Politics Archives

Saturday

22 May 2010

Dodging Iraq

Disowning the Iraq War: that’s the task which Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have a set themselves today, as part of their continuing efforts to distinguish themselves from the Blair and Brown years. In interview with the Telegraph, Balls says that the public were misled by “devices and tactics” over the case for war. And, in the Guardian, Ed Miliband argues that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time, and that the conflict triggered “a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour”. He has since claimed that he would have voted against the war at the time. Balls and Miliband are clearly trying to take advantage of the fact

Peter Hoskin

The axeman speaketh

There’s an entire gaggle of noteworthy interviews in the papers this morning, but let’s start with David Laws in the FT. It’s generally quite hard to draw substantive conclusions about the actual interviewee in political interviews, but I’m sure you wouldn’t come away from this one thinking anything but that Laws is a good man to have in the Treasury right now. Here, anyway, are five observations about what he actually said: 1. Sharing the blame. If people in Tory circles feel that there’s one major consolation to working with the Lib Dems, then it’s that they can share the blame over spending cut. But, encouragingly, Laws sees this as

Alex Massie

The Third Most Important Man in Britain

Well, in the government anyway. After David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the next most important chap is David Laws. So it’s reassuring to see that the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury is prepared for the worst. I recommend this interview with the Financial Times which, frankly, offers just another reminder that the calibre of the cabinet has been improved by including the Orange Bookers: [S]ome of the decisions that have got to be made, particularly in the spending review later on this year, are going to be a choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous. […]I’m mentally prepared for getting a lot of representations from angry people about

The Spectator

Germany’s agony

When George Osborne attended his first meeting of European finance ministers on Tuesday, he may well have felt a pang of pity for his Continental colleagues. True, Britain has the worst deficit and the most rampant inflation in Western Europe. True, Mr Osborne may have been outmanoeuvred over the regulation of hedge funds. But the Chancellor has a trump card: the pound sterling. When it tumbles, we can export our way back to growth. When Greece implodes, we can maintain a studied distance. All things considered, it could be worse. We could be Germany. Germany’s dire situation today offers the most eloquent of all arguments against the concept of a

James Forsyth

Will any leadership candidate tell Labour the hard truths it needs to hear?

James Forsyth reviews the week in politics The entry of a forty-something, privately educated white male Oxford graduate into a political contest normally does little for its diversity. But when Ed Balls jumped into the Labour leadership race he did at least expand the pool beyond members of the Miliband family. Even now, all three candidates read the same subject at the same university. If Andy Burnham joins the fray, though, there will be a non-Oxonian candidate. Burnham went to Cambridge. For the People’s Party, the self-proclaimed champions of the working class and diversity, it is a bit embarrassing that all the likely candidates to lead it are Oxbridge-educated white

Mira Barhillel

Must do better: Boris Johnson’s half-term report

On Question Time last month, Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor, was asked about his plans to build a new airport in the Thames estuary: an idea seen as reasonable by some and insane by others. As he blustered amiably away, saying not very much, a lady interrupted and asked: ‘Why can’t you just admit it when you are wrong instead of waffling on?’ The audience roared with approval. It was an Emperor’s New Clothes moment. The innocent questioner had put her finger on Boris’s fatal flaws: he can’t admit he’s wrong, but he’s a little too lazy to do his homework properly, and that often leaves him intellectually denuded. The Mayor

Robert Beaumont

‘It’s a fight to the death here’

David Cameron has said that the two most beautiful constituencies in England are his own, in Oxfordshire, and Oliver Letwin’s in Dorset. He obviously knows little of Thirsk and Malton, a small slice of North Yorkshire heaven, but the area will certainly be on his mind next Thursday. For here, the now supposedly united tribes of Tories and Liberal Democrats are engaged in a vicious local election, the first of the new parliament. If the nasty tone and temper of this rural battle is anything to go by, the national Lib-Con alliance hasn’t a chance. In the Left corner (or thereabouts) stands Howard Keal, a local Lib Dem bigwig with

Fraser Nelson

Can Cameron assuage the Tory tribes?

Amid the chaos in the House of Commons, with newly elected MPs finding their offices and newly appointed ministers being kicked out of them, Graham Brady is the picture of calm. As the only MP to resign on principle from David Cameron’s front bench (over grammar schools), he knew there would be no phone call from Number 10. Yet next week, he may end up being more important than any minister of state. He is favourite for a position that has suddenly started to matter again: chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs. In the era of Blair-style landslides, the likes and loves of backbench MPs mattered little:

Friday

21 May 2010

The Spectator

The week that was | 21 May 2010

Here are some of the posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the past week: Fraser Nelson interviews Graham Brady, and argues that a Bill of Rights would be useless anyway. James Forsyth says that it’s a shame Jon Cruddas isn’t running for the Labour leadership, and gives his take on Cameron’s reform of the 1922 Committee. Peter Hoskin says the Labour leadership contest is between tribalism and anti-tribalism, and wonders whether scorched earth politics is a thing of the past. Susan Hill thinks the unthinkable. Alex Massie asks: if Ed Miliband is the answer, what is the question? And Melanie Phillips gives her take on the ruling preventing an Al-Qaeda operative

Alex Massie

A Communist Mr Pooter

From the Morning Star and noted without any need for much further comment: Veteran Communist Monty Goldman is jubilant over his outstanding result in Hackney’s mayoral election this month. Goldman, who was born and bred in the east London borough, began contesting local elections 50 years ago. This time he won 2,033 votes – or 2.2 per cent. “This is the highest Communist vote ever achieved in my lifetime as a candidate in Hackney,” Goldman declares. “The last time I did this well was in the 1967 Greater London Council election, when I won 1,671 votes, which worked out at over 6 per cent.” He emphasises that his recent success

Peter Hoskin

John Redwood “not sure” whether ministers will vote in 1922 Committee

John Redwood is interviewed by Andrew Neil on Straight Talk this weekend, and there’s a rather eyecatching exchange where the Tory MP claims that he’s “not sure” whether ministers will be able to vote in the 1922 Committee, after all: John Redwood: …as I understand the ballot, the ballot was about whether Ministers should come regularly to the 22 or not, and so I have no problem with that, and if that is the agreement, then fine. Andrew Neil: So are you not clear yet whether Ministers can come along as full members of the 22 Committee? JR: Well, I’m not sure whether they vote in 1922 elections, which is

Alex Massie

A Ten Year Deal

A wise column by Martin Kettle in today’s Guardian. Wise, of course, because he reaches a conclusion this blog arrived at some time ago: Yet it is not too soon to insist that almost everything about this government so far, including today’s programme, is intended to be about more than making the best of a bad job. Everything now points, indeed, to this coalition being a serious historic attempt to realign the liberal centre-right in the electoral middle ground. Cameron and Clegg, in their own ways, now almost say as much. “The more I see of this coalition in action,” Cameron said, “the more I see its potential, not just

Peter Hoskin

The latest expenses battle

IPSA, IPSA, IPSA. If there’s one thing exercising MPs across all parties at the moment, then it’s the new expenses regime in the Commons: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I won’t run through all of their grievances here, mainly because you can find good summaries here, here and here. But they are already a frustrating mix of seemingly legitimate concerns (about staff wages) and outrageous whining (about not having taxi fares paid for before 11pm)(erm, pay for them yourself). The latest news is that John Bercow is going to intervene, to “ensure the new rules are interpreted reasonably and that MPs are treated courteously.” That may not sound like much,

Peter Hoskin

The Tories still need to do more to sell their school reforms

It is quite telling that David Cameron’s first newspaper article since becoming Prime Minister is for the Daily Mail, and even more telling that its central message is, “you still have a Conservative Prime Minister”. There then follows a series of reassurances about Dave’s political motivations (“I believe the state is your servant, never your master. I believe in the common sense and decency of the British people”) and about the policies contained in the coalition agreement. One line that jumped out at me, though, is this rather inspid description of the Tories’ radical school reform agenda: “We’re also giving parents, charities and other organisations the opportunity to set up

Peter Hoskin

A Labour leadership candidate needs to take on Balls over spending – and quick

A week ago, I wondered whether the Labour leadership contest might produce a “cuts candidate”: someone prepared to responsibly debate the fiscal situation as part of their campaign. But, as Danny Finkelstein has noted, none of the candidates so far has even mentioned the deficit, let alone suggested solutions for trimming it. Their wilful silence on the issue is starting to look bizarre, to say the least. The worry, though, is that it will also prove dangerous. So long as the d-word doesn’t get a look in, Ed Balls is blissfully free to do what he does best, and bang on misleadingly about “investment vs cuts”. He certainly seizes the

Thursday

20 May 2010

Peter Hoskin

The civil service talks cuts

Jonathan Baume is fast becoming one of the political celebrities of the LibCon era. If you recall, he’s the union chief who revealed that the senior civil servants had written letters to Labour ministers in concern at spending decisions made close to the election. And now he’s popped up again, with more unflattering comments about the previous administration. Speaking at his union’s annual conference, he said that “new ministers and MPs must begin to display the personal and moral integrity that was so obviously lacking in the previous Parliament, even within the Cabinet.” Hm, I wonder who he could mean. The most revealing comment Baume makes, though, is about public

Peter Hoskin

A curious little episode

Iain Martin asks a good question about today’s 1922 Committee vote: “This is a rather curious little episode. In what other club, society or members-run committee would nonmembers (ministers in this case) get to vote for their being granted full membership against the wishes of the existing members?” N.B. Paul Goodman has done the maths to suggest that a majority of Tory backbenchers voted against Cameron.

Peter Hoskin

Calling Osborne’s bluff

I’ve just read through George Osborne’s speech to the CBI annual dinner last night, and there’s much in there about free markets and tax cuts that will encourage Tory supporters. But one passsage seemed a little strange to me: “And on the subject of coalitions, let me be absolutely frank. As a member of the negotiating team, we did consider whether we could try to bluff our way into a minority government. But it was David Cameron’s bold vision and Nick Clegg’s great foresight which saw, before anyone else, that that option would be the greatest compromise of all. A weak, unstable government, risking defeat night after night in Parliament.

Peter Hoskin

Cameron has won the 1922 Committee vote…

…by 168 to 118 votes, according to Paul Waugh. Comfortable, but not comfortable enough to suggest that there won’t be a strong core of resentment to this change. UPDATE: This could rumble on. Here’s the latest from PoliticsHome: A number of MPs, headed by the previous 1922 secretary Christopher Chope, are planning to challenge the surprisingly close result, and have not ruled out legal action. They point out that: 1. The difference between the winners and losers is more than bridged by members of the government (who they point out are not entitled to vote according to the current rules of the committee). 2. There were 23 proxy votes (where

Peter Hoskin

How the coalition will work

The full coalition agreement, released this morning, is fascinating enough in itself. Here we have a step-by-step guide for how two different parties will operate together, what they will do, and, broadly speaking, when they will do it. And, perhaps to ease the general uncertainty surrounding this type of government, it is considerably clearer than party manifestos tend to be. One thing you can say, at least, is that this coalition appears keen to make itself more accountable. Skimming through the actual document, there seem to be few surprises, and a good handful of reviews designed to punt difficult policy areas into the long grass. As the Times’s Francis Elliot