Tory backbenchers, and points which Davis is not alone in making.  The key passage comes when he discusses the watered-down capital gains tax hike: “I don’t think a victory over [the Lib Dems], I mean, it’s quite interesting, we tried to design this, whatever you want to call it, I don’t know whether it’s a rebellion or a difference of view, to really be a precursor to what’s going to happen over

David Blackburn

Hague is an administrative revolutionary, not the second Canning

For a man of such rhetorical talents, William Hague’s foreign policy speech was strikingly bland. His eloquence escaped him and he sounded like David Miliband – earnest, conscientious and often unintelligible. The similarity didn’t end there. Hague was very pleased with his observation that a multi-lateral world requires bi-lateral relationships; but even David Miliband had grasped that – who could forget his stable shin-dig in India? Hague’s speech was dominated by the expression ‘network world’ and he said that Britain’s diplomacy must address new strategic needs. In fact, Hague said very little that was new. Britain’s relationship with America would remain close; European alliances would rest on co-operation not coercion;

Patrick Nolan

Conquering the welfare Leviathan

Among the biggest of challenges facing the new government is the need to make welfare more affordable while continuing to support people in need. There is a strong case for lowering the welfare bill. At around £200 billion the government spends more on welfare than anything else. Spending on pension benefits alone is £77 billion and forecast to grow to £240 billion (in today’s money) by 2050. As George Osborne has noted if the welfare bill is not cut then eliminating the deficit will mean that cuts to other departmental budgets will have to be much deeper. But some of the most important reasons for welfare reform are non-financial. Although

Peter Hoskin

Report: David Cameron will campaign against AV

ITV’s Lucy Manning reports that David Cameron will campaign against AV ahead of next year’s referendum  In one respect, it’s not surprising news: this is what the Tories have always said they’d do.  But given recent rumblings and speculation to the contrary, it’s still worth noting down. If the Tories don’t change their minds before 5 May 2011, the question is how loud and proud that ‘No’ campaign will be.  If Cameron keeps it low-key, then it might win him some goodwill with the Lib Dems.  But, equally, it could leave him stranded between a strong Yes campaign on one side, and more vocal No campaigns on the other –

James Forsyth James Forsyth

A decision fraught with risk

The Coalition’s decision to hold the referendum on AV so early is fraught with risk. If AV is defeated at the ballot box, then Nick Clegg will face huge pressure from elements of his party to quit the Coalition. The argument would go that all the Lib Dems were getting out of staying was providing cover to the Tories on cuts. But if AV passes, then there’ll be some Lib Dems who’ll say that they’ve got the best thing they can out of the Coalition and so they might as well head back into opposition to try and restore the distinctiveness of their brand. On the No side, I expect

Peter Hoskin

Three questions about the AV referendum

So now, thanks to Left Foot Forward and reports this morning, we know: the referendum on an alternative vote system will take place on 5 May 2011, the same day as same day as the English local, Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections.  There are plenty of ins and outs, whys and wherefores – most of which are neatly summarised by David Herdson over at Political Betting.  But here are three questions that pop into my head, and are worth idly pondering on this sluggish Friday morning: 1) Does this strengthen the divide or weaken it?  Holding the AV referendum on the same day as local and regional elections was

Thursday

James Forsyth

Afghan manoeuvres

Ming Campbell’s comments today show that some Liberal Democrats do believe in Fox hunting. Responding to Fox’s speech in Washington yesterday and his remark that Britain would be among the last to leave Afghanistan, Campbell told the Daily Politics that the “intervention was unhelpful, indeed the government thought it was unhelpful.” “It would have been better if these remarks had not been made.” Dr Fox’s allies are less than pleased by Ming’s grandstanding. They take the not unreasonable view that the Secretary of State for Defence has every right to express his views on a war that this country is fighting without being second guessed by a backbencher from the

Peter Hoskin

Sleeping beauties

We can’t really let today go by without mentioning Nicholas Cecil’s extraordinary scoop in the Standard.  Here’s a snippet: “MPs are sleeping secretly in the Commons after being stripped of their second home allowance. A handful of parliamentarians are bedding down at Westminster during the week because they are now banned from claiming on the taxpayer for a hotel, a rented flat, or a mortgage on a second home. But they want to stay anonymous for fear they will be evicted on health and safety grounds. “I’m not complaining. I’m just getting on with it,” said a Tory who asked not to be named. “I’m desperately trying to do the

Peter Hoskin

Miliband stamps out an English battleground

Well, CoffeeHousers, I’ve read David Miliband’s article for the latest New Statesman so that you don’t have to.  And let me tell you: it’s classic Miliband the Elder.  Sure, the central theme – how Labour can reconnect in the English heartlands – is perceptive enough, and it runs through a few home truths which Miliband’s opponents have avoided thus far.  But what could have been a passionate rallying cry ends up reading a little cool and dreary. I mean, “Labour needs a revived politics of Englishness rooted in a radical and democratic account of nationhood”?  Maybe so, but only the wonkiest of wonks will be nodding along enthusiastically. Nevertheless, one

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

What happened to the Tory manifesto?

During the love-in at the start of the coalition, no one really asked which Tory pledges bit the dust. It becomes relevant now: the Tory pledge to reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands,” for example, was in their manifesto but not in the coalition agreement. Although verbally restated later, it is still seen as being a flexible pledge due to its absence in that document. There is no record of what was dropped, so we at CoffeeHouse have provided one below. I won’t say it’s a rip-roaring read. But for those who think manifestos mean something, it’s good to have on the record. UPDATE: I agree with Mycroft, below,

David Blackburn

A new foreign policy?

An inventive article from Ben Brogan this morning, arguing that a new vigorously Tory foreign policy is emerging. I can be a little slow sometimes, but I haven’t noticed anything new or Tory about Britain’s foreign policy. Brogan records that the Prime Minister has let it be known that British troops will withdraw from Afghanistan by 2015. Cameron said nothing of the sort; he said he wanted British troops out of Afghanistan by 2015, something quite different. Contrary to expectations, relations with Europe are flourishing under the coalition, as pragmatic government has superseded bellicose opposition. William Hague hopes to influence the EU closely. In a speech today, he will attempt

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

PS don’t forget the PPS

In this exchange from the “Yes, Minister” TV series Sir Humphrey welcomes the newly-appointed James Hacker to his department. ‘James Hacker: Who else is in this department? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well briefly, Sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary, I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretary are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under Secretaries and you

Max Chambers

Law and order

Along with defence, there’s one other area where rolling back the state doesn’t come naturally to Conservatives: criminal justice. The massive cuts looming on the horizon for the criminal justice system would have been politically toxic for any party to deliver, but for the traditional party of law and order there will be a special discomfort.   Ken Clarke’s speech this morning was much less exciting for the penal reform/abolitionist lobby than the morning papers indicated. Echoing Nick Herbert’s speech to Policy Exchange last week, the Justice Secretary rightly said that that the test of a successful criminal justice system was not simply the number of people you lock up

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

Harman in need of a peace-pod

Hattie came to PMQs in one of her ‘visible-from-space’ frocks. Today’s fashion statement from the acting Labour leader introduced honourable members to a shade of electric turquoise which may well be new to Newtonian physics. It was best enjoyed through sunglasses to prevent retinal scarring. Ms Harman had just one political weapon today – the leaked report that the budget would cost 1.3m public sector jobs – and she deployed it with little guile and maximum predictability. Cameron dodged the question altogether and shifted attention to an OBR prediction that 2.5m more private sector jobs will be created. Hattie tried slicing the cake different ways. Did the leak originate from 

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Are you serious Mr Miliband?

Just before the voting on the Budget started, all Tory and Lib Dem MPs received a letter from David Miliband calling on them to vote against it. Attached to the letter were more than 1500 other signatories who Miliband had got to sign on to his letter online. It was a gimmick, but not a bad one. However, in an idle moment one Tory MP started to leaf through the list of signatures and was amused to find that the petition had been signed by one R U Serious:

Peter Hoskin

The case against cutting prison numbers

With all the hoo-haa about Ken Clarke’s plan to reduce prison numbers, it’s worth disinterring the Spectator’s leader column on the subject from a couple of weeks ago.  Here it is, for the benefit of CoffeeHousers: One of the many ludicrous Liberal Democrat policies which Tories enjoyed rubbishing during the general election was their plan to send far fewer criminals to prison. But, alas, it seems that some bad ideas are infectious. Last week Ken Clarke, the new Justice Secretary, suggested that we can no longer afford to keep so many prisoners — so we should sentence fewer, and for shorter periods. Why, he asked, is the prison population twice

Peter Hoskin

About those job losses…

Much ado about the Guardian’s scoop this evening: a leaked Treasury document which forecasts that up to 1.3 million jobs could be lost as a result of the spending cuts in the Budget.  Or, to put it in the words of the document itself: “100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts.” You can expect Labour to get stuck into these numbers, and the fact that they were previously hidden from public view, with no uncertain relish.  Ed Balls has already described them as “chilling”.  But it’s worth making a couple of points, by way of context: i)

Tuesday

Dale Bassett

The case for elected police commissioners

This afternoon I had the privilege to speak in a panel discussion at the National Policing Conference in Manchester, held jointly by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and the APA (Association of Police Authorities).  The subject was the future of policing – a particularly important one given the potential 25 per cent cut in budgets the service is expecting.   To the credit of the Police, they’re already pioneering examples of the kind of changes that can save a lot of money while seeing services improve. Surrey, for example, has greatly increased the proportion of civilian staff in its force, acknowledging that they can do many jobs better and