Politics

The other day, George Osborne was walking with his wife across the courtyard of the Royal Academy. In the evening sunshine, the Chancellor spotted another Tory MP in the opposite corner. The MP was on his mobile: a wave would have seen courtesies observed. But Osborne, who was dressed for dinner, strode over and waited from a polite distance as the call was concluded. His eagerness to talk was particularly striking since the MP had been a frequent critic of Osborne’s handling of the economy. When the conservation started it was clear that the MP’s criticisms were the reason Osborne had come over. The Chancellor, in buoyant mood, wanted to

It’s the funniest scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. A parable-seeking mob gathers outside Brian’s home. They think he’s the messiah and will dispense some wisdom they might live their lives by. Instead he tells them to think for themselves, because ‘You are all individuals’. ‘We are all individuals,’ the mob intones, robotically. ‘I’m not,’ pipes up a lone, individualist voice, only to be shushed by the unthinking crowd. Observing the current political debate about individualism, I often feel like that dissenting bloke in Life of Brian. Today, we’re surrounded by politicians, thinkers and hacks who chant that, for the worse, we are all individuals now; that we live

A few weeks ago I drove to Market Harborough for my test as a potential Ukip candidate. The process was very thorough. There was a media interview section, where one of my examiners did a bravura impersonation of a tricksy local radio presenter (he even did the traffic bulletin beforehand). Then came a test on the manifesto. Finally, there was the bit where I nearly came unstuck: the speeches. My problem was that the stern lady interviewing me had seen me speak before. It was at one of Nigel Farage’s boozy fundraisers at the East India Club. Coming out as a Ukip member, I had vouchsafed to the audience, had

The Tory party is currently offering a campaigning masterclass on James Wharton’s Private Member’s Bill. As Coffee House revealed last night, any member of the public can sign up to co-sponsor the backbench legislation, and the party has spent a great deal of time squaring backbenchers on the wording of the bill to prevent further amendments clogging it up unnecessarily. And MPs continue to tweet about #letbritaindecide, #labourdoesn’ttrustpeople, #onlytorieshavetheanswer or perhaps #itweetthisbecausemywhipaskednicely. But how easy is it to replicate this sort of slick campaign with other policies? When it comes to more conventional legislation and policy rows, the Tories are struggling to work out how to get their message across,

Ed Miliband’s approach at PMQs today was rather odd. He led, aggressively, on whether the government would implement the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards’ recommendation of a new criminal offence for negligent bankers. He asked the question in a manner that expected the answer no, but Cameron—predictably—said he would. At which point, the wind rather went out of Miliband’s sails. Cameron’s answer was eminently predictable because the idea of a new criminal offence for negligent bankers was first floated by George Osborne’s former chief of staff Matt Hancock at the start of last year. Given Hancock’s proximity to the Tory leadership, as one of those who prepares Cameron for these

George Osborne is expected to respond to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards’s final report in his Mansion House speech this evening. The report is hefty and packed with recommendations, but there are two areas where the Chancellor will find himself treading a particularly tricky path. Both the proposal to defer bonuses and introduce a criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank are designed to encourage responsibility and a greater regard of the consequences of bad behaviour. But Osborne will know that they also pose a threat to the success of the city. He will need to consider what effect deferring some remuneration for up to