1922 Committee election result
Graham Brady is the new chairman of 1922 Committee. He beat Richard Ottaway by 126 votes to 85. You can read Fraser’s interview with Brady in last week’s magazine here.
Politics
Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.
Wednesday
Laws is unperturbed by the scorched earth
Wags may term them ‘Osborne and Little’, but David Laws is emerging as one of the government’s star performers. Laws was instrumental in constructing the coalition, and now he has the unenviable job of identifying cuts. Being the axeman and taxman is hard work enough, but the opposition have weapons at their disposal. Labour can say what it likes in this parliament’s infancy. Credibility comes later, with the election of a new leader for instance. Harman and Darling may have spurned the investment versus cuts line, but today Darling revived the conceit that all cuts are inherently bad: ‘During the election campaign the Conservatives did not say they were
Ed Balls’ fighting talk is getting him nowhere, yet
The stock response of many Coffee Housers will be ‘Who Cares?’ but surely Ed Balls will be nominated for the Labour leadership? Labour may recognise that a Balls leadership would likely end in Footian catastrophe but he will, in all certainty, proceed to the next round. Surely? Like Pete and Ben Brogan, I reckon Balls and David Miliband allowed their supporters to declare in a steady trickle, hoping to build momentum as the June 8 deadline neared. In which case it is telling that Miliband Major has changed his tactics in response to Miliband Minor’s sudden surge. David Miliband now has the backing of 48 MPs, a very significant advance
Tactical considerations over the timing of the AV referendum
A referendum on AV was the concession that Nick Clegg felt he needed to get a coalition deal with the Tories past his party. But the referendum poses obvious dangers to the coalition, just imagine the sight of Nick Clegg and the leader of the Labour party sharing a platform to denounce the Tories’ ‘reactionary’ opposition to electoral reform. The Guardian this morning reports that the Lib Dems are pushing for this referendum to take place in May 2011 at the same time as the Scottish and Welsh elections. There is, as the article notes, a huge benefit to the Lib Dems in getting this referendum in early before
German lessons
Angela Merkel’s fall from favour is something David Cameron ought to bear in mind as he looks for lessons to guide his term in office. The German chancellor could do no wrong when she was first elected. A new “Iron Lady”, she was seen as a giant among pygmees. Tony Blair was leaving the scene, Nicolas Sarkozy had yet to be elected, the newspapers swooned, the voters applauded. Mrs Merkel was respected in the US and Europe. She made her unwieldy coalition with the Social Democrats work, almost singlehandedly picked the NATO secretary-general and ruled over EU meetings. Now, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barrosso is (rightly) calling her “naïve”
Tuesday
So Who’s the Senior Partner in this Coalition?
The choreography of the new coalition is designed to make this look like a partnership of equals. But I’m increasingly convinced that Nick Clegg pulled a masterstroke here. This really is a joint premiership. Someone suggested I take a look at the full coalition document on the Cabinet Office website to see just how much the Liberal Democrat leader had wrung from his Tory counterpart in the negotiations. The most striking phrase is: “… will be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister”, which litters the document. The “I agree with Nick” slogan used by the Lib Dems during the election campaign has thus become embedded in the
Loving the Liberal Democrats in a Hung Britain
Over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman suggests that Nick Clegg be invited to address the Conservative Party Conference this year and, in general, that the Tories need to do more to get to know their colleagues in government. He’s right. And here, via John Rentoul, is John Curtice to help explain why. Professor Curtice suggests that this most recent election ought not to be considered a freakish result and that even if the voting system remains unaltered hung parliaments are probably as likely as not for the foreseeable future. If that’s the case – and even with redrawn constituency boundaries it seems quite probable that at least some of the factors
The curious race for nominations
One of the mildly diverting features of the Labour leadership contest so far is this nominations counter on the party website. Ed Miliband was the first to pass the crucial 33 nominations barrier yesterday, while David Miliband managed it earlier today. Ed Balls is still lagging behind on 14, Andy Burnham has 8, and poor John McDonnell and Diane Abbott both have none. Yep, the excitement is reaching fever pitch. There’s one curious feature to it all, though, highlighted by Danny Finkelstein earlier. Why have some of the candidates – or their nominators – been holding back on their nominations? David Miliband, for instance, has considerably more than 37 backers,
Laughs, politics and sincerity
The opening of the Queen’s speech debate is, traditionally, a light-hearted affair. Peter Lilley opened up with a rather witty speech. He compared the Liberal Democrats to the bastards of the Major Cabinet, it is better to have them inside the Cabinet pissing out than outside the Cabinet pissing in. He went on to warn the new Prime Minister that the appropriate response to John Major and Gordon Brown’s microphone troubles is not to turn your microphone off but to keep ‘your receiver switched on to hear legitimate concerns.’ David Cameron would be well advised to heed this tactfully-expressed advice. Lilley ended with a heart-felt plea to bring the troops
The debate begins in lively fashion
The initial exchanges of the Queen’s Speech Debate have just come to a close – and, I must say, it was all rather jolly. Harriet Harman came prepared with gag after gag about the Tories’ “marriage” to the Liberal Democrats, while David Cameron had a few about Harman’s actual marriage to Jack Dromey. There was much laughter, good-natured jeering and cat-calling. So – business as usual. Underneath it all, though, there was a substantive clash between the two sides. In a spritely performance, Harman wisely avoided an “investments vs cuts” style attack, instead charging the coalition with not having a mandate for many of its political reforms. Whereas Cameron accused
The Queen’s Speech: complete footage | 25 May 2010
The Queen’s Speech: full text
Via PoliticsHome: HER MAJESTY’S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TUESDAY 25 MAY 2010 MY LORDS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS My Government’s legislative programme will be based upon the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility. The first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth. Action will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the structural budget deficit. A new Office for Budget Responsibility will provide confidence in the management of the public finances. The tax and benefits system will be made fairer and simpler. Changes to National Insurance will safeguard jobs and support the economy. People will be supported into work with
A day of pomp and positivity
The sun is filtering through the garden at 22 Old Queen Street, and a brass band is marching around St James’s Park: we’re getting the light and the pomp in equal measures for today’s Queen’s Speech. As for the actual policy, well, we largely know what it’s all about. There will be proposals for scrapping ID cards, strengthening civil liberties, reforming schools, making the police more accountable, and more. The emphasis from the government is on handing power back to the people. The question is whether the coalition can make today’s positives balance out the age of austerity. The stock market today provides a gloomy reminder that their biggest challenge
Let Us Now Praise… Liam Byrne
The new firm of Osbourne Osborne* & Laws got off to a good start yesterday. True, trimming £6bn from this year’s budget is a trivial task compared to the decisions that lie ahead but as a statement of good sense and prooof of good intentions it was, as I say, a good start**. The plain truth is that the government will lose around £500m every day this year. That’s not sustainable and when put in such terms the public can understand, one trusts, that something will have to give. Let us now praise a Labour minister: Liam Byrne. Not for the fiscal profligacy that has left the public finances in
The media helps the coalition’s fiscal cause
This feels like a watershed moment: a national newspaper devoting its cover to an image of the country’s “debt mountain,” with a small shaded-off area showing how little of it is covered by yesterday’s cuts. The paper in question is today’s Independent. And while the cover may not perfectly depict what’s going on with our public finances – yesterday’s cuts will reduce the government’s annual overspend, not the overall debt burden which will keep rising for years to come – it is still a powerful reminder of Brown’s toxic legacy. In some respects, the coalition might not appreciate this kind of focus: after all, politicians don’t much like mentioning the
Monday
A show of Cameron’s adaptability
Great to hear that David Cameron has decided to keep the 1922 committee reinstated. This is a significant, unexpected development – and sign of strength, not weakness. Interestingly, I hear that George Osborne had not been properly consulted about last week’s events: ie the way in which MPs were asked to vote into effectively abolishing the 1922 committee of backbenchers and being strongarmed, Blair-style, by the leadership. Cameron had not intended things to turn out as they did and Osborne, in particular, was dismayed. I always suspected that last week’s fracas was a simple misjudgment, easily explained under the chaotic events of coalition. Cameron is, I fear, being poorly
Ministers won’t be able to vote in 1922 elections
So it turns out that John Redwood’s uncertainty was well-placed. According to Jonathan Isaby over at ConservativeHome, the Tory chief whip has decreed that ministers won’t be able to vote in 1922 Committee elections after all. They will only be able to attend meetings, which, as Jonathan says, “no-one ever really had a complaint about.” All this comes on the back of confusion about what last week’s ballot even meant, making a curious situation even curiouser. But, whatever the reasons behind it, the outcome will be seen as a climbdown by David Cameron – and perhaps the first real dent to his authority since coming to power. Meanwhile, the 118
Coalition cuts: the IFS’s verdict is in
So, the number-crunchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have worked their magic and delivered their verdict on today’s spending cuts. You can find their summary here, although the standout line is that the £5 billion in reduced borrowing implied by today’s cuts is “less than a tenth of the fiscal repair job that Alistair Darling’s March 2010 Budget forecast suggested will be needed over the next few years”. In terms of capturing just how much remains to to be done, it’s a sobering remark. But it’s worth remembering that a Labour government wouldn’t have made these extra £6 billion of cuts this year. So, by the same thinking, they
The long haul starts here
Sunshine might have won the day but today was also the start of the age of austerity, as George Osborne and David Laws laid out £6.243bn of cuts. Despite the fact that they were cutting ‘wasteful’ and ‘low priority spending’, both men were keen to insulate themselves against the Labour attack that the coalition is cutting for ideological reason. Osborne said that ‘controlling spending is not an end it itself.’ While Laws stressed that the Coalition would ‘cut with care.’ Within its first fortnight in office, the government has found savings with commendable celerity. But the fact that the whole package was agreed on at 11.45 pm on Friday for
Sunday
Have the Tories fallen victim to the Lib Dem Hug of Death?
First, a little bit of history: as recently as last Christmas, I was a member of the Liberal Democrats. I can’t remember why I joined them, and I can’t remember why I left – which strongly implies that I put very little thought into either – but that’s a story for another time. As a member, I was part of a group within the party that wanted to pull it in a more classically liberal direction: a smaller state, lower taxes and greater personal freedom. The idea of a party committed to greater personal freedom, but not greater economic freedom, always struck me as equal parts ridiculous and confused. If
