Politics

Westminster isn’t sure. But it’s suddenly obsessed with them Recently, one Tory cabinet member went for dinner at a top London hotel with some of the most famous members of the financial elite. Good food and better wine: it was the kind of occasion that, in days gone by, would have turned into an orgy of mutual self-congratulation. But the world has changed. The bankers spent the evening attacking the Conservative party for not doing enough to defend them. The cabinet member became steadily more irritated, and as soon as he left the hotel, turned to a friend and decried ‘the obscene arrogance of these people’. The contempt, it seems,

David Cameron weathered an awkward interview on the Today programme earlier this morning, in which the Strategic Defence Review was savaged and the recent riots were compared to the Bullingdon Club, of which Cameron was once a member. He stood by the defence review, with reference to the successful British contribution to the Libyan intervention, and he blithely ignored the Bullingdon Club question. He reiterated his belief that parts of society have undergone ‘a slow motion moral collapse’.  His gruff tone might have surprised some listeners. The interviewer, Evan Davis, offered Cameron the chance to retreat from the firm, almost draconian line he took at the height of the riots. But Cameron refused, comfortable to risk appearing ‘morally

Tripoli It would probably be stretching the truth a little to say that the British prime minister runs Allah a close second when it comes to expressions of gratitude at checkpoints on the way into Tripoli from the Tunisian border, but there’s no doubting his popularity. “David Cameron, veery, veeeery good!” is a typical reaction to the discovery that a vehicle is carrying a British journalist. “The Brits are number one among all the expat Libyans who’ve come back to join the revolution,” says Ahmed, recently returned from San Antonio. Although a Guards officer might raise an eyebrow at the ragtag lack of uniforms – hastily printed V for victory

Banking reform has always been one of those issues that was going to test the unity of the coalition. Indeed, it was the subject of the very first inter-coalition wrangle when back in May 2010 George Osborne and Vince Cable tussled over who would chair the Cabinet committee on banking reform.   To date, these differences have been held in check by the fact that the coalition is waiting for the recommendations of the John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking. But with the final draft of the Vickers Report being published on 12 September, these splits are starting to open up again.   Cable and the Liberal Democrats would like,

There’s a big coalition split coming down the road. Next month the Vickers’ review into banking reform, which is going to suggest a ring-fencing of the investment and retail arms of banks, will come out. The Liberal Democrats — led by Vince Cable — will push for the instant implementation of the report’s recommendations. The Treasury will argue that banks need to be given time to introduce these new rules. The result will be, as one senior Lib Dem source tells this morning’s FT, ‘a big fight’.   The tricky question for Cameron and Osborne is how do they win this argument when there’s a visceral desire for tough measures

George Osborne was right to boast in the Commons that Britain has the “second highest rate of net job creation in the G7”. Coffee House recently pointed out that all of the increase is accounted for by foreign-born workers. But what if you narrow the definition to foreign nationals? We put in an information request to the Office for National Statistics and the below information came back. It is quite striking. Over the 12-month period to which Osborne refers, 90.1 per cent of the extra employment amongst the working-age population can be accounted for by an increase in foreign nationals working in the UK. Here are the figures. The phenomenon of pensioners returning to

Traditionally the fact that the Liberal Democrats hold their conference first and still vote on party policy at it has been regarded as a disadvantage. But this year, I suspect that these two things will be in their favour. By going first, they will get to set the terms of debate for conference season. They’ll be able to spike their coalition partners’ guns on a whole variety of post-riots issues. They can make clear that they won’t accept any changes to the human rights act or any government push to encourage marriage. Even better, they can pass motions to this effect. They also will have first crack at setting out