Politics

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

Why the government needn’t fear the strikes

With the threat of major strikes timed to coincide with Osborne’s spending review in October, I think it’s worth exhuming an important point that Julian Glover made in his Guardian column last month: “UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don’t think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this

Balls: let’s remain on the centre ground and oppose cuts

As the New Statesman’s George Eaton suggests, there’s quite a lot packed into Ed Balls’s piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can’t venture beyond the paywall). And, what’s more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn’t cede the “radical centre ground” of British politics to the coalition. That’s the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls’s own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that “Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument

A postcard from Dave and Nick

Here’s a slightly curious one: David Cameron and Nick Clegg have written a public letter to their ministers, reminding them that, “deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain,” and that, “the purpose of our government … [is] … putting power in the hands of communities and individuals and equipping Britain for long-term success.” If you wanted to read into it, then you could say that the emphasis on the “long-term” throughout the letter is a warning to any disgruntled sorts: policies for the long-term require time to implement, so the coalition has to be built to last, etc. etc. But, of course,

Tyrie asserts himself once again

Few MPs have made quite so many waves recenty as last year’s Spectator backbencher of the year, Andrew Tyrie. Under his chairmanship, the Treasury Select Committee seems to have gained a new vitality and edge. And it has certainly accumulated more powers, with the ability to veto the government’s appointments to, and dismissals from, the Office for Budget Responsibility. As he put it himself in an interview with the Independent last week, “The fight back by Parliament is beginning now.” Just how aggressively he intends to prosecute that fight back is suggested by his comments in the Times (£) today. Responding to George Osborne’s recent demands for the banks to

Dannatt’s departure means one less cook stirring the defence broth

So Sir Richard Dannatt has departed the Tory fold almost as curiously as he entered it. Sure, have been no gaffes from Chris Grayling this time around – but when it was announced last October that the former head of the Army was advising David Cameron, it was widely expected that he’d graduate to become a peer and a minister in any Tory government. But today he announces his “retirement” as neither. The Tories are downplaying all this, eager to avoid a repeat of the speculation that surrounded Sir Alan Budd’s departure. And, to be fair, there are few signs, as yet, that this is a viciously unamicable split. But

Who is Labour’s Mr Sun?

Writing for the Times, Tim Montgomerie neatly overlays Aesop onto the Labour leadership contest: “The next Labour leader is unlikely to be an Abbott, Balls or Burnham. Gordon Brown’s successor will be a Miliband. But I’m more interested in whether he will be Mr Sun or Mr Wind. Aesop captured the dilemma in a fable. If you want a man to take off his cloak, do you huff and puff and force him to give it up or do you cover him with warmth until he discards it freely? In Aesop, the sun scores a predictable victory. Politics isn’t so easy. Harriet Harman’s blasts at Nick Clegg’s alleged betrayal of

Brown, the third worst Prime Minister since WW2?

Now here’s a poll that you can really get your teeth into. Reported in today’s FT, a survey of 100 or so academics has rated Gordon Brown as the third worst Prime Minister since the second world war. It marks him with 3.9 out of 10, ahead of only Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. At the other end of the scale, Clement Attlee comes out on top with 8.1 our of 10, ahead of second-placed Margaret Thatcher on 6.9. Which, as Tim Montgomerie says at ConservativeHome, is understandable enough – Attlee probably made a more indelible contribution to British life than anyone else on the list. I was

Cameron’s circles of influence

Andrew Rawnsley’s potted hierarchy of the coalition government – and especially its final sentence – is worth pulling out for the scrapbook: “There is still, of course, an inner circle. When not abroad, the first key fixture of the day at Number 10 is the strategy meeting. Its usual attendees include George Osborne, the chancellor; Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton, his director of communications and his senior strategist; Jeremy Heywood, the permanent secretary at Number 10; the prime minister’s chief and deputy chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn and Kate Fall. Note that Nick Clegg is not on that list. He belongs to the next circle of influence around David Cameron.

The coalition’s Lib Dem conundrum

Yesterday, a “source close to the Prime Minister” told the Telegraph that we shouldn’t bother much with the opinion polls as at the moment. As they put it, “we’re only a few weeks into a new Parliament and we’ve got nearly five years to go before everyone really has to worry about the polls again.” But, make no mistake, there will be Lib Dems who are deeply concerned by how their party is polling at the moment. The YouGov poll in today’s Sunday Times, which has the yellow bird of liberty stuttering along at 12 percent, only underlines a remarkable decline since the election campaign (see chart above). The pressure

What Washington thought of Cameron: smooth, genial, evasive — and tough

He came, he saw and, to the surprise of many in Washington, David Cameron conquered. Those who have been exposed to his personal charm were less surprised. For them, the surprise — perhaps they should have known better than to be surprised —- came from his willingness to resort to evasion. Faced with a specific question about his attitude towards Israel, the Prime Minister gave the usual answer about a two-state solution, the need for negotiations, etc. A few days later, before a Muslim rather than an American audience, he decided that Gaza is a prison, without mentioning that Hamas is the jailer, and that there are few prisons in

Dangerous Balls

The Spectator on the threat Ed Balls poses to the government For Conservatives, a leadership fight is a blood sport: a feast of passion, revenge and political violence. Labour’s current contest has thus far been the precise opposite: an excruciatingly dull five-way verbal joust between candidates who have nothing new or original to say. Two of the candidates regularly express their fraternal love for one another. Still, however tedious, the contest remains one of historic importance because the winner may well be the next Prime Minister. After all, it would be a surprise if the leader of an opposition party with 256 seats — enough to force the Tories into

Cameron has given up on Afghanistan

A fundamental shift has quietly taken place in Britain’s approach to Afghanistan: the focus is now on leaving, not winning. Con Coughlin asks if we are seeing the return of the politics of appeasement It is difficult to pinpoint the precise moment that David Cameron gave up on the war in Afghanistan. But the Prime Minister’s indisputable position today is that the Nato campaign is unwinnable, and that the sooner Britain withdraws its 10,000-strong combat contingent the better. Mr Cameron reached this depressing conclusion before the current furore over the leaking of 90,000 pages of low-grade intelligence and situation logs by the Australian anti-war campaigner Julian Assange through his website

Martin Vander Weyer

As Hayward becomes the new Sir Fred, who will be Bob Dudley’s role model?

Martin Vander Weyer’s Any Other Business I told you so — and I might even have said it first. ‘Hayward may have to be sacrificed,’ I wrote on 5 June. ‘In that case, the next man in the line of fire could be Bob Dudley, who has the advantage of being an American…’ I might have added that Dudley came into BP (where he takes over as chief executive on 1 October) by way of its 1998 takeover of Amoco, where he was a rising star; and the name Amoco is a contraction of ‘American Oil Company’, making President Obama’s symbolic victory over ‘British Petroleum’ complete. The departing Tony Hayward,

The week that was | 30 July 2010

…here’s a selection of posts made on Spectator.co.uk this week: Fraser Nelson outlines Pakistan’s double game in Afghanistan, and fears another EU power grab. Peter Hoskin watches Nick Clegg confirm his fiscal hawkishness, and argues that David Cameron’s provocative language over Gaza only obscures the issue. David Blackburn argues that there are few smoking guns in the WikiLeaks releases, and notices that David Cameron is not cutting it with India’s media. Rod Liddle wonders whether the Prime Minister understands the ‘Real Islam’. Melanie Phillips gives her take on David Cameron’s speech in Turkey. And the Spectator Arts Blog debates the death of the UK Film council.

A Boris success story?

As strange as it sounds, the launch of Boris’s cycle hire scheme is a significant moment for the Mayor of London. It’s exactly the kind of ruse which, if it fails, will provide his opponents with an exaggeratedly high-profile target to aim at come election time. So here, as it’s Friday, is some great footage of Boris explaining why he trusts it will be a success:

The Balls dilemma

How could I have forgotten to mention this in my last post? In that YouGov poll on the Labour leadership race, Ed Balls finished in a resounding last place. Yep, the former Schools Secretary is stuck on 11 percent of first preference votes – behind both Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham, who are tied on 12 percent, as well as both Miliband brothers of course. And the news has got Jim Pickard and Mehdi Hasan wondering: just what will Balls do next? Has he given up on winning? Will he drop out of the race and concentrate on becoming shadow chancellor? I know plenty of Tories who wouldn’t know whether

Jon Cruddas continues to swing behind David Miliband

One thing’s for sure: the Labour leadership contest is a lot more uncertain than a lot of people expected. Polls such as that by YouGov today, and analysis by Left Foot Forward last week, suggest that the Brothers Miliband are pushing each other all the way to the finishing line – particularly when second preference votes are stirred into the mix. Which is perhaps the main reason why even the smallest interventions could have an influence on the result, and are worth tracking if you’re minded towards that kind of thing. In which case, I point you towards Jon Cruddas’s article for the latest New Statesman in which he makes

Clegg confirms his fiscal hawkishness

Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations is just under four hours away, but I suspect we’ve already heard about one of its key moments. As various outlets are reporting this afternoon, Nick Clegg tells Robinson that he had changed his mind about the pace of spending cuts sometime before the coalition agreement. Or as he puts it: “I changed my mind earlier than that … firstly remember between March and the actual general election … a financial earthquake occurred in on our European doorstep.” This matters because the Lib Dem manifesto said that spending shouldn’t be cut (above and beyond Labour’s plans) this year – and that the squeeze

5 days that changed the country

Westminster has rewound the tape today, in anticipation of Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations tonight. There’s speculation about what Nick Clegg did or didn’t say back in May; Anthony Seldon has a piece on Gordon Brown’s side of things in the Independent; and Robinson himself has a summary article in the Telegraph. Much of what’s revealed so far could already be pieced together from the Mandelson memoirs, as well as from Westminister chatter, but some of the new contexts are eyecatching. This, for instance, from Robinson, suggests just how important personality politics was during those days after the election: “Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer, nor

Cameron lambasts Pakistan whilst on Indian trade mission. Bad move

Oh for the days of inactive prime ministers. After yesterday’s hot-headedness about Gaza, comes an even more deliberately pointed statement. Cameron said: ‘[Pakistan] should not be allowed to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.’ I agree, providing of course it is established that the Pakistani state is fomenting terror and the Wikileaks revelations do not give that impression. That said, the Pakistan government is responsible for all of its agents, and they should curb S-Wing’s collusion with the Taliban and its affiliates in Waziristan. Cameron and Obama are right to press the Pakistani authorities. But a goodwill tour