Politics Archives

Tuesday

30 Mar 2010

The price of freedom of speech

Tomorrow, I’ll blog the first of a couple of pieces in response to the Press Complaints Commission’s bizarre adjudication (and indeed its self-important breast-beating). All those figures in full. Right now I’m thinking of taking the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission for a decision which they were unable to support with hard facts and seemed motivated more by a wish to genuflect before the PC liberals who eviscerated the organization over its inept handling of the Jan Moir case. But, as I say, more of that tomorrow. I’ve blogged before about my respect for Peter Tatchell. Here’s his response to the heavy handed treatment of a Christian

James Forsyth

The Lib Dems attack Labservatism

In this post-expenses election, there is going to be a considerable vote going for the none of the above party. The Lib Dems are clearly determined to try and tap into this vote. At PMQs in recent weeks, Nick Clegg has constantly sought to attack Labour and the Tories as different sides of the same coin. Last night in his closing statement, Vince Cable accused Labour of being ‘in hock’ to militant unions and the Tories to millionaires with their snouts in the trough. The message their trying to get across is clear: they’re both as bad as each other. Now, the Lib Dems have launched quite an effective site

Peter Hoskin

Guess who’s back

Yep, you guessed right: Tony Blair was doing his bit for the Labour cause this morning, with a speech in his old constituency. In truth, there was little in it of any note – or that we haven’t heard countless times from his successor. Thus the Tories were derided as either the “old Tory party,” or as confused about their direction of travel. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were hailed as the men who brought us through the worst of the economic storm. And even the soundbites (“meeting not just future challenges, but seizing future opportunities”) sounded as if they had come from straight from the Brownite copybook. Perhaps the

David Blackburn

Is David Davis talking off-message?

James Macintyre asked yesterday, in response to a speech Davis made at the Bristol Chambers of Commerce. The question should enter John Rentoul’s entertaining list of questions to which the answer is No. Macintyre takes Davis’ comments out of context: ‘First, he [Davis] praises the post-war Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, who is credited with creating the NHS and the Welfare State, and effectively compares him to Margaret Thatcher: “Attlee created the modern Welfare State at a time when the country was bankrupt after the war. Mrs Thatcher transformed the country after 1979 when it was at its lowest ebb.”’ What Davis actually said was: “When times are tough, that

Fraser Nelson

Osborne’s silent victory

I think Osborne’s main victory tonight would be to reassure those who thought him a clueless idiot. The left demonise him, and it’s easy for the right to despair at him too (yes, guilty). But the figure we saw tonight was calm, collected and assured – and I reckon this was his achievement. He allayed fears. Expectations of his performance would have been rock bottom, and he’d have surpassed them easily. He was playing it safe. Vince Cable did his after-dinner speaking comedy act (I met William Hague in the ‘spin room’ afterwards, who swears that some of Cables lines were nicked from his repertoire), and the studio audience loved

Peter Hoskin

Tory poll lead widens further

I’ll spare you the nitty-gritty, but suffice to say that three separate polls tonight record growing leads for the Tories – of 7, 7 and 10 points, respectively. One of the 7-point leads is from the YouGov Daily Tracker, which has been hovering around the 4 point mark for the past few weeks. You could argue that we’re still operating more or less within the margin of error. That’s true. But throw in the polls from the weekend, and you’d be hard-pressed not to conclude that the tide is turning, at least momentarily, in Cameron & Co.’s favour. Either way, Tory folk around Westminster certainly seem more relaxed than they

Monday

29 Mar 2010

Alex Massie

Do Debates Really Help the Liberal Democrats?

Well, in one sense, yes of course they do. By putting Vince Cable and, later, Nick Clegg up against their Conservative and Labour peers the Lib Dems are granted a status and respect they never achieve in other circumstances. So in terms of exposure and credibility then yes the debates help the Liberal Democrats. The format helps too: since Labour and the Tories will sensibly ignore the Liberals the third party is rarely tasked with the awkward business of defending its own proposals. Instead it can scamper around picking off the low-hanging fruit dangling from the Labour and Toriy trees. Since, god help us, there’s no shortage of that then

Peter Hoskin

Few fireworks – but solid performances from Cable and Osborne<br />

So now we know what happens when you put three would-be finance ministers into a room, and start asking them questions. There’s plenty of esoteric language, a good dash of posturing – and next to no fireworks. Thinking about it, perhaps we shouldn’t have expected much else. Not that the pyrotechnics were completely absent, of course. Both Cable and Darling rounded on Osborne over the Tories’ national insurance plans, and Osborne hit back with some well-directed attacks on Labour’s own tax and spend agenda – even getting Darling to waver and admit that a “death tax” is no longer on the cards. But, for the most part, calm and

Peter Hoskin

Chancellor’s debate: live blog

2057, PH: We’ll sign off for now. I’ll be back with a summary post shortly. 2057, JF: Osborne gets his closing statement just right, sounding humble and emphasising this is the voter’s choice. I expect Osborne will be very satsified with his night’s work. 2055, PH: And Osborne has the closing word. He’s not quite as direct as Cable – saying that the Lib Dems won’t be in government, and that the Tories have “shown, under the leadership of David Cameron” that they’ve got what it takes – but its a neat enough closer. 2054. PH: Punchy stuff from Cable, who says that you can’t trust Labour because they got

James Forsyth

Brown and Cameron’s Commons clash serves as the warm-up for tonight’s debate

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have just been facing each other in the Commons chamber. Brown was notionally reporting back on the European summit meeting, but in relaity Brown and Cameron were setting the stage for the Chancellor’s debate tonight. Cameron claimed that there was a new dividing line in British politics, the Tories for ‘efficency and aspiration’ and Labour for ‘waste and taxes.’ Brown claimed that the Tories were indulging in panic measures and that their plans announced today would ‘withdraw the support that is necessary for the economy to have a sustained recovery.’ Brown might have some Keynesian economists on his side when he says this. But it

David Blackburn

How long will it take Gordon Brown to act on this?

Defence minister Kevan Jones was extremely foolish to re-open the Gurkhas’ residency issue at the electoral cycle’s eleventh hour. Accusing Joanna Lumley of maintaining a “deathly silence” over the campaign was a temptation too many for fate. She’s silent no longer. She convened a press conference and immediately gained the moral, and strategic, high-ground, saying: “(There is) a sense of regret that it has come to this, almost clearing our name in public. “We want to call on the prime minister to confirm that the policy is one that he still completely supports, to affirm from the prime minister that the MoD is still behind what it said it

James Forsyth

The Tories have a clear message on taxation

The Tories now have a clear message on personal taxation, ‘you’ll pay less under the Conservatives.’ Their announcement today that they will reverse, for seven in ten workers, Labour’s increase in the tax on jobs is welcome news. As I said in the Mail on Sunday, turning the spotlight on the National Insurance hike shows that Labour’s tax rises aren’t just going to hit people who earn more than £150,000 a year who are going to buy a house costing more than a million but anyone who earns more than £20,000 a year. Some are questioning whether National Insurance is the most effective tax to cut since it is a

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 29 March 2010

…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk. Fraser Nelson explains the News of the World’s endorsement of Cameron. James Forsyth believes that tonight’s chancellors’ debate is an opportunity for Osborne, and argues that the Tories need a ‘twin track’ approach. Peter Hoskin says Osborne must ask why the party who maxed out the credit card should be trusted, and observes a possible post-Budget bounce for the Tories. David Blackburn ponders the most corrupt parliament ever. Susan Hill wants the back line cut. And Alex Massie analyses Obama and the Jews.

Fraser Nelson

Back to his Tory best

George Osborne has just set the scene for tonight’s Chancellors’ debate by announcing something neither Darling or Cable will be able to match: a tax cut. It’s a real one, it will benefit some 20m workers and (best of all) it will be paid for by spending cuts. While the amount is not huge – everyone on under £43,000 will be £150 better off – it indicates the route the Conservatives would go down in government. Trusting people with their own money, and stoking the recovery by cutting the tax on jobs. Here are the main points: 1) Osborne would raise National Insurance threshold in Apr11. One of the

Peter Hoskin

A smart move by Osborne – but he needs to ready himself for his opponents’ attacks

There’s little doubting it: the Tory plan to (at least partially) reverse Labour’s national insurance hike has handed George Osborne a high-calibre weapon for tonight’s TV debate. It is, I suspect, an attractive and attention-grapping policy in itself. But it also helps the shadow Chancellor paint the Tories as the party of aspiration. Or, as Tim Montgomerie has put it: “Seven out of ten working people will be better off if Cameron becomes Prime Minister.” But announcing the policy this morning has also given Alistair Darling and Vince Cable a chance to very publicly denounce it later today. We’ve already had a preview of what’s likely to form the central

Sunday

28 Mar 2010

Alex Massie

Labour’s Political Football

Elections really are pretty grim. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been overseas for some of them (well, 1997 and 2005) that this one seems especially awful. First there’s the rash of “celebrity endorsements”* which are themselves enough to make one abandon any remaining hope. I mean, if the Tories are “backed” by Ulrika Jonsson, John McCririck, Tony Handley and Jimmy Greaves how can any sentient person consider that an argument for the Conservative cause? Then there’s this latest election-gimmick from Labour: proposals** to “give” football supporters’ groups a 25% stake in their club’s shareholding. By give, of course, I mean insist. Really, it’s hard to know where to begin. But this

Peter Hoskin

Confirmed: Tories to “block” Labour’s planned national insurance hike

We’ll have more details tomorrow but, for now, Tim Montgomerie has the lowdown. As I said a few days ago, this is a smart move from the Tories, and gives them a good message to deploy on the doorsteps. Indeed, Tim has already drafted it for them: “Seven out of ten working people will be better off if Cameron becomes Prime Minister.” UPDATE: The Telegraph has more information here. Looks as though the Tories might keep the rise for those above a certain income (the Telegraph speculates £37,400). Either way, we’ll know for sure tomorrow morning.

Peter Hoskin

Osborne must ask: why trust the party which ran up the credit card bill in the first place?

Public sector net borrowing, public sector net debt, total managed expenditure, departmental expenditure limits … zzzzz. One of the main reasons why Labour has been able to fashion an economic narrative, against all odds, is because they can rely on some pretty esoteric language. Thus debt becomes interchangeable with deficit, and cuts can be hidden under layers and layers of different spending metrics. Perhaps more than anything, this almost-casual deception is Brown’s greatest skill. Which is why it’s encouraging that the Tories have tried to demystify some of the fiscal debate, putting it into language that everyone can follow. They’ve set out their “more for less” argument by referring to

David Blackburn

The most corrupt parliament ever?

It makes you proud to be British. Where resourcefulness and self-worth are concerned, our political class is unmatched. Former Sports minister and ambassador for the 2018 World Cup bid, Richard Caborn, has been stung by the Sunday Times soliciting influence for £2,500 a day ‘plus expenses, obviously’. Obviously Richard, we would expect nothing less from a man of your eminence. So to for former Defence Minister, Adam Ingram, who takes lobbying so seriously he charges VAT. I wonder how Colonel Gadaffi reacted to the 17.5 percent extra charge when Ingram facilitated the construction of a new Libyan defence academy? Hypocrisy is more ubiquitous at Westminster than Pugin. Apologists for the expenses scandal argue that

Fraser Nelson

Explaining the NotW endorsement

The News of the World’s endorsement of the Conservatives today is worth reading. It has taken some time and much soul-searching for the paper to make this decision. Papers, even under the same proprietor, have different readerships with different outlooks on life. The Sun came out for the Tories on the last day of the Labour conference last September, but its stablemate has taken far longer. It has been firm in its denunciation of Brown’s failings but – like many voters – it has looked long and hard at just how a Tory government would correct them. The reason for its endorsement now is laid out in the leading article.