Politics

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

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

PMQs live blog | 3 March 2010

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1200. 1201: And here we go.  Obviously, with Brown meeting Zuma, it’s the deputies today. Harman starts with condolences for the fallen. 1202: Incidentally, Cameron is being interviewed on TalkSport radio, if you want to listen to that. 1203: First question: why manufacturing has fallen under Labour. Harman says that this is the Tories “talking the country down”. Hm. Easier than actually answering the question, I suppose… 1204: This PMQs is already getting noisily partisan.  A second question brings some “do nothing Tories” innuendo from Harman.  Jeers and cheers all round. 1206: Hague now.  His first question is whether Brown was wrong to cut

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Labour will relish this opportunity to prolong the Ashcroft story

When Gordon Brown pulled out of PMQs this week because of Jacob Zuma’s state visit there was much chortling that he didn’t much fancy PMQs. But I suspect that Labour is rather glad that William Hague is up today; no Tory politician is more central to the Ashcroft peerage than Hague, and Hague’s appearance at the despatch box is Labour’s best chance of taking this story into a third day. Hague will have his line that Ashcroft would pay ‘tens of millions a year in tax’ thrown back at him repeatedly. Hague’s trips with Ashcroft to various foreign locales will also get an outing. There is something incredibly frustrating about

Tuesday

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Why the Tories should talk about immigration

Should the Tories talk about immigration? This will bring back a lot of bad memories for the modernisers, who believe that this hurt them in 2005. But, as Tim Montgomerie says over at CiF today, the picture has transformed since then. The total number of immigrant workers has risen 25 per cent, to 3.5 million. And nationally, immigrants now make up a remarkable 15 percent of the workforce (see graph below) – which puts us up there with America. Except our immigration is handled in a haphazard way that creates plenty of bad feeling. Talk to a Tory candidate and they will say there’s only one issue that gets cut-through

Peter Hoskin

How the televised leaders’ debates will work

The various parties involved in the televised leaders’ debate have finally come to an agreement on how they will work.  You can read full details here, courtesy of Sky.  But the main points are: i) Topics and locations. The first debate will be hosted by ITV’s Alastair Stewart, in Manchester, and will cover domestic affairs.  The second will be Sky’s Adam Boulton, in Bristol, and will cover foreign policy.  And the third will be the Beeb’s David Dimbleby, in Birmingham, on the economy. ii) Structure. The rather rigid structure of each programme will be as follows: “Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting

Daniel Korski

NATO – with or without the US?

Over on Foreign Policy magazine, Andrew J Bacevich and I are going at each other. Topic: the nature of the transatlantic relationship. In the slipstream of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ lament about Europeans’ pacifist leanings, Professor Bacevich wrote a delightfully provocative piece arguing the US should leave NATO: “If NATO has a future, it will find that future back where the alliance began: in Europe. NATO’s founding mission of guaranteeing the security of European democracies has lost none of its relevance. Although the Soviet threat has vanished, Russia remains. And Russia, even if no longer a military superpower, does not exactly qualify as a status quo country. The Kremlin

Peter Hoskin

Is this the closest that Brown’s government has come to a <em>mea culpa</em>?

A striking passage from Peter Mandelson’s speech at Mansion House last night: “Starting in the 1980s we allowed the diversity of the British economy – or lack of it – to approach the limits of what was prudent. Sometimes there was an economic fatalism about manufacturing decline and falling British goods exports, rather than seeing them as something that policy and private enterprise should address. Our economy, and certainly our corporate tax base, became too dependent on the City. We were also carrying a huge hidden insurance liability for a sector that was taking badly understood and inadequately policed risks.” Yes, I know Mandelson takes things back to the 1980s

Peter Hoskin

Labour’s pursuit of Ashcroft could backfire

I wrote yesterday that Lord Ashcroft’s statement about his tax status should have drawn a “rather neat line under the issue”.  Sure, it’s hardly ideal that someone with such influence in our politics hasn’t been paying UK taxes on much of his wealth (something which could equally be said of Labour donors like Lord Paul and Lakshmi Mittal), and was keeping mysterious about it.  But at least, now, most of the uncertainty surrounding Ashcroft’s position has been removed.  And we have his indication that he will become a full UK taxpayer in due course.   But I hadn’t counted on the tenacity of Labour, who are trying to spin this

Daniel Korski

Britain’s man inside the UN

Sir John Holmes, the highest placed Briton at the UN, is leaving his job early. A long-serving Foreign Office mandarin, Sir John’s appointment by UN chief Ban Ki-Moon to be the UN’s Coordinator for Humanitarian Relief originally came as a surprise. The post is responsible for oversight of all emergencies requiring UN humanitarian assistance, and acts as the focal point for relief activities. Everyone had assumed that the British diplomat’s background lent itself more readily to the top political job at the UN, rather than the humanitarian portfolio. But Sir John (who will replace Jeremy Greenstock as director of Ditchley Park), has by all accounts done very well in the

Peter Hoskin

Who should be the Tory attack dog?

A persuasive passage (complete with a spiky, ministerial quote – highlighted) from Rachel Sylvester’s column this morning: “There is growing concern among some Shadow Cabinet ministers and strategists about the increasingly aggressive tone Mr Cameron uses against Mr Brown. It is, they believe, no coincidence that the poll gap has narrowed as the Tory leader launches a series of increasingly vitriolic personal attacks on the Prime Minister. Last week, for example, by turning the bully into the victim, Mr Cameron seems to have simply solidified support for Mr Brown. There was a similar backlash to the Conservatives’ misleading ‘death tax’ poster campaign. Although ministers admit privately that ‘even I couldn’t

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Brown goes crime-fighting<br />

Yeah, I know: 4,500 words of Brown’s rhetoric is too much for most CoffeeHousers to bear.  So I thought I’d read his “speech on crime and anti-social behaviour” on your behalf, and highlight three things which jumped out at me.  Here goes: 1. Taking on the Tories over DNA retention. Paul Waugh has already blogged on what may turn out to be the most significant passage of Brown’s speech – at least so far as the cut ‘n’ thrust of the election campaign is concerned.  In it, Brown highlights the case of Jeremiah Sheridan, who raped a woman some 19 years ago, but was caught last year thanks to DNA

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Stay Classy, Gordon

Brilliant New Labour Tactic: the Tories are soft on rapists. Really, that’s what they’re saying. And all because the Conservatives think that innocent* people’s DNA should not be held on a national database. Perhaps Gordon can explain why his ain party north of the border is equally “friendly” to rapists. After all the laws on DNA retention are different in Scotland and here you’re DNA is removed from the database if you’re not charged or convicted of a crime. That’s something Scottish Labour were happy to maintain when they ran the Wee Parliament in Edinburgh. And rightly so. It’s going to be an edifying campaign isn’t it? *Yes, sometimes some

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Are the Tories over the worst of the wobble?

We are expecting at least one poll tonight, the YouGov tracker, and I think there will be one other. If these polls show the Tories ahead by six—a level that just last week was seen as rather disappointing—they will add to the sense that the Tories are over the worst of the wobble. Significantly, the Lord Ashcroft story, an irritating one for the party and particularly so today, is not being depicted as part of a Tories in crisis story. (One does wonder why Ashcroft didn’t choose to get the news out earlier after the Information Commissioner ruled at the beginning of February that the Cabinet Office should reveal what

Peter Hoskin

Market tremors

Forget the polls, the markets should be enough to give any of us a sharp dose of The Fear.  Exhibit A: Sterling, which has slumped below $1.50 today, for the first time in nine months, and on the back of what analyists are calling “deficit worries”.  And Exhibit B: the UK Gilt markets, where rising interest rates suggest that investors are rapidly losing confidence in Britain’s ability to pay back its debt, just as Coffee House’s Mark Bathgate warned a few months back.  Check out the FT for the full story. Of course, I say “forget the the polls” – but this is all very poll-related.  The possiblity of a

Daniel Korski

Wanted: The Hague Doctrine

Out of the conference hall, and back on to the campaign trail, it would nice to see the Tories talking about the things which make them ready for government.  In particular, William Hague should make a foreign policy speech setting out what ideas he has, and which would merit him being referred to as the likely “greatest foreign secretary in a generation” by David Cameron. Hague’s past foreign policy speeches have been solid, but unspectacular. He ticks off the likely issues, talks about global trends and looks knowledgeable about the crises that could emerge. But there is no overaching concept, such David Miliband’s idea of Britain as a “global hub”.

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 1 March 2010

…here are some posts made on Spectator.co.uk over the weekend: Fraser Nelson wonders whether the YouGov poll is a hammer blow to the Tories or a gift from God, and highlights a tonic to dispel doubt about Cameron & Co. James Forsyth thinks that Cameron’s speech delivered, and gives his take on William Hague’s speech. David Blackburn live blogged Cameron’s speech, and watches the Tories offer change. Daniel Korski says that we should help plucky Moldova. Alex Massie wonders whether the Tories’ six election promises are all that impressive. And Melanie Phillips describes Cameron’s speech as “Blue Obama-lite”.

Peter Hoskin

Lord Ashcroft confirms his tax status

Lord Ashcroft has just released a statement admitting that he’s a non-dom, and suggesting that he’ll soon become a full UK taxpayer.  Here’s the key passage: “My precise tax status therefore is that of a ‘non-dom’. Two of Labour’s biggest donors – Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also ‘non-doms’. As for the future, while the non-dom status will continue for many people in business or public life, David Cameron has said that anyone sitting in the legislature – Lords or Commons – must be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for

Peter Hoskin

The morning after the speech before

So, what did the newspapers make of Cameron’s Big Speech?  A brisk stroll through this morning’s coverage, and you’ll come across the whole gamut of responses: from wholehearted enthusiasm in the Sun, to wholehearted scepticism in the Independent.  But the general tone is somewhere in between: the mitigated praise of, say, the Times or the Guardian.  Which is, I think, fair enough.  The speech struck me as effective, perhaps elegant, without ever quite hitting the heights. But the Tories should only be concerned by the media response insofar as it’s a conduit for their own message.  What bits of that message have cut through?  Will that message resonate with voters? 

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Animal House Test

There’s lots of sense in Matt d’Ancona’s most recent column, not least his implied warning that if the Tories tack to the right this will, no matter how much it appeals to the base, be a terrible mistake for Dave and his boys. Whether you like it or not – and plenty of Spectator readers* don’t, I fancy – such a move at this stage of the election cycle would delight the Labour party. Because it would prove what some of them really think anyway: the Tories really haven’t changed at all. They’re the same old nasty, service-cutting, intolerant, weird bunch you’ve rejected three times in a row. That’s a

Sunday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The no notes speech does the trick for Cameron again

Whenever a sense of crisis is building around him, David Cameron delivers a speech without notes. This has the effect of bringing things to a head, of creating a moment which, if Cameron can make it through, the situation is defused. Today’s speech did that. It has, I suspect, moved the story on from Tory wobbles. This strategy is, obviously, not without risk. If Cameron had dried up on stage or mangled something beyond repair then the crisis story would have been escalated. The intensity with which George Osborne and Michael Gove, Cameron’s two closest shadow Cabinet allies, were listening to the speech showed how much was at stake. The