Politics

Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.

Will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems?

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

Osborne to strengthen Parliament’s role in OBR appointments?

It may not be the sexiest story in today’s newspapers, but the ongoing Office for Budget Responsibility row is certainly among the most important.  After all, a great deal rests on how it is resolved.  Not only could we end up without a body capable of restoring trust in fiscal forecasts, but the government’s promising transparency agenda could be sunk before it has even had chance to sail.  Much will depend on how far George Osborne goes to reinvigorate the OBR’s independent credentials. In which case, it’s worth highlighting the Sunday Telegraph’s summary of Sir Alan Budd’s proposals to do just that.  The departing OBR chief is expected to outline

Mandelson and Miliband kick open the hornets’ nest

Oh joy, Labour are at war again.  The animosities which have largely been kept in check since the election are now piercing through to the surface again – and it’s all thanks to Peter Mandelson’s memoirs.  After the ennobled one’s insights about Gordon and Tony in the Times yesterday, Charlie Whelan is shooting back from the pages of the Sunday Telegraph.  And, elsewhere, Brown is said to have told friends that “this is going to be a very difficult time for me.”  Yep, it’s just like the glory days of last summer. Amid all this, there’s a sense that Mandelson and David Miliband have coordinated their efforts to trash Brown

Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s refreshing honesty on schools

David Cameron has today told the News of the World that he is “terrified” about the prospect of sending his children to an inner-London state school. This is quite some statement, given how many tens of thousands of parents are in the same predicament. Isn’t it the classic politician’s error? To betray how his aloofness from voters by showing how he fears what ordinary parents have to put up with? That’s what Tony Blair thought – so he’d pretend to be happy with state schools while sending his kids to the ultra-selective Oratory School. That is hypocrisy. What David Cameron has said represents honesty. After all, why shouldn’t he be

Charles Moore

The Spectator’s Notes | 10 July 2010

The more you think about it, the odder it is that the only national referendum ever legislated for in this country, apart from the 1975 referendum about whether or not to stay in the EEC, should be about the Alternative Vote. The only party which proposed AV at the last election was Labour, which lost. The Tories campaigned for the status quo and the Liberal Democrats for the single transferable vote. It would be more logical — more proportional, indeed — to put all three versions before the electorate. It would also be more proportional to legislate for a threshold, a substantial fraction which the referendum would have to surmount

The Gove fight-back begins

His apology earlier this week was a reminder of how Cabinet Ministers used to behave. Today’s cock-ups and crises have increased the pressure on the Education Secretary – two schools face cuts despite meeting the government’s criteria. Now Gove has penned a defensive article for the Sunday Express. He writes: ‘Reform is never easy, and certainly not when cash is tight… but school building will not stop under this government.’ Gove is, of course, right. Money is tight. But he must explain why reform is necessary in and of itself, and why his ideas should be adopted. There was an aloofness and arrogance about his performance on Newsnight on Monday, suggesting that Gove believes

Miliband’s analysis simply confirms his own weakness

John Rentoul, who knows a successful Labour leader when he sees one, is having palpitations about David Miliband’s latest hustings speech. Everyone seems to be in fact. I’ve taken a look, following the Berkeleian principle that if everyone thinks something is important it invariably is. It’s a good speech. At last, one of the Labour leadership contenders has attacked Gordon Brown. Under Gordon Brown, Miliband argues, Labour’s failings, spin and high-handedness intensified. An expression about Sherlock and excrement comes to mind, but the first stage in a party’s renewal is to admit defeat, acknowledge failure and offer contrition. David Miliband has begun that process, which can only serve him well.

Alex Massie

To 2015 And Beyond

My word, the Daily Mail is a tender, easily-startled fawn. Here’s James Chapman today: The Prime Minister raised the extraordinary possibility of a non-aggression pact between the Tories and the Lib Dems at the next election as he mounted his strongest defence yet of the coalition. Well, the Daily Mail may consider this “extraordinary”; readers of this blog should not. This is both a logical and necessary step along the road to a second term. This, mind, will be difficult to achieve even with Liberal Democrat support for a second coalition: it will require nerve and guts and luck. But, perhaps, it can be done. The good news is that

Rod Liddle

Playing to the gallery?

Louise Bagshaw, one of the new intake of Conservative MPs perhaps unkindly called Tory Totty because they are not, actually, terrifyingly ugly, has put her head above the parapet on the subject of rape. She is opposing plans to give men charged with rape anonymity in court. Women who accuse a man of rape are of course afforded anonymity. Her reasoning is that this will dissuade woman from coming forward with accusations of rape and should therefore be resisted. I think that this is one of the most stupid pieces of non-logical argument I have heard for a very long time and that Bagshawe is simply playing to a fashionable

The week that was | 9 July 2010

Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week. Fraser Nelson praises Michael Gove for putting democracy ahead of bureaucracy. James Forsyth holds his breath of Mandelson’s memoir, and asks who will follow Cameron. Peter Hoskin ponders the malleability of ringfences, and says that the coalition’s spending cuts are forcing Labour into a corner. David Blackburn argues that Jeremy Hunt must do the BBC’s cutting for them, and asks if efficiency is a luxury. Susan Hill remembers Beryl Bainbridge. Rod Liddle defines his politics. Alex Massie celebrates the BBC and other anachronisms. And Melanie Phillips considers the coalition’s frivolous atrocity.

The ’22 bares its teeth

Tim Montgomerie reports that the 1922 Committee is to launch its own inquiry into the Tories’ election campaign. This, as I understand it, is in addition to the party’s official inquiry, and therefore suggests that the backbenches want to assert their independence by criticising Steve Hilton and George Osborne’s strategy. After May’s ruptures between Cameron and the backbenches there is a chance that this story could snowball. There is a sense that some of the ’22 haven’t yet buried the hatchet. And the feeling’s mutual. Some Cameroons and modernisers are disdainful – ‘self-indulgent farts’ was how one put it. But the ’22 must assert itself and I welcome this review.

A question of independence

And so this morning’s Office for Budget Responsibility story rumbles on, with various Labour figures questions whether the organisation is as independent as it should be.  The most significant intervention, though, is from the government.  As the FT reports, George Osborne’s Treasury team is hanging onto its ability to select the next head of the OBR. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the next OBR chief will be a placeman, sympathetic and mouldable to the Tories’ wishes.  In fact, my guess is that Osborne will go out of his way to find an uncontroversial, neutral replacement for Sir Alan Budd.  But with a PoliticsHome poll showing that only 16

Cable’s aspirations

“Aspiration” tends to be a convenient word for politicians, in the sense that any policy that they can’t implement now can be glossed over as something they want to do in future. But, if Vince Cable’s interview with the Times is anything to go by, it could become a troublesome word for the coalition. Speaking about the Lib Dem’s election promise to scrap university tuition fees, Cable says that: “It is an aspiration, but we’re highly constrained financially and we have got to try to work out ways of doing it. I’m not Father Christmas.” But nowhere does the coalition agreement say that scrapping tuition fees is an “aspiration”. Instead,

Coalition is the making of Cameron

It’s all going swimmingly. David Cameron is almost as popular as Gordon Brown was in August 2007. A worrying omen perhaps, but for the moment the government’s honeymoon is in full swing. It’s quite a bash, and many of the coalition’s initial detractors admit to being pleasantly surprised by Cameron and Clegg. Iain Martin is positive, though he maintains a learned scepticism. Fraser Nelson can see a possible re-alignment of British party politics, and today Martin Kettle gushes about Cameron the ‘man of grace’. I’m not sure what a ‘man of grace’ is, but Cameron’s languid charm and opportunism are effective. Kettle writes: ‘[Cameron] recognises that he is delivering a

David Miliband’s monetary advantage

If cash was the one and only determining factor in elections, then David Miliband would have the Labour leadership contest sewn up.  As figures released today show, he’s raked in a hefty £185,000 in donations to his campaign.  That’s over 6 times more than Ed Balls has managed, and 12 times his brother’s total. Miliband’s monetary advantage is eyecatching in itself. But it also lets him trigger one of his electoral ploys. Smartly, if cynically, he has pledged to contribute one-third of his donations to a “fighting fund to help Labour win seats back at the next election”. So the more cash he has in the coffers, the more he

Balls the victim

Ed Balls has been on the phone to Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman. ‘Nothing to do with me Guv,’ is his response to the Independent’s story about briefings against Andy Burnham. Balls has gone to great lengths to re-invent himself. Ever since the Damian McBride scandal, the former Education Secretary has tried to banish the bully-boy reputation he built as Gordon Brown’s protégé. Masks barely obscure the face; but, to be fair to Balls, his opponents benefit from recalling his unpalatable past. During the New Statesman’s leadership debate, Ed Miliband said: “It’s just like being back in the Treasury, Ed!” So it’s plausible that the anti-Burnham briefings may have

Burnham cries for help

At last! There’s a bit of British spunk about the Labour leadership contest. Andy Burnham has accused his rivals of smearing him. The finger of suspicion points at Ed Balls – given past form and his natural proclivities. Burnham and Balls are fighting for a similar constituency – both are running broadly ‘traditional’ tickets. Both are struggling. Balls has 5 Constituency Labour Party nominations to Burnham’s 8: the Milibands have 80 between them. Balls’ team, staffed by the saintly Tom Watson and Charlie Whelan, probably is briefing against Burnham; and it was probably Balls who introduced the rumour that the Milibands were smearing one another. But equally, Burnham could be

Alex Massie

First Past the Post Needs Better Defenders

I’m far from being an enthusiast for electoral reform not least because, as I’ve said, I don’t think electoral systems matter much. But, my word, the defenders of First Past The Post are doing their utmost to convince me that the Alternative Vote can’t possibly put more fools in parliament than FPTP. Here, for instance is Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, co-chairman of the “All Parliamentary Group for the promotion of first-past-the-post”: First-past-the-post is tried and tested, simple, it brings about quick results, is relatively cheap, which given the economic mess left by Labour is an important consideration, and it allows voters to clearly demonstrate which party they feel should form