Latest from Coffee House

Ok, so tomorrow’s Pre-Budget Report is shaping up to be a horrendously political affair.  But, rest assured, it could have been so much worse.  In what is, by now, a familiar Budget-time story, Alistair Darling is fighting the good fight against some of Brown’s most inharmonious fiscal brainwaves.  According to Rachel Sylvester’s column today, here are just some of the measures that the Chancellor has resisted: — A long-term windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses (Darling favours a temporary, one-year tax). — A call to lower the 50p tax threshold from £150,000 to £100,000. — A reversal of the plan to make it easier for couples to pool their inheritance tax

There are a couple of noteworthy snippets in today’s FT interview with George Osborne: the claim that the Tories may not take corporation tax as low as it is in Ireland; the outline of a “five-year road map” on business tax policy, etc.  But, I must admit, it’s this passage which jumped out at me:    “[Osborne] says his Tory conference speech in October, which included plans for a public sector pay freeze and an increase in the state retirement age, ‘was an important moment’ that showed a mental leap to being ‘an alternative government, not just an opposition’.” These self-bestowed titles – “alternative government,” and the like – are

Ed Balls has given an interview to The Times Educational Supplement which contains a comically audacious attempt to rewrite history. When asked about whether he really wants to be in his current job, Balls tells the interviewer, “I have resisted moving”. Now, I suspect this will come as a bit of a shock to Alistair Darling who fought off an effort by Balls to take his job. 

Another one for the Brown as Nixon folder, courtesy of Rachel Sylvester’s column today: “‘It’s about style of government,’ says one senior figure due to give evidence [to the Iraq Inquiry]. ‘Blair would have a war Cabinet, but a small caucus would meet beforehand. The civil servants were frustrated. Gordon is just as bad. He gives lots of time to Peter Mandelson and Shriti Vadera and ignores the officials. There’s a darker side to the Brown machine — he’s more suspicious. It’s cliquiness driven by paranoia rather than camaraderie, but it has the same result.'”

In the politics column this week, I write about how the Tories plan to hand over many of the traditional policy making powers of the Cabinet to a seven man policy board. The Cameroons are going to do this partly because it is a model that has worked well for them in oppoistion and that they are comfortable with but also because the Cabinet is just too large for effective, detailed discussions about policy. The shadow Cabinet currently has 34 members in it. In government, this number will have to drop by at least ten. But still, a 24 person group is, probably, too large to foster constructive and detailed

So far as Downing Street is concerned, this morning’s Sunday Times cover is a presentational nightmare. It reports that Peter Mandelson is calling on Brown to make him Foreign Secretary – a move which would create all kinds of internal difficulties for the PM. Sounds a little bizarre to me: we all know that Mandelson would, in theory, like the role which was once occupied by his grandfather, but would he really want it under such controversial circumstances and for what would likely be only six months? Perhaps not. But, true or no’, it still feeds into the idea that the government is divided and self-obsessed. It’s also the kind

Things never seem to go smoothly for Gordon.  On a day when the Telegraph carries details of his Whitehall savings programme, the FT has news that one of his closest allies, Ed Balls, is calling for relatively hefty spending increases elsewhere.  Apparently, Balls has asked the Treasury to grant his department – the Department for Children, Schools and Families – real-terms spending increases of 1.4 percent until 2014.  That’s an extra £2.6 billion in total – and goes beyond previous Labour commitments to “protect” schools spending. It’s a brassy move by Balls and one which is sure to aggravate his colleagues.  After all, remember when Labour called Cameron “Mr 10

Despite his pronounced Europhile views, a Politics Home insider poll suggests that Clarke can remain in the Shadow Cabinet and join a prospective Euro-sceptic Cameron government. As Clarke is signed up to the Cameron plan, I doubt that Europe is necessarily the problem. Concern arises from Clarke’s apparent unwillingness to fulfil the duties of his brief. One think tank supremo is quoted by Pol Home saying: “No. It isn’t just Europe, it’s his non-fondness to work hard, master a brief, do the hard slog. He likes being on television, but there’s more to being a Secretary of State than that, and plenty of current non-frontbenchers who would work.” This objection

Tim Montgomerie is right; Peter Oborne is at his best in the Mail today – a mix of relevant history and sharp analysis of current affairs. Like Callaghan and Major before him, Gordon Brown faces electoral defeat. Brown’s predicament is deep – consistently loathed by the electorate and the target of unhatched coups and constant intrigue. How does a prime minister defend a hopeless position? Does he govern in the best interests of the country, his party, or himself? Oborne remarks about the magnanimity of Callaghan and Major and notes that Brown has not followed their example. ‘The truth is that Gordon Brown is now governing Britain purely for partisan

Does Professor David Nutt’s dismissal concern the impossibility of relaxing drugs legislation, or the relationship between experts and ministers? David Nutt was sacked because he spoke the unspeakable and criticised the government for failing to acknowledge the self-evident scientific truth that horse-riding, especially after quaffing sherry, is more dangerous than taking ecstasy and dancing maniacally in a night club. As Bruce Anderson notes in today’s Independent, it is impossible to have a rational debate about drugs. The politics of narcotics always trumps evidence. Despite David Nutt’s eminently sensible view that classification must reflect quantifiable harm, for the benefit of proportionate punishment and effective education, disassociation from any leniency on drugs is a

One of the quickest wins that the next government could achieve is to change the power and accountability arrangements of Whitehall.  At the moment, there’s a convoluted system in place where its difficult to apportion blame when a government department screws up.  Sure, a minister may take the media flak if, say, a department loses a data disk.  But the people in charge of the day-to-day running of a department tend to escape any substantive judgement on their performance.  As James Kirkup points out in the Telegraph today, “no permanent secretary has been formally dismissed for more than 70 years.”  That’s hardly a set-up to incite much more than complacency

Everyone knows that Martin Luther King had a dream. It featured eloquent, high-minded ambitions about little white girls and little black girls playing together in harmony. Alex Salmond has dreams too. In an utterance that should have resulted in immediate committal, he compared Kenny MacAskill to Mahatma Gandhi, and then, with the rhetorical panache of a Scottish Judge Jeffries, told the SNP conference that he wanted to see “Westminster dangling from a Scottish rope”. As visions of the future go, capital punishment is not as appealing as Dr Luther King’s evocation of Christian brotherhood; but, in the event of a hung parliament, Salmond’s dream might be realised.     Salmond’s experience

David Brooks is the most influential American newspaper columnist and his column today is a paean of praise for George Osborne. He praises Osborne for offering not just pain but a “different economic vision — different from Labour and different from the Thatcherism that was designed to meet the problems of the 1980s.” He goes on to argue that Cameron and Osborne’s responsibility agenda is something that the Republicans should copy. This isn’t the first time that Brooks, who Tim Montgomerie identified as a guru for Cameron back in 2007, has applauded the Tories.  Back in the Spring, he said that Cameron’s attempt to position the Tories as the party

In his recent interview with Fraser, David Cameron said that he’s keen on bringing in outside talent to the government – the so-called “Goat” strategy, which has been a feature of Brown’s premiership.  In her ever-excellent column, Rachel Sylvester makes the point that this may be as much from necessity as by design: “According to Anthony Wells, of UKPollingReport, at least a third of the House of Commons are likely to be novices after the next general election — the highest proportion since 1945. A perceived house of whores, whose members would sell their souls for a bathplug, will soon be replaced by a virgin Parliament, untouched by the John

General Dannatt denies that he’s been in cahoots with the Tories. He gave a lecture last night and said: “[David Cameron] put it to me that he was concerned that his defence team – at a time when defence was really important, and Afghanistan was really critical – lacked expert understanding. “And would I be prepared to advise his team, and, if the Conservatives win the election, would I be prepared to take a peerage and maybe join his ministerial team… it was a recent decision and indicates that there was no long-term plot.” Only a bolus of ministers, who believed they could smear a General who was renowned for

Later today, George Osborne will elaborate on the Conservatives’ plan to raise the state pension age to 66. The rise will be enacted by 2016 at the earliest and will save an estimated £13bn per year. The Tories will review how they can accelerate the original planned pension age rise, dated for 2026, that would link the state pension with earnings. There’s much to elaborate upon, notably how the rise will affect female retirement age and exactly how much money would be saved overall. But essentially, this move should be welcomed. It is realistic and proves that there’s substance to the Conservatives’ cuts agenda beyond ‘trimming bureaucracy’ and burning quangos. George Osborne describes the proposal “one of those

There are 29 members of the Commons and the Lords speaking from the podium at conference. Four shadow cabinet members are not — Lord Strathcylde, Lady Anelay, Patrick McLoughlin and Mark Francois. We shouldn’t read too much into who is not speaking. The Leader of the Lords and the Chief Whips in the Lords and the Commons are not regular conference turns and there is an obvious reason why the Tories don’t walk to talk about Europe. What might be more significant is that one person who is on the front bench but not in the Shadow Cabinet has got a slot, Maria Miller — suggesting that the party hierarchy