Politics Archives

Saturday

12 Dec 2009

Don’t get so worked up — it’s only a blog

I’m not sure how many members of the London Labour party I’ve met over the last 20 years or so. A thousand? Must be something like that. Sitting in local authority buildings which smell slightly of gas, the night outside cold and damp, ploughing through an interminable agenda of candidate selections; or down the pub after canvassing. Nice people, largely — you’d be surprised. I’m not a member any more but a lot of my friends still are, so it’s a constituency I know very well. If you polled them on their views about the Royal Family, I suspect that somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent would declare themselves

Friday

11 Dec 2009

Fraser Nelson

Blair admits to misleading the British public over Iraq

It has taken eight years, but Tony Blair has finally leveled with the British public and admitted that the WMD thing didn’t really matter: he wanted to depose Saddam Hussein anyway. That’s what he has said in a BBC interview, presumably to pre-empt his appearance before the Chilcot inquiry. His chosen confessor: Fern Britton. His medium: BBC1 on Sunday. It has been trailed to the newspapers, including tomorrow’s Times. As it says: “He said it was the ‘threat’ that Saddam presented to the region that was uppermost in his mind. The development of weapons of mass destruction was one aspect of that threat. Mr Blair said that there had been

Peter Hoskin

The Tories dust off their baseball bats

Is it just me, or have the Tories developed a slightly harder edge in the couple of days since the Pre-Budget Report? We had an unusually acidic address from David Cameron yesterday, in which he likened Brown ‘n’ Darling to “joy-riders in a car smashing up the neighbourhood,” and criticised the PBR for its “irresponsibility, basic deceit and complete lack of moral principle”. There have been a couple of quite powerful attack posters from CCHQ. And now we’ve got George Osborne saying that Brown may have “betrayed the responsibilities of the office he holds.” “So what?” you say, “they’re the Opposition – it’s their job to oppose.” Well, yes, of

Peter Hoskin

Committee overload

We all know how bureaucratic and convoluted a lot of Parliamentary practice is, but this reminder from Heather Brooke of the bodies involved in reforming MPs’ pay and expenses is still pretty astonishing: “Currently we have: the senior salaries review body (which makes recommendations on MPs’ salaries and pensions); the committee on standards and privileges (appointed by the House of Commons to decide on complaints against individual MPs reported to them by the parliamentary commissioner for standards – currently John Lyon); the committee on standards in public life (which deals with complaints about unethical conduct among MPs – the current chair is Sir Christopher Kelly); the members allowances committee (made

Peter Hoskin

Why class wars don’t work

Well, it seems like Paul Richards – a former aide to Hazel Blears – wants to corner the market in quietly persuasive demolitions of his own party’s strategy. If you remember, he wrote a perceptive piece on Labour’s shortcomings in the aftermath of the Norwich North by-election, which we highlighted here on Coffee House. And, today, he’s at it again, with a very readable article in PR Week on why the class war won’t work. His three reasons why are worth noting down: “First, it is hypocritical. The Labour Party has a disproportionately far higher number of former public schoolboys and schoolgirls in parliament and in the government than a

Alex Massie

Forget the GOATs we need GOAPs

A few weeks ago Michael Heseltine wiped the floor with the rest of the Question Time panel. Last night it was Paddy Ashdown’s turn to do the same. It helped, of course, that much of the programme concentrated on defence issues, about which Ashdown really does know something. But it was still an impressive performance, not least since the Tory representative was William Hague and not some minor nonentity from the lower reaches of the Shadow Cabinet. Hague was fine and will, should the Tories be elected, be a perfectly reaosnable Foreign Secretary. But Ashdown was the star. All this was a reminder that, freed from the grubby business of

James Forsyth

How far could Boris go?

At Tory conference a bunch of candidates got together for supper. The conversation turned, as it so often does on these occasions, to who might be the next leader. One candidate was advancing the case for Boris with some gusto, until another interrupted saying, ‘can you imagine Boris representing Britain at the Security Council.’ The table agreed that they couldn’t and so the conversation moved on. Certainly, this perceived lack of seriousness will be Boris’s biggest problem in going further than Mayor of London. Cameron had a point when he said that Boris was stuck in a buffoonish rut from which he would find it hard to escape. But if

Martin Bright

The PBR Suggests that Labour Thinks It’s All Over but Peter Mandelson Knows It Is

Labour’s Pre-Budget Report has been interpreted as a cynical electioneering exercise, a last-ditch attempt to to open up clear blue water between Labour and the Conservatives. Perhaps paradoxically, I thought it was a sign that the Government knows the game is up. Of course the Labour Party has to fight the election – it can’t simply not turn up. But it strikes me that using the UK economy quite so blatantly for party political advantage when it was already so fragile, was a strategic error. I am sure Alistair Darling believed he was doing the right thing. He is a man of principle. But it felt very much like a last

Thursday

10 Dec 2009

Fraser Nelson

Gordon Brown’s one and only legacy

I will sign off tonight with this sickening graph from the earlier IFS presentation – showing the extent to which Gordon Brown’s economic incompetence has transformed the public finances for a generation. Servicing this debt will absorb money that would otherwise be spent creating jobs, lifting people out of poverty, advancing education, promoting prosperity. The leading article in the magazine this week finishes with these words, which came to mind when I saw the above graph: “It will be no surprise if UK public debt has been downgraded by the election; if so, a gilt buyers’ strike will become more than a theoretical possibility. The new government will face a

Peter Hoskin

Behind the expenses curve

And so the expenses scandal rumbles inevitably on. If you want the latest on all the dubious claims our, erm, honourable representatives made in 2008-09, then I’d recommend Andrew Sparrow’s live blog over at the Guardian – and Guido’s got a good round-up here. But, behind all that, there’s a u-turn which is almost as embarrassing for the government as all those dodgy, dodgy receipts. Remember when Gordon Brown neglected to mention MP’s expenses, or the Kelly reforms, as part of his legislative agenda in the Queen’s Speech? The decision was immediately launched on by Sir Christopher Kelly himself, and set up some juicy attacks for the Tories. Well, as

Wednesday

9 Dec 2009

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 9 December 2009

It’s been a busy day on Coffee House. Here’s a selection of our PBR coverage, in case you missed them the first time around: Fraser Nelson dissects Alistair Darling’s growth forecasts, and reveals the spending cuts hidden in the PBR. James Forsyth wonders whether Labour have u-turned on defence spending, and says the Tories should attack the national insurance increase. Peter Hoskin highlights one thing to remember today, and says the PBR was bad for the country and bad for Labour. Mark Bathgate asks: who much more will Darling need to borrow? Neil O’Brien unveils a whole batch of Brownies. Andrew Haldenby reveals what to do if you can’t tax

James Forsyth

Has Labour u-turned on protecting defence spending?

Back in July, Lord Mandelson added defence to health and education as an area of spending that Labour would protect from cuts. But looking at page 97 of the Green Book, defence is conspicuously absent from the list of areas of public spending that are protected in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The only areas mentioned are NHS spending, schools, sure start, policing and overseas aid. As some of these are only receiving funding increases in line with inflation, it seems reasonable to assume that everything else – including defence – is likely to be cut in real terms. (There is a commitment to spend up to £2.5 billion from the

James Forsyth

An unhealthy dependence

Few columnists are read more carefully in Conservative circles than Danny Finkelstein. He is extremely well connected in the Cameron circle and enjoys something of a mind-meld with George Osborne. Danny’s column today is the argument for sticking to the modernising message. It does, though, contain one significant criticism of the party, its dependence on David Cameron. This Cameron dependence has been a problem for a while. But the leadership itself must take most of the blame for this. They have used Cameron for almost every announcement that they view as important and that has sent a message to the media that if it doesn’t come from Cameron the

Fraser Nelson

The end of spending

So Alistair Darling today repeated the same trick he used in April’s Budget – referring only to rising “current spending”, so as to hide the full extent of Labour’s spending cuts. Current spending is only one component of total spending, and when you add in some of the other components – as we have done in the table below – the cuts become clearer. The table shows that next year is the last year of any real rise in spending. From 2011, spending either falls or flattens out. But the cuts will be even deeper than the table reveals. This “total spending” figure is all we could work out from

James Forsyth

The Tories should attack the national insurance increase

After a tricky few weeks for the Tories, the PBR has come of a bit of a relief for them. It is generating far more bad headlines for the government than good ones. The Standard’s splash on the national insurance hike is a taste of what the coverage is going to be like for Labour tomorrow. One point the Tories should be hammering home is that the national insurance hike is a far more significant tax rise than the tax on bank bonuses. The one-off tax on banks that pay sizable bonuses will only raise £550 million while in 2010-11 the various national insurance changes will cost taxpayers more than

Fraser Nelson

Don’t worry about the tax on jobs

I’m not that worked up about the National Insurance increase. Sure, a tax on jobs is the best way to choke a recovery – but this is only due to come in April 2011 by which time Darling will be collecting the royalties on his memoirs. It only matters if the Tories support it, which (I hope) they won’t. It is a wee gesture, to help calm the bond markets. The only fiscally significant mive in this budget is the £550m they intend to raise from inheritance tax. The giveaways are all planned from April next year – ie, they are little exercises in forcing the Tory hand. Extension of

Lloyd Evans

In his comfort zone

Today we saw just how tricky the game can be for opposition leaders. The government sets the parliamentary agenda and holds the keys to the war-chest. Cameron’s attempts to upset the PM looked diffuse and repetitive. On Afghanistan he offered support. On Kelly he flannelled about some footling detail of parliamentary timing. And on ministerial pay he drew attention to his gravest difficulty, namely that the pre-budget report was coming up next. Brown never looked in difficulty and he cruised easily towards his Six O’Clock sound-bite. ‘The opposition leader has lost the art of communication but not alas the gift of speech.’ A poor day for Dave. Nick Clegg did

Fraser Nelson

In a world of their own

As I suspected, Darling has cooked the figures by laughably unrealistic growth forecasts. He is predicting a sustained economic sprint that will mysteriously come to Britain the April after next. Table B1 of the PBR shows that he expects 3.25% growth every year for a whole four years: from April 2011 to April 2015. How does this square with what the real world thinks? I blogged earlier what HM Treasury’s independent forecasts have to say. Robert Chote from the IFS has just been on TV saying the good news is that the structural deficit isn’t as big as it used to be. Little wonder, when you can concoct growth forecasts

Peter Hoskin

Bad news for the country, bad news for Labour

Abandon hope all ye who enter here. While we mostly knew what to expect from Darling’s PBR, it’s still surprising just how uninspiring, how thin and how insufficient it is in the flesh. It’s pretty much a bad news budget for anyone you could mention. Bad news, of course, for the bankers who will be hit by the hazily outlined bonus tax. Bad news for public sector workers, who are already smarting at the frozen pay rise they’ll have to accept in a few years time. Bad news for anyone who cares about the state of the public finances, which look just as grim, if not worse, as they did

Peter Hoskin

One thing to remember today

As you can probably imagine, plenty of Labour folk are getting excited about the PBR today. They regard it as a chance for their party to harden their rise in the polls, and hasten the Tories’ descent. But Danny Finkelstein strikes a necessary note of calm over at Comment Central. As he puts it, a Budget in which the government has to ‘fess up to the horrible state of the public finances is hardly going to do much good for them. To Danny’s analysis I’d add one supporting fact: that rarely, if ever, in recent times, has the government received a significant poll bounce on the back of a