Politics

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

Wednesday

14 Apr 2010

The Lib Dems & Labour: Battered Wife Syndrome?

Pete is right: the Liberal Democrats have their issue and it’s a good one. It makes sense for them to be more hawkish on the deficit and debt than either of the larger parties. That way they can present themselves as a sensible restraining influence in the event of a hung parliament that creates room for a coalition. But who should that coalition be with? Understandably Clegg and Cable will do their utmost to avoid answering that question; doubtless they will insist that it all depends on, you know, the result. Nevertheless, having reinvented themselves as Deficit Hawks it would, on the face of it, be absurd to the Lib

Fraser Nelson

How Charlie Whelan killed New Labour

Last summer, The Spectator received a letter from Charlie Whelan’s solicitors complaining about this post – where we mention their client’s spot of bother with his colleagues at Unite. Carter-Ruck were instructed on one of the no-win-no-fee deals: it cost Whelan nothing to sue, but could cost us £thousands to defend. So the lawyer’s letter is, by itself, an effective form of intimidation. A magazine with a small budget obviously faces huge pressure to do what he wanted: apologise, pay up and (suspiciously) undertake not to pursue the story any further. Under the circumstances, The Spectator could do only one thing. Our full investigation into Charlie Whelan is the cover story of tomorrow’s magazine

James Forsyth

Follow the money | 14 April 2010

Looking at the papers this morning and watching the news last night, you realise what a benefit in the image stakes the Tory cash advantage gives them. The Tories can afford to hire out better venues than the other two parties. So while Labour launched their manifesto in hospital and the Lib Dems theirs at Bloomberg, the Tories used Battersea Power Station which provided them with much better visuals. We saw the same dynamic on the day the election was called: Labour’s event was in Downing Street, the Lib Dem one in an office and the Tory one on the terrace of County Hall looking over to Parliament The Mirror’s

Alex Massie

The Tocquevillian Tories, Part 2

Three excellent, interesting responses to the Tory manifesto from Iain Martin, Danny Finkelstein and John Rentoul. I recommend them all. And by way of folllowing yesterday’s post… It’s not a libertarian manifesto by any means and it’s not, contra Rentoul, laissez-faire either but it’s certainly more appealing than anything produced by Labour and more relevant than the Liberals’ offering. But it is, as Martin says, a considerable gamble even if, in the end, it is built on the recognisably Tory planks of Family, Community, Country… The Cameron idea of the state is not, despite what some folk seem to think, for a small state. After five years of Cameron central

Daniel Korski

The future might be yellow

The Liberal Democrats are doing well. Very well. More voters seem actively to want a hung parliament – they neither hate Labour or love the Tories enough to act decisevely either way – and a vote for Nick Clegg seems a safe, fair choice. A few years ago Paddy Ashdown was over the moon to have won far fewer MPs than the party is hoping for at this election. Then came the “Iraq Bounce” with Charles Kennedy’s anti-war stance doing the party well. Many assumed that without a clear-cut issue, and having chosen a leader who looked like David Cameron’s younger brother, the Lib Dems might struggle. Instead, the party

Peter Hoskin

The Lib Dems have found their issue

Well, that was quick. After the Tories’ one-hour-and-forty-minutes-long manifesto launch yesterday, and Labour’s comparable event the day before, it was quite a relief that the Lib Dems got through theirs in a nerve-soothing 45 minutes. And that included introductions from Sarah Teather, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable, and a speech from Nick Clegg – all of them short, sharp and snappy. The only thing which seemed to drag was the Q&A session at the end. But timings aside, it was clear that the Lib Dems have hit on an issue which – they think – separates them from the other parties. In 2005, it was Iraq. This time around, deserved

Peter Hoskin

Labour’s response to the Tory manifesto

Anyone else think that Labour’s latest poster is like a negative of the Tories’ “Vote For Me” effort? White text on a black background, instead of black text on a white background. A picture of Cameron, instead of Brown. I mean, the only thing that isn’t swapped over is the tone: both go on the attack, rather than presenting a positive vision. Labour’s message here is that the Tories’ Big Society manifesto washes its hands of the people. Which echoes the caricatures – “an agenda for abandonment” – that Peter Mandelson wheeled out yesterday, and which you can expect to hear again and again between now and polling day. The

Peter Hoskin

The Lib Dems’ turn to convince?

So now it’s the Lib Dems’ turn to present their prospectus for the country. And, in some respects, I expect they’ll want a fairly uneventful day. They have, after all, endured the most topsy-turvy campaign of the three main parties so far. Brown has given us no more, and no less, than what we expected. The Tories have been riding the crest of a national insurance wave. But the Lib Dems have bounced around from the highs of Nick Clegg’s performance on Newsnight to the lows of their misleading VAT poster, from their continuing Labservative attacks to Ed Balls describing their schools policy as “creditable” on Sky this morning. Make

Tuesday

13 Apr 2010

Martin Bright

Still Looking for the Clear Blue Water?

With the publication of the Labour and Conservative manifestos we should now have some idea of the real differences between the two largest parties. But I am more struck by the similarities. I know we are supposed to believe that Labour is the party of the enabling state, but it chose to emphasise how it would enable the individual during its manifesto launch, just as the Tories did. For the Tories’ Big Society read Labour’s “mutualisation”. There is not as much difference as the politicians would have you believe. Both policies are born out of a simple, pragmatic realisation that the state will not have the cash to intervene even

Peter Hoskin

Counting the cost of Labour’s national insurance hike

Insightful work from the FT’s Chris Giles, who has dug out a couple of academic articles – including one co-authored, in 2007, by George Osborne’s current chief of staff, Rupert Harrison – to work out how many jobs Labour’s national insurance rise might cost the economy. The results? Well, according to Giles, one says that 23,000 jobs will be lost, and the other comes up with 22,000. Neither of these are figures that Labour will want to crow about. But, as Giles points out, they are below the “57,000 jobs in small and medium-sized businesses alone” that the Conservatives predict in their manifesto. And they suggest that the national insurance

David Blackburn

Brown will fear the foreign policy debate most of all

The Tories’ Invitation to join the Government was never going to dwell on defence. (You can listen to the brief chapter on defence here.) But that doesn’t mean defence isn’t an election issue. It is, and it’s one that the Tories will win. Brown’s defence record is abysmal even by his standards. Former service chiefs have described how Brown ‘guillotined’ defence budgets whilst fighting two wars, and field commanders in Afghanistan have made constant reference to equipment shortages. These accusations were corroborated by facts that Brown then tried to distort before a public inquiry. That’s not all. As Alex notes, buried in Labour’s manifesto, is an admission that the Defence

Alex Massie

The Tocquevillian Tories

I think that today’s Tory manifesto is really quite a piece of work and potentially a work of genuine radicalism. It looks west and back and while it honours plenty of traditional Tory themes its inspiration is American in ways that not even Margaret Thatcher would have imagined – and that the Lady would have found too radical. Hopi Sen worries that none of the questions he asked about the manifesto have been answered. So here, in a fraternal spirit, is how they might be so answered: 1. Why is a pledge on cutting inheritence tax for millionaires a higher national priority than reducing the deficit or tax cuts for low income

Daniel Korski

Voting blues

One of the key questions in any election is turnout: whose voters will turn up and whose won’t. People are clearly disappointed in the political class – on a scale from 0 to 10, trust in politicians and parties is hovering around 3 points – but does it mean that they will stay at home, spoil their ballots or opt for fringe parties and single-issue candidates? What about the talk of a hung parliament ? Will it make voters believe that their vote counts – and so bring them to the polling stations — or make them stay at home, giving up on the idea that any change is possible?

Alex Massie

Party Just Like We’re In the Year 2000

It was Peter Mandelson who reminded me. Oh, I don’t think the Dark Lord had any intention of jogging my memory but there it was anyway: this election rmeinds me a little of the American Presidential election in 2000. Now David Cameron’s no George W Bush even though I think some Labour types do misunderstimate the young, inexperienced Tory leader but there are times when one wonders whether Gordon Brown is another Al Gore. They share some things anyway, not least the unfortunate habit of being mocked for things they didn’t quite say but everyone thinks they did (“I invented the internet!” “Well, I saved the world!”). But neither is

Daniel Korski

The Big Idea Competition

Whatever your political leanings, it is hard to deny that the Tories won the Big Idea Competition. The Labour Party offered a series of unconnected (if occasionally innovative) initiatives. But they lacked coherence. Their manifesto had what Peter Mandelson called “Blair Plus”, but also what could be referred to as “Prescott Squared”. “What’s The Big Idea?” asked Sky’s Niall Paterson. The Tories on the other hand have a Big Idea – decentralisation. Giving power to citizens in a number of different ways. It is a concept that gives shape to the Tory manifesto, providing a ready stock of sound-bites. But why do we need Big Ideas, as opposed to

Alex Massie

Labour’s Defence Weakness

Meanwhile, I’m puzzled by quite a bit of Labour’s manifesto. Some of it seems rather sullen, defensive and most put-out. Take the passage on defence for instance: there’s much protesting that, actually, defence budgets so have risen and it’s rotten that anyone should ever think anything to the contrary. And yet Labour seem to concede – implicitly anyway – that their critics have a point. Otherwise why would they feel the need to promise – as part of “the next stage of national renewal” no less – to “conduct a Strategic Defence Review to equip our Armed Forces for 21st Century challenges”? Doesn’t this rather suggest that the Armed Forces

The Spectator

Around the Web: Conservative manifesto

You can read Fraser’s verdict here, but this is what the rest of the Web had to say: Janet Daley described it as ‘the perfect pitch’: ‘The Conservatives have just given a launch performance for their manifesto which was as close to perfect as any I have seen. It was clear, coherent and genuinely compelling: the message was simple: people power rather than state power.’ Ben Brogan welcomes less, not more: ‘Today was also about David Cameron. He made a long speech, too long, and so reminded us that when he is scripted he is less effective. It was later when he let rip with a bit of Angry Dave

Fraser Nelson

The Tories’ great manifesto launch

Battersea Power Station is chosen as an allegory for Britain – “a building in need of rejuvenation in a country in need of rejuvenation” says David Cameron. As for Cameron’s speech – great stuff. He delivered the ‘empowerment’ message and gave hard examples, and wrapped it up into a greatest hits of his best soundbites (none the worse for that). It was so up our street that, at times, I thought he was working his way through the leader in the current edition of The Spectator. I’ll save my full verdict on Cameron’s speech and positioning for the magazine this week. But here’s the rest of the launch. The Tories

Alex Massie

A Big Election?

What a curious election this is. As Tim Montgomerie points out over at Spectator Live (visit!) the Conservative manifesto appears to have been written as though the great Fiscal Crash had never happened. This is either bold or brave or, worse, perhaps both. Then again it’s not as if Labour are offering anything more convincing. A chart will help explain this: So there you have it: squabbling over £12bn; total silence over the £155bn rest that might need to be cut. Marvel at how narrow our politics can be. Granted these numbers are taken from the Institute for Economic Affairs but even if you quibble with their calculations the broad

Peter Hoskin

Tory manifesto launch – live blog

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1100. 1238: And that’s it. Phew – quite a marathon. A strong central message, I think, but it could have been said in fewer words. Thanks for tuning in. 1235: The Guardian’s Nick Watt asks why the Tories aren’t talking more about the extent, and the consequences, of spending cuts. Cameron’s response is that he has “always been frank” with the public. 1233: Key question on whether withdrawing the state will mean worse public services for folk. Cameron says that he not looking to pull the rug from under people, but just to introduce choice and competition to counter the “dead, dull hand of