Politics

David Cameron made significant waves yesterday both at Prime Minister’s Questions and in a Sun article about reforming Britain’s antiquated trade union laws.  He was responding to a favoured tactic of the new wave of militant trade unionists: threatening action at times that most inconvenience or imperil the safety of the general public.  We have seen this with the FBU’s dispute (over Bonfire Night), Unite with British Airways (over the Christmas period), and the RMT with London Underground (again, over Christmas).  Some union leaders now seem prepared to ruin what should be the two biggest highlights on our national calendar: the Royal Wedding in April and the Olympics in 2012.

Guido and Benedict Brogan have already drawn attention to Paul Waugh’s latest post. But a story this good deserves repeating, at length: “Tory MP Mark Pritchard is not one to swear. In fact he’s ribbed by colleagues in the Tea Room for saying “Schmidt” instead of sh*t. But today, he exploded when the Commons Speaker confronted him over an alleged breach of the courtesies of the House. It all started when Pritchard got to his feet towards the end of Business Questions. As he rose, the Tory backbencher was told by John Bercow that as he was not present for the beginning of Sir George Young’s business statement, he could

Much of Ed Miliband’s Grand Confession on the economy is wearily familiar. I mean, we’ve known his take on the deficit for some time: that the drop in tax receipts from a crumbling financial sector was to blame, rather than Brown’s spending. And to have him argue that Labour should have made the economy less dependent on the City is just another way of saying exactly the same thing. But there is something new in there, too. Miliband is set to admit that Labour didn’t “talk the language of cuts” soon enough. Not that he’s saying Labour should have – or still should – cut deeper and faster, mind. It’s

Britain is avowedly eurosceptic. But euroscepticism is not homogeneous; there are different tones of disgust. Many decry further political integration; others oppose Europe’s penchant for protectionism; some are wary of the EU’s apparent collective socialism; a few are essentially pro-European but believe too much sovereignty has been ceded; others hope to redefine Britain’s cultural and political relationship with the Continent, as a bridge between the Old World and the Anglosphere; most see Brussels as an affront to elective democracy; and a handful just want out and vote UKIP. So it has always been – perhaps one reason why William Hague’s ‘ticking time-bomb’ has not yet exploded. Time passes and Britain

The EU Bill is back in parliament today, amid speculation that Cameron has a Europe-fuelled rebellion on his hands. Despite the talk, the chances are that the Bill will go through Parliament wholly unscathed in its first test.   Today’s debate is about the so-called ‘sovereignty clause’ – or Clause 18 – within the EU Bill. Of the Bill’s 17 pages, the clause only takes up four lines, but has still managed to cause the most fuss (the vast majority of the text relates to the EU ‘referendum lock’).   The government claims that Clause 18 confirms that EU law “is only recognised by virtue of the authority of acts

Coalition politics sure does throw up some peculiar situations. Take today’s vote on the EU Bill. As part of the horse-trading that’s going on around it, Tory Eurosceptics have put forward a series of amendments to mould the Bill more to their liking. Of these, the most striking is Peter Bone’s suggestion that Parliament should legislate for a referendum, not on this minor constitutional change or that, but on whether we should leave the EU altogether. So far, so unsurprising. But the curious part of all this is that the Lib Dems once offered an in-out referendum on Europe themselves. If you remember back to the row over Lisbon, Clegg’s