Politics Archives

Monday

18 Mar 2013

Why the Tories don’t think the Leveson deal is statutory underpinning

David Cameron has just met Tory MPs to explain the deal he’s struck on Leveson. One of the things many of them were anxious to learn was whether the result does really mean the government has accepted the need for statutory underpinning. Hopefully the PM employed a better turn of phrase than his spokesman, who told hacks this morning that this ‘enshrines a non-legislative approach’. The Tories in Number 10 are insisting that this really is the case, that it’s not statute at all and that the PM’s feet aren’t wet from any crossing of the Rubicon. Their argument is firstly that the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

James Forsyth

Number 10: Cameron was awake and available throughout the negotiations

A senior Number 10 source tells me that David Cameron was awake and available throughout the Leveson negotiations. They also point out that Nick Clegg left the meeting at 11.30pm, before the crucial business was done. On the Hacked Off point, they insist that Oliver Letwin ‘very politely’ asked them to leave the room for the sensitive part of the discussions. I’m told that Cameron then chaired a 6am conference call on the result of the negotiations where he declared himself satisfied. He feels that he’s avoided a press law. Downing Street is bristling at the idea that they got the worst end of the deal. They argue that Hacked

Isabel Hardman

Ministerial aides demand to support backbench vote on foreign criminals

All eyes are on what’s happening with the cross-party amendments to two bits of legislation on Leveson, but this afternoon in the Commons there could well be another row on the Crime and Courts Bill. As we reported last week, Conservative MP Dominic Raab has an amendment to the legislation which would limit the opportunities for foreign criminals to avoid deportation. It has over 100 MPs signed up to it, including Labour grandees such as David Blunkett. But I also understand that a number of Conservative PPSs have contacted their whips saying that they would like to support this amendment and that they want to be given leave to do

Alex Massie

After Leveson and McCluskey, does Alex Salmond believe in the freedom of the press?

So, it seems some kind of torturous “deal” has been reached in London on how best to regulate the press in the future. If David Cameron’s proposals for a Royal Charter are less reprehensible than the plans favoured by Labour and Liberal Democrats that is not, in the end saying very much. But I suppose even midget mercies are worth welcoming. This is not quite the end of the matter, however. It remains to be seen what impact this deal has on the other jurisdiction in these islands. That press regulation is a devolved matter is, I think, pretty much an accident (it was left off the list of explicitly

Isabel Hardman

Late night Leveson talks bring parties close to deal

So it looks as though a deal has been struck on Leveson after late night talks. Oliver Letwin, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman were holed up in Miliband’s office until 2.30 this morning, and Labour is now confident that it is close not just to an agreement on press regulation, but an agreement on its own proposals for a Royal Charter, rather than the government’s draft. As Coffee House reported on Friday, David Cameron was facing a rebellion of around 20 Tory MPs and a defeat in the House of Commons on his Conservative amendment which introduced the Royal Charter. That threat appears to have concentrated the mind

Sunday

17 Mar 2013

James Forsyth

Which Tories will be Hacked Off’s useful idiots?

Reading the Hacked Off memo on how to lobby Tory MPs is to be inducted into a wholly cynical world view. It declares, ‘These people are likely to be people you instinctively distrust, dislike and despair of. If they are what we need to win, however, we must understand their value and not confuse our values with their intentions’. The memo, leaked to the Mail on Sunday, reveals that Hacked Off think that the Tory MPs who support them are likely to be ‘social authoritarians’, those ‘who have suffered at the hands of the press themselves’ or those who ‘simply want to bring David Cameron down’. This memo is also

Fraser Nelson

The BBC and religion

It is to David Lammy’s credit that he hasn’t deleted what my Spectator colleague, Hugo Rifkind, describes as his new all-time favourite tweet. For those who haven’t come across it yet, this is how the Tottenham MP responded to the BBC’s coverage of the papal election where it mentioned “white smoke”: This tweet from the BBC is crass and unnecessary. Do we really need silly innuendo about the race of the next Pope? twitter.com/DavidLammy/sta… — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) March 12, 2013 There were more solid grounds for criticising the BBC that day: the corporation again showed its problems understanding religion. It managed to find a translator for the Vatican election

Saturday

16 Mar 2013

Ruth Porter

Can you trust the Tories to organise a Tory conference?

This year we have had two Tory spring conferences: the first organised by the blog ConservativeHome and today’s organised by the Tories. Last week, hundreds of activists gave up their Saturday to gather in Westminster and talk about how they’d win the next election. The discussion was vibrant, with serious debate about everything from regional economic development to tackling the perception of the Tories as a posh party. And there was much candour. Jesse Norman even said that the electorate tends to make the right decisions and that it was “not clear” to him that the Tories deserved to win the last election. So yes, uncomfortable truths were spoken. (Especially by

James Forsyth

David Cameron tells Tory Spring conference: Our battle is with “socialist” Labour

The Tories know that if the next election is a referendum on the current government, it’ll be very difficult for them to win. But if it is a choice between them and a Labour government, then they are in with a good chance. David Cameron’s speech to his party’s Spring Forum today ends with a list of what a Labour government would do in its first 100 days in office. It shows how keen the Tories are to frame the next election as a choice, not a referendum, that Cameron is prepared to publicly contemplate defeat to do this. Interestingly, there’s no mnetion of the Liberal Democrats or the coalition

Friday

15 Mar 2013

Isabel Hardman

HS2 ruling: both sides claim victory

The useful thing about most court rulings in judicial review cases is that both sides can take from it whatever they want and make it into a victory. We had that last month with the work experience judgement, which was apparently both a victory for those who thought the government’s scheme was ‘slave labour’ and for those ministers who thought it was brilliant. And today’s HS2 ruling in the High Court had the same effect. The government actually won nine out of the 10 points challenged by campaigners, so Transport Minister Simon Burns could call this a ‘green light’ to getting high speed rail underway. But according to former Cabinet

Isabel Hardman

20 Tories could rebel on Royal Charter plan

Conservative MPs who have previously supported statutory underpinning of press regulation are meeting on Monday morning to discuss how they will vote. There is a list of 75 Tories who have backed the idea, but I understand that if an agreement isn’t reached on Monday between the main parties, there are around 20 MPs who would be minded to vote against the Conservative three-line whip and support Labour’s amendments. The Conservative part of the government has just published its Royal Charter, and Labour and the Lib Dems are also tabling more amendments today. Once all the information is available, pro-statute Tory MPs will make up their mind on whether to

Isabel Hardman

Parties prepare for Leveson showdown

The Conservative amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill which introduce their Royal Charter for press regulation proposal are now out, although Labour and the Lib Dems are yet to table all their formal amendments. Most of the amendments – which are signed by David Cameron, Theresa May, William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Maria Miller – relate to exemplary damages for publishers, but the new system of regulation is also defined in this amendment: For the purposes of subsection (2), a body is “recognised” as a regulator of relevant publishers if it is so recognised by any body established by Royal Charter (whether established before or after the

Thursday

14 Mar 2013

The Spectator

Justin Welby and the welfare state

From Robert Runcie’s attack on Tory Pharisees to Rowan Williams’s missives on the Iraq war, the ecclesiastical opposition housed in Lambeth Palace has in recent times been a frequent source of unease to the government of the day. If any ministers were hoping Justin Welby would be a quieter presence than his predecessor, they were disabused of this notion last weekend when, before even waiting for his enthronement, he backed a letter signed by 43 bishops attacking welfare cuts. The letter claimed that the proposed changes would throw 200,000 children into poverty. It is understandable that the new archbishop felt obliged to sign the letter: this peculiar way of viewing

Camilla Swift

Spectator Debate: Britain’s future lies outside the EU (with audio)

It was a clash of the Euro titans at our latest sell-out Spectator debate: “Britain’s future lies outside the EU”. Nigel Farage led the team for the motion and the former president of France, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, led the opposition – with Andrew Neil in the chair. Patrick Minford and James Delingpole supported team Farage, while Steve Richards and Richard Ottaway MP spoke for the EU. And there was all to play for. On the way into the debate, the vote was: For: 196 Against: 105 Undecided: 99 After the speeches – and Q&A – there were no more undecideds and the votes fell as follows:- For: 247 Against: 123 Everyone came

Jonathan Jones

Voters: It’s not Plan A, it’s Osborne

A fascinating poll result from Ipsos MORI today. They ask, essentially, whether people agree with the government’s ‘Plan A’ or Labour’s ‘Plan B’. Specifically, they ask: ‘People have different ideas about the best way of dealing with Britain’s economic difficulties. Which of the following do you most agree with? A1: Britain has a debt problem, built up over many years, and we have got to deal with it. If we don’t, interest rates will soar. That’s why tackling the deficit and keeping interest rates low should be our top priority. OR B1: Without growth in our economy, we are not getting the deficit down and are borrowing more. We need

Isabel Hardman

Mid-Staffs scandal: The Tories must beware focusing solely on Andy Burnham

MPs were debating accountability in the NHS following the Mid-Staffs scandal today, and as part of that, the argument about who – if anyone – should be held responsible continues to rumble on. Charlotte Leslie and many of her Tory colleagues want to see Sir David Nicholson gone (and The Telegraph‘s Robert Winnett reports that senior government figures are considering a route by which he can exit). But the focus of Jeremy Hunt and other Conservatives is on Andy Burnham instead. Today Hunt said: ‘[Nicholson] does bear some responsibility. He said himself ‘we lost our focus’, he has apologised and has been held to account by this House and others. But

Liam Fox, Theresa May and the meaning of conservatism

Speeches by Theresa May and Liam Fox have produced a surge of interest in what Conservatives stand for. Politics in recent years has become an endeavour by a political class, divided by only superficially different beliefs, to use mass advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion. The emphasis on ‘modernisation’ and detoxification grew out of this narrow, calculating spirit, but it has led the Conservatives away from the ideals that have made this country worthy of allegiance. And yet, readily to hand, there are guiding principles that could stir the heart of many a potential Conservative voter. Many conservatives see themselves as champions of liberty. But what does such a claim

Alex Massie

Nemo me impune lacessit: defending an independent Scotland

Sometimes I wish Conservative cabinet ministers would couch their arguments in favour of the Union in terms of principle, not process or drab accountancy. Philip Hammond, the unimpressive Secretary of State for Defence, is the latest minister to warn that some of the perfectly solvable problems that are an inescapable feature of unwinding the United Kingdom are in fact so intractable that it’s a fool’s mission to even think about resolving them. Mr Hammond’s interview with the Daily Telegraph today is but the latest example of this question-begging. He appears to believe that Scottish independence is an idea so obviously ridiculous that it effectively refutes itself without the need for

James Forsyth

Leveson talks failure is bad omen for 2015 coalition negotiations

David Cameron’s decision to go it alone and call a vote on a press Royal Charter on Monday is a reminder both of how fundamental the differences between the coalition partners are on press regulation and that the next election is less than 25 months away. Cameron’s statement that if he loses next week and statutory regulation passes, then a majority Conservative government would repeal it shows that he’s prepared to make this an election issue. The coalition won’t fall over Monday’s vote. But it will be a moment of high parliamentary drama. I would venture, though, that if Labour and the Liberal Democrats can’t agree a common position on

Isabel Hardman

David Cameron brings Leveson debate to a head over bill hijack fears

Those involved in the Leveson talks from the Labour and Lib Dem side say they had no idea the Prime Minister was going to pull the plug on the cross-party discussions this morning until a conference call shortly before David Cameron’s hastily-arranged press conference. An angry Lib Dem source tells me: ‘It was completely out of the blue to be honest. Over the last few days the talks have been making gal progress and we were moving towards a deal. We thought a solution was possible. There were other things we war pushing for, such as some form of statutory underpinning to protect the Royal Charter from future political interference.