Uk politics

The Tory donor who’ll take a sword to the ‘morons’

Buried deep in the Sunday Times is the Tories’ answer to the problem that is Lord Ashcroft. James Tyler is a fund manager who has donated £250,000 to the Tory party since 2007. He is that rare creature: a multi-millionaire who is both resident and domiciled in merry old England. Tyler’s chief attraction for the Tories is his virulent opposition to what he terms ‘the morons’ – City Boys taking excessive risk and Gordon Brown’s culpability in the financial collapse. It was his subject in a speech to the Adam Smith Institute last year and he remains consumed by it. The Sunday Times reports: ‘His chief bête noire is the

Osborne steps up his game

George Osborne must have changed breakfast cereals, or something, because he’s suddenly a different man.  After the Tories muddied their economic message to the point of abstraction a few weeks ago, there’s now a new clarity and directness about the shadow chancellor’s languange.  Exhibit A was his article in the FT last week.  And Exhibit B comes in the form of his article for the Sunday Telegraph today. It sets out five deceptions that we can expect from the Budget this week, and are all punchy and persuasive in equal measures.  But it’s the first which, as I said on Friday, is the most important: “The Chancellor might be so

Dirty money and dirtier politics

Busted.  Yep, that’s the word which first sprung to mind when I read the Sunday Times’s expose of MPs and their dirty lobbying work.  Hoon, Hewitt, Byers – they’re all revealed as providing influence and access for cash, and a lot of cash at that.  But it’s Byers who comes out of it the worst.  You can read his story here, but suffice to say that it involves boasts about successfully lobbying ministers to change policy, and about parading Tony Blair in front of his clients.  He even describes himself as “a bit like a sort of cab for hire”.  I imagine he’ll pick up fewer fares now. Our democracy

Pot, kettle, black

George Boateng, Alan Milburn and Andrew Smith have written a letter to George Osborne, calling him to task over the contradictions in his policy. ‘It is not clear to us whether these mixed messages are a deliberate attempt to obscure your plans or a symptom of a confused approach to policy but either way the public deserves better.’ Fair enough. Osborne’s policy has become more concrete in recent weeks, but much remains still to do. Peversely, I think they’ve given too much detail, and have been found out because they haven’t seen the nation’s books.The reduction in the amount of cuts that are planned is a case in point. But

Fraser Nelson

No place for porkies in digital politics

We have just witnessed a fascinating glimpse of the use of the internet in elections. This morning, Cameron proposed a unilateral bank tax – moving, I suspect, ahead of what he believes Darling will announce in next week’s budget. Next, at 1.19pm, Will Straw digs up a selectively-edited version of Chris Grayling speaking in his local constituency (put online by the Labour candidate, Craig Montgomery). Straw’s headline: “Calamity Grayling opposes Cameron’s unilateral bank tax.” Now, this headline – a lie – might have worked on a Labour Party press release. But it’s far harder to lie on a blog. Grayling is quoted saying “there is absolutely no point on earth

Clegg’s consigliere: Lib Dems would “sustain the Tories in power”

Everyone has been guessing at what Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats would do if the voters return a hung parliament after the next election. The Lib Dem leader has sent all kinds of mixed signals. But if there is one person worth listening on the party’s intentions it is Julian Astle, the head of CentreForum, Britain’s leading Liberal think-tank, and a former political advisor to Paddy Ashdown. Astle has, in recent years, acted as one of the Lib Dem’s unofficial consiglieri – but one that has never shied away from challenging party orthodoxy. He has, for example, argued against the Liberal Democrat pledge to abolish tuition fees – showing

Ed Miliband’s new investment vs cuts battleground

Ed Miliband certainly isn’t one for holding back, is he?  In an interview with today’s Guardian he discusses what we might expect from the Labour manifesto, and there’s some pretty noteworthy stuff in there: a People’s Bank based around the network of Post Offices; an increase in the minimum wage; a reduction in the voting age to 16; things like that. But, as Sunder Katwala suggests over at Next Left, the most eye-catching passage is when Miliband discusses Free School Meals for all: “The manifesto could well include a pledge to provide free school meals for all children, Miliband says. ‘I think a lot of people would like free school

Why Cameron must never say “deficit”.

Listening to BBC news, it’s striking how they are still using Labour’s politically-charged vocabulary. When the universities are kicking off about their budgets being cut, the BBC newsreaders are told to talk about “investment” in higher education, rather than spending. Why, though? An “investment” would be to put £1 billion of taxpayers’ money into an Emerging Markets fund, and hope it grows. Giving it to universities – many of which serve neither students nor society – is not an investment. But using the word “investment” is Labour code for “good spending”. There is one particularly frequent example if this: the BBC regularly confuse the words “deficit” and “debt” – a

Mr Blond goes to Washington

The Red Tory, Phillip Blond, is spreading the faith in the States. The New York Times’s David Brooks is impressed, very impressed. In fact, he is a proselytising convert. ‘Britain is always going to be more hospitable to communitarian politics than the more libertarian U.S. But people are social creatures here, too. American society has been atomized by the twin revolutions here, too. This country, too, needs a fresh political wind. America, too, is suffering a devastating crisis of authority. The only way to restore trust is from the local community on up.’ Blond’s premise is unanswerable – the twin revolutions of left (prescriptive rights) and right (free market liberalism)

Strike-a-rama<br />

So there we have it: talks between the BA management and Unite have collapsed, and the strike is back on for midnight tonight.  Throw in the news that railway workers have also voted in favour of strikes, and it looks like there will be more transport trouble ahead. Politically-speaking, the government won’t enjoy operating against a backdrop of industrial unrest as the election approaches.  Sure, last year’s postal strikes had no discernible effect on the polls.  But, this time around, the Brown premiership has closer ties with the striking party – and those ties are already front-page news.  Involving Charlie Whelan in Labour’s election campaign is now looking like an

Darling’s Budget takes shape

Yep, it’s that time of the year again – when the government starts briefing about the contents of the Budget.  First up, there’s the news that Alistair Darling may cut projected borrowing figures by £5-10 billion, thanks to higher-than-expected tax receipts.  And then there’s Peter Mandelson’s claim that new tax rises would have to be considered a year from now – implying, perhaps, that there won’t many in this year’s Budget. Many folk around Westminister were surprised that the government was putting out a pre-election Budget – especially given the sorry state of the public finances.  But Labour’s plan is becoming clearer now: lower borrowing figures, no significant tax hikes,

Age doesn’t matter on Coffee House

I’ve just come back from the Guardian’s “changing media” conference, speaking about the future of our industry and The Spectator’s intrepid adventures into cyberspace. I had a few gags in my wee speech, but the biggest laugh was when I said that the average reader of Spectator.co.uk is pushing 50 years old. That took me aback – is it so funny? The average age of the magazine reader is higher still, I said – more laughter.     It seemed deeply unfashionable to the trendies who made up (part of) the audience – surely the future lies in twenty-somethings? I have never bought this, for many reasons. First, The Spectator’s

When does reputational damage become real damage?

So has the Lord Ashcraft saga fouled the Tories’ reputation?  Well, looking at this One Poll survey in PR Week it would seem it has.  52 percent of respondents feel that the party’s reputation hasn’t improved since the start of the year – and 37 percent think that the Ashcroft revelations are the biggest contributing factor to that. But what does all that really mean?  After all, another finding is that 20 percent of respondents believe that the 2006 story about a bike-riding Cameron being trailed by his chauffeur is “still damaging” to the Tories.  That may be so.  But will that kind of reputational “damage” really stop people voting

The Tories try to plug a leak

What a difference two weeks make.  When the Ashcroft story first broke, the Tory response was equal parts sloppy and defensive.  Now, their operation seems altogether more incisive.  William Hague kicked off his Today programme interview by saying that leak of Cabinet Office papers to the BBC was proof of Labour’s “culture of leak, half-truth and spin”.  And Sir George Young has just written to the Cabinet Secretary asking him to hold an inquiry into the matter.  Here’s a copy of the letter: Sir Gus O’Donnell KCB Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Office 70 Whitehall London SW1A 2AS   Sensitive papers prepared by the Cabinet Office for a Select Committee inquiry have

The Lib Dems keep ’em guessing

Last week, Nick Clegg was singing the blues.  But, this week, it’s clear that he’s doing as much as possible to distinguish his party from the others.  Indeed, his performance in PMQs yesterday was a case in point: he went out of his way to attack both Brown and Cameron, and positioned his side as the non-Unite, non-Ashcroft choice.  Given the Lib Dem’s recent history with dodgy donors, that’s a move which – at the very least – is going to ruffle a few red and blue feathers. So it’s striking, today, that the Lib Dems are probably going even heavier on the Ashcroft story than Labour.  While Peter Mandelson

The Tories and Lord Ashcroft – stupidity rather than wrongdoing?<br />

So the Lord Ashcroft story is back on the airwaves, courtesy of a document leaked to the BBC.  That document shows William Hague was “satisfied” with the discussions about Ashcroft’s undertakings in 2000 – so the Tories wheeled the shadow foreign secretary onto the Today programme to explain himself to Evan Davis.  Three things struck me: i) Stupidity rather than wrongdoing.  When the Ashcroft story first broke a couple of weeks ago, Labour seemed eager to turn it into one of Tory wrongdoing – they called for inquiries left, right and centre (indeed, there’s one taking place today), in the apparent hope that they’d find something improper had gone on.

The cost of Brown’s propaganda splurge

Gordon Brown has been shameless in using the tools of state to advance his party political objectives – to him, government is electoral war by other means. Anyone who has turned on a commercial radio station recently will have worked out his latest trick: a mass propaganda splurge before an election campaign. Get on a bus, and it can be 100 percent state adverts – advising how Big Brother will help you get a job, buy a car, see off door-to-door salesmen, give you a job in the prison services – anything you want. We at The Spectator have tracked down the figures that show the extent of all this.