Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.
There is a great letter in The Times this morning from Saul Gresham of West Glamorgan. He writes: ‘Surely we should have several options from which to choose in the referendum? It seems incongruous to be voting by first past the post on such a matter.’ Touché.
Peter Mandelson’s memoirs are out in just over a week. Despite being one of the last off the stage, Mandelson has beaten his colleagues to the first full account of the Blair Brown era. Tony Blair’s ‘The Journey’ is not out until September. Indeed, some Blair allies think that Mandelson should have had the good manners to let the former Prime Minister publish first. There’ll be some people who dismiss any Mandelson book as old news. But from what I’m hearing these memoirs could be more interesting than people are expecting. Apparently, many of Mandelson’s political friends have not heard from him recently and fear they could be painfully frank.
Quietly, David Cameron is warming to Nick Clegg’s proposed plans for voting reform — even though it could bind the two parties together for a decade or more. James Forsyth on a Tory gamble that dares not speak its name On the Monday after the election, David Cameron summoned his front bench for not one but two meetings as he frantically tried to put together a government. In the second one, he asked them for their support in offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on electoral reform. The Tory party has long stood against this. It believed that any move away from first-past-the-post would be bad for the country and
With preparations for the Pope’s visit to Britain in disarray, the government called in Lord Patten to smooth things out. He tells Damian Thompson why he is up to the task Prime Ministers do not always enjoy reading The Spectator and a month ago we ran a cover story that was — I am told — a ‘real eye-opener’ to David Cameron. We revealed that the Catholic hierarchy in England was hopelessly out of its depth organising the Pope’s visit to Britain and that the event was out of control. Its centrepiece, a Mass at Coventry airport to beatify Cardinal Newman, was about to be cancelled as a result of
There’s an snappy little anecdote in Steve Richard’s column today, which bears repeating in these parts: “Clegg is in a similar position in relation to his party as Tony Blair was over Iraq. Blair used to go around telling his colleagues: ‘It’s worse than you think. I believe in the policy.’ Clegg is known to have told friends after George Osborne’s Budget: ‘The good news is I’m not a patsy. The bad news is I believe in the Budget.'” Nothing I’ve seen or heard over recent weeks has dented my opinion from before the election: that Clegg is, in relative terms, a fiscal hawk with a strong reformist bent. Indeed,
Michael Gove’s welcome freeze on Building Schools for the Future will invite tomorrow’s press to claim only that this means 715 various building projects are not being carried out. In fact, what it means is that the fund will be open for the Swedish-style new schools. The budget will be transferred from bureaucratic priorities to those of communities, as expressed by those who wish there to be a new school. One of the great tragedies of the politicians’ stranglehold over education is that they just love huge, shiny buildings to point at, complete with new whiteboards and all the latest gadgets. The Swedish experiment has shown the parents care not
Matthew d’Ancona’s piece in the new GQ on who’ll succeed David Cameron as Tory leader has been much discussed today. Matt says that Jeremy Hunt ‘is the man to watch’. But I think Hunt’s problem is that he is too like the current leader—telegenic, personable and pragmatic—and parties tend to opt for a successor who is a bit different from what they’ve just had. Boris Johnson would, of course, be very different from Cameron. But as Matt notes, if Boris returns to Parliament early it will be regarded as a declaration of intent. Boris’s greatest weakness is that he’s seen as great fun but not a man of substance. The
Tucked away in Nick Clegg’s statement confirming that the referendum on AV was going to be on the 5th of May next year, was the abandonment of the controversial 55 percent rule for a dissolution of parliament. This has been replaced by a far more sensible arrangement. If the government cannot win a confidence vote, there’ll then be 14 days for one that can command the confidence of the House to be formed. If that does not happen, then there’ll be an election. However, if a government wants to dissolve parliament then it’ll require a two thirds majority. But it is still unclear how this rule could be made to
Both Tim Montgomerie and Bernard Jenkin report that Boris has not lost the faith: the Mayor of London is opposed to ditching first past the post. This runs contrary to what was reported in the Times this morning. It makes sense: Johnson’s contempt for coalition government is open – it is highly unlikely that he’d advocate a reform that might entrench it. It also adds to the growing narrative of Boris Johnson protector of the traditional right. Cameron’s position on voting reform is intriguing. As Iain Martin notes it’s as clear as mud, and deliberately so. The preservation of the coalition is everything. Cameron is far too canny to campaign
A droll post from Iain Martin on David Cameron’s murky views on changing the voting system. It is possible, as Iain says, that Cameron’s public position – he’s in favour of keeping FPTP is, shockingly, also his private and unchanging view: Theory Three? Outlandish this one. Cameron is wedded to first-past-the-post, thinking of it as a system that has stood his party and country in good stead — putting the voters in charge rather than the political class meeting in semipermanent session to stitch-up the next coalition to protect its interests. (This seemed to be his view a few months ago). But to save the system, he has to con
While we’re on the subject of Boris, this article by the Times’s Sam Coates is worth noting down. It suggests that the Mayor of London has “lost faith” in our first-past-the-post voting system, and has declined the opportunity to campaign in its favour. And while he remains an “agnostic” about the alternative votes system, he is more inclined towards it after “the election and the successful creation of the coalition”. Now, Boris’s views are Boris’s views – so we shouldn’t read too much into the story. But it will still reinforce the idea that more and more Tories are coming around to AV. And it could fuel fears that the
This morning’s Times devotes its front page to how the government is borrowing Boris’s ideas for combating the unions. But Spectator readers might remember that James foresaw this situation in his politics column. Here’s what he wrote back in October: “…an agenda is being discussed to curtail the ability of unions to call for industrial action. Boris Johnson’s office is floating the idea of minimum required turnouts for strike ballots. The Mayor of London has in his sights the RMT union, which represents many tube drivers and likes to strike first and ask questions later; this June the RMT walked out after a ballot in which less than a third
…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the weekend. Fraser Nelson ponders David Cameron re-alignment of our party politics. James Forsyth on the Tories’ move to campaign against AV, and reports on the growing rift between Cameron and Lord Ashcroft. Peter Hoskin says that the Treasury is playing a very smart game, and outlines the coalition’s choice on Incapacity Benefit. And Alex Massie welcomes two converts Liberal Unionism.
It’s becoming a familiar drill: another morning in Westminster accompanied by new spending cuts from the government. Today, it’s the schools budget which is being trimmed to the tune of £1.5 billion, with the cancellation of Labour’s plan to rebuild some 700 schools. But there are also reports of cuts to civil service pay-offs, and even of legislation to make it tougher for the unions to protest those cuts. After yesterday’s news, the Treasury is clearly on a roll. Of course, the main political reason for all this early activity is that the coalition hopes to get much of it out of the way while the public is still on
Welcome to the Liberal Unionist club, Fraser! It won’t surprise regular readers that I think your latest post is spot-on. While we’re taking names, let’s also add John Rentoul to the list. His Independent on Sunday column this week concludes: This is where I think that Cameron is misunderstood. It seems to be generally assumed that, for him, the coalition is flag of convenience, hoisted to help navigate out of the tricky situation produced by the election. I think not. I think he sees it as a chance for a permanent change in favour of liberal conservatism, a label he has always been happy to apply to himself. The coalition
When the coalition was first formed, I expected it to collapse in months. But, then, I was expecting the type of coalition that I’d seen in the Scottish Parliament when Labour and the Lib Dems kept their distance (and their mistrust). But what has emerged is a far tighter coalition – and one that may even end up in a merger. Cameron has been very generous to the Lib Dems, in both Cabinet places and policies. But since then, he has just grown more generous. In the News of the World today, I wonder if he’s playing for keeps. It was great to welcome Nick Clegg to The Spectator’s
Imagine that we find out on May 6th next year that the Liberal Democrats have taken a pasting in the Scottish Parliament elections, done badly in the Welsh Assembly ones, lost seats in English local government and AV has been defeated. In these circumstances, Nick Clegg would face loud and sustained calls from within his own party to quit the government. Charlie Kennedy’s warning would have come true. It would be situation critical for the Coalition. For this reason, I suspect that David Cameron wouldn’t shed any tears if the AV referendum passed. As I write in the Mail on Sunday, Number 10 has moved to install Rodney Leach, of
No Alternative Sir: James Forsyth’s article on George Osborne’s machinations for a Conservative majority (‘Osborne is becoming the true Tory leader’, 26 June) at the next election failed to mention the most crucial matter — the Alternative Vote. We can assume there will definitely be a referendum on AV; so the only question is what the country’s decision will be. A casual perusal of the election result by constituency leads any reasonable person to see that, if Lib supporters put Lab second and vice versa, then the Conservative party can never again have a majority. And for those who say some socialist party supporters may put Tory second — no
Unpublicised, David Cameron has been conducting some unusual job interviews in Downing Street. In hour-long, one-to-one, informal conversations with each candidate, he is looking for the next head of our armed forces. The man he chooses will replace Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff. So far, the Prime Minister has seen the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, and the Vice-Chief of the General Staff, General Nick Houghton. This week, he will see the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards. This way of doing things is unprecedented in peacetime. What normally happens is that the outgoing CDS and the Defence Secretary find the
When General Petraeus called for a “united effort” on Afghanistan earlier, he might as well have been addressing our government. Between David Cameron’s and Liam Fox’s recent statements, there’s a clear sense that the coalition is pulling in two separate directions. And it’s left William Hague explaining our Afghan strategy thus, to the Times today: “‘The position on combat troops is as the Prime Minister set out last weekend. By the time of the next election, he hopes we won’t still be fighting on the ground. We are working towards the Afghan national security forces being able to stand on their own two feet by 2014,’ but there is ‘no