Politics

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

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Fuel for the political bonfire

Pasties and jerry cans — who’d have thought that yesterday’s politics would descend into a roaring debate about two such innocuous items? And still the hullabaloo goes on. Most of today’s front pages lead with one or both of the stories, although I’d say it’s the jerry cans that win out overall. Thanks to Francis Maude’s suggestion that ‘a bit of extra fuel in a jerry can in the garage is a sensible precaution to take,’ we’re seeing headlines such as ‘Pumps go dry as ministers provoke panic’. As with the pasty row, which James discussed yesterday evening, the political dangers of this stretch far beyond the actual matter at

Wednesday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The politics of pasties

The row over the so-called pasty tax is a proxy. It is really a row about whether David Cameron and George Osborne get what it is like to worry about the family budget each week.   In truth, I suspect that they don’t. But I think the same probably goes for Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the vast majority of journalists. Most of the politics of class in Westminster, as opposed to the country, is the narcissism of small difference.   The best thing the coalition could do now is hold its nerve. The Budget did reveal that support for it is shallow. But, as one leading pollster said to

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Revealed: the grey recovery

Are pensioners doing their bit for the recovery? The agenda of ‘intergenerational fairness’ has arisen in response to the idea that they are not, and ought to be taxed more. Daniel Knowles has made the case, in our cover story this week. Carol Sarler responds to him. In the leader, we reveal some data hitherto undisclosed: the way the oldies are responding to the recession. They’re working as never before — the below graph shows (stripping out foreign-born workers) the change over the past decade: Between 2001 and 2011, all the employment increase for UK-born people was from pension-aged workers, while working-age employment dropped. This challenges the idea of the

Peter Hoskin

Your guide to Osborne’s fiscal rules

George Osborne’s two fiscal rules have been around since his very first Budget, delivered almost two years ago, so they’re hardly news. But they do underpin much of what he’s done since, including last week’s statement, so they’re also worth knowing about. Fraser touched on ome of the detail in a post last weekend, but here’s a supplementary guide for CoffeeHousers: 1) The deficit rule. This is the one that seems to cause the most confusion, perhaps because it has often been simplified — wrongly — as something like ‘eliminate the deficit by the end of this Parliament’. Fact is, the ‘end of this Parliament’ doesn’t come into it. And as for ‘eliminating

Matt Cavanagh

Riots report undermines the Tory diagnosis, but spreads itself too thin

After last August’s riots the debate became quickly polarised. Were socio-economic factors like unemployment to blame, or was it all down to the individual choices of the rioters? David Cameron and other Conservative ministers knew which side of this debate they wanted to be on. They had been taken by surprise by the riots, initially failing to realise how serious things were, but when they got back from their holidays they set out a clear and confident line, brushing off most questions about links to the state of the economy or youth attitudes, and condemning the riots as ‘criminality pure and simple’. The soundbite was deliberately simplistic; Conservative ministers’ actual

Peter Hoskin

Another five-point ‘pledge card’ from Labour

There is no PMQs today, so Ed Miliband is filling the time as gainfully as he can with a speech bashing the Tories. Unsurprisingly, he’s making rather a lot of last week’s Budget — particularly the 50p tax cut and the frozen personal allowance for pensioners — as well as of Peter Cruddas’s recent indiscretions. And so David Cameron will be described as ‘out of touch’ and all that. But there is something else with today’s speech: a prop, in the form of a five-point ‘pledge card’. I don’t think we’ve had one of these from Labour for a couple of years now, although they do tend to reserve them

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ perception problem

Introducing Ed Miliband, Labour’s best hope since Tony Blair. Oh, I’m kidding, of course — but it’s still striking that, this morning, Labour have their biggest lead in a ComRes poll for seven years. And the size of the lead? Ten points, but it could be even bigger. The Peter Cruddas revelations fell right in the middle of ComRes’s polling. Apparently, those interviews conducted after Sunday had Labour with a 17-point lead. Of course, you can slap every caveat across this that you like: we’re still ages away from the election; one poll does not make a trend; the 17-point figure is based on a subset of a subset of

Martin Bright

The closer you are, the bluer they get

I have always thought Francis Maude was a rather decent chap on the moderate side of Tory politics. He has worked valiantly to drive the Big Society agenda from the Cabinet Office. He has the good hair of a classic Conservative MP of the old school. But he gave the game away when he talked on the Today programme about the ‘suppers’ held at Downing Street. For the people out there who think that supper is a snack you have in your pyjamas just before bedtime, and dinner is something you eat in the middle of the day, Maude’s comments will be mystifying (if, that is, they ever listen to

Monday

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Osborne, the Master Strategist

According to John Rentoul, the combination of the budget and Cam Dine With Me* has shunted Labour into a ten point lead in the opinion polls. Tuesday’s Independent/ComRes poll puts Labour on 43% (+3) and the Tories – as you may have worked out by now – on 33% (-4). How to spin this? 1. It’s only one poll. 2. The poll that counts is the general election. 3. Better to take the hit on 50p and Granny-raiding now, not later. 4. This is a verdict on the coalition, not Labour. Voters will change their views when they must think about Ed Miliband. 5. Who cares? Each of these points

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Labour’s baggage stops it from gaining the upper hand

It now seems as if Downing Street is moving towards releasing a list of Chequers guests. This is belated recognition of the fact that their best hope of getting beyond this story is to get everything out there. But as Francis Maude’s feisty performance in the Commons demonstrated, the Tories are not short of mud to throw at Labour. The combination of Labour’s reliance on the Unions and the Ecclestone affair means that it is hard for Labour to get on the front foot. Indeed, Tory sources are claiming that when they approached Labour to see if they would support changes to the Sunday Trading laws for the Olympics, Labour

James Forsyth James Forsyth

How will the Lib Dems respond?

The key thing to watch for during Francis Maude’s statement is the Lib Dem reaction. At the moment, the Tories can rebut Labour’s criticisms of them by pointing to both union funding and the Ecclestone affair. But if their coalition partners start turning up the volume on this story, then the Tories are in a far more difficult position. What will drive the Lib Dems is their desire to get a deal on party funding. The Lib Dems are very keen to reduce the advantages that the Torties and Labour have on this front and this scandal presents the perfect opportunity to press for a restrictive cap on donations and

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s Downing St dinners with donors

14 July 2010, dinner at No.10 Anthony and Carol Bamford Michael and Dorothy Hintze Murdoch and Elsa Maclennan Lord John and Lady Sainsbury Andrew Feldman Jill and Paul Ruddock Mike and Jenny Fraser Michael and Clara Freeman 28 Feb 2011, dinner in the flat David Rowland and Mrs Rowland Andrew and Gabby Feldman 2 Nov 2011, dinner in the flat Mike and Jenny Farmer Ian and Christine Taylor Henry and Dorothy Angest 2 February 2012, dinner in the flat Michael Spencer Sarah, Marchioness of Milford Haven

Peter Hoskin

Cameron u-turns on donor secrecy — but what now?

One distinct feature of the ‘cash for access’ row is that we’ve seen it all before. And not just the glutinous mix of politics and money, but also the debate over what should be done to fix it. Last November, Sir Christopher Kelly, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, released a report into the funding of political parties that featured many of the options we’re hearing today. It landed on 24 recommendations, of which one stood out: ‘the only safe way to remove big money from party funding is to put a cap on donations, set at £10,000’. But to prevent a subsequent shortfall in parties’ funds,

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 26 March 2012

…here are some posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the weekend: Fraser Nelson believes the Lib Dems are an easier target than the Prime Minister and looks at the borrowing behind Osborne’s Budget. James Forsyth examines Ken’s identity crisis.  Peter Hoskin believes spending will become more significant as 2015 approaches and looks at the ‘next big scandal’ detonating under Cameron. Rod Liddle says farewell to Dame Liz Forgan.  On the Book Blog, Louise Mensch is this week’s bookbencher.  And on the Arts Blog, Jessica Duchen asks why classical music and comedy aren’t mixed more often.

Peter Hoskin

The problem for Cameron is his proximity to the problem

The happiest news for David Cameron this morning is that the ‘cash for access’ story hasn’t quite made it onto every front page. But that’s it, really, so far as the glad tidings are concerned. All the rest is poison for No.10. The Prime Minister is now fighting off calls — including from his own MPs — to release the names of those donors who enjoyed dinner at his Downing Street flat. Labour are, of course, pressing for him to go further than an internal party inquiry, and launch an independent investigation instead. Today’s furore is not going to simmer down after a few days, or even after a few

Sunday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Transparency, not state funding

Cutting the 50p rate was economically the right thing to do, but the politics of it are hugely complicated. The biggest danger is that it bolsters the sense that the Conservatives are the political wing of the privileged classes. For this reason, it is particularly unfortunate for the Conservatives that it is this Sunday that The Sunday Times has done an expose (£) on how potential donors were being lured with the offer of supper with Cameron and Osborne and the chance to influence policymaking. Labour are already trying to link the two, asking the Prime Minister to ‘provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The borrowing behind Osborne’s Budget

Will George Osborne’s refusal to look again at high levels of state spending become the greatest risk to Britain’s economic stability? There have been plenty of rude comments about the Chancellor’s supposed tactical ineptitude in the weekend press, but he has still managed to keep on borrowing and have almost no one notice. Osborne’s iron commitment is to spending, and a programme of cuts which total just under 1 per cent a year. His commitment to deficit reduction is flexible, as his three Budgets have demonstrated: Osborne spent the election campaign berating Labour for its lack of ambition in halving the deficit in four years. He’s now doing it in

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Why access Cameron? The Lib Dems would be an easier target…

Why would anyone pay £250,000 to change Tory policy when the Liberal Democrats would do it for £2.50 and a hug? The brilliant Sunday Times investigation today makes you wonder whether businessmen don’t actually realise that out that, in this coalition, it doesn’t matter what you persuade David Cameron of. Policy is decided by horsetrading with the Lib Dems, who wield disproportionate power (for good or for ill). For example, Osborne was personally inclined to bring the top rate of tax down to 40p, but the Lib Dems told him they’d only allow this in exchange for their mansion tax. Cameron refused to do the deal, so 45p it was.

Peter Hoskin

The ‘next big scandal’ detonates under Cameron

‘It will be awesome for your business.’ So said Peter Cruddas, co-treasurer of the Tory party, as he tried to peddle access to David Cameron for £250,000 a shot. Only he wasn’t talking to businessmen this time; he was talking to a couple of investigative reporters from the Sunday Times (£), who were armed with dictaphones and video cameras. And, as the resulting footage shows, he blustered himself over the edge. A ‘premier league’ of donors was spoken of, whose ideas are ‘fed in’ to Downing Street’s policy process. There was a claim that the biggest donors can be invited for dinner at Cameron’s private flat in No.10, where they