Coalition

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

The government could make political and fiscal gains if it reviews the Trident upgrade

On one level, there is something admirable about the government’s uncompromising support for a Trident upgrade: senior Tories really do believe in the deterrent’s strategic importance, and are not willing to sacrifice that. But, on many other levels, that same inflexibility is looking more and more unwise. Three former senior military figures write to the Times today with a new riff on a point that they have frequently made before. Why not squeeze another 15 years out of the current system, they say – by which time, “the anachronistic and counterproductive aspect of our holding on to a nuclear deterrent would be even more obvious.” This is an argument with

Tuesday

Gabriel Milland

The cuts start to bite

It must have been the toughest press release that anyone in the Central Office of Infomation has ever had to draft. A freeze on new campaigns and the abandonment of any regarded as “non-essential” mean staff numbers will drop by 40 percent – a loss of 287 jobs. Compulsory redundancies loom. The same press notice also revealed that the COI’s advertising spend was down by a 52% last month compared to June last year. We are not talking about small sums here. Last year’s COI marketing  spend of an eye-watering £531 million – half of it going on advertising – was about 20 percent more than the next biggest spender,

Peter Hoskin

Why the government needn’t fear the strikes

With the threat of major strikes timed to coincide with Osborne’s spending review in October, I think it’s worth exhuming an important point that Julian Glover made in his Guardian column last month: “UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don’t think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this

Peter Hoskin

Balls: let’s remain on the centre ground and oppose cuts

As the New Statesman’s George Eaton suggests, there’s quite a lot packed into Ed Balls’s piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can’t venture beyond the paywall). And, what’s more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn’t cede the “radical centre ground” of British politics to the coalition. That’s the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls’s own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that “Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument

Peter Hoskin

A postcard from Dave and Nick

Here’s a slightly curious one: David Cameron and Nick Clegg have written a public letter to their ministers, reminding them that, “deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain,” and that, “the purpose of our government … [is] … putting power in the hands of communities and individuals and equipping Britain for long-term success.” If you wanted to read into it, then you could say that the emphasis on the “long-term” throughout the letter is a warning to any disgruntled sorts: policies for the long-term require time to implement, so the coalition has to be built to last, etc. etc. But, of course,

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Dannatt’s departure means one less cook stirring the defence broth

So Sir Richard Dannatt has departed the Tory fold almost as curiously as he entered it. Sure, have been no gaffes from Chris Grayling this time around – but when it was announced last October that the former head of the Army was advising David Cameron, it was widely expected that he’d graduate to become a peer and a minister in any Tory government. But today he announces his “retirement” as neither. The Tories are downplaying all this, eager to avoid a repeat of the speculation that surrounded Sir Alan Budd’s departure. And, to be fair, there are few signs, as yet, that this is a viciously unamicable split. But

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

There is no Cabinet rift on benefit reform

Here’s me about to go on holiday, and the welfare wars seem to be opening up. Neil O’Brien has a piece on it over at the Telegraph website. And Hopi Sen, one of the better leftie bloggers, has written a response to my post yesterday. Partly, he wants to stir: it’s not so much that the Treasury want to block IDS’s reforms, he says, but rather that they are following Osborne’s orders to reduce the deficit. And so it’s one part of the government at war with another. By contrast, the Whitehall wars I outlined are hangovers from the Brown days, where the Treasury set policy for all other departments

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s circles of influence

Andrew Rawnsley’s potted hierarchy of the coalition government – and especially its final sentence – is worth pulling out for the scrapbook: “There is still, of course, an inner circle. When not abroad, the first key fixture of the day at Number 10 is the strategy meeting. Its usual attendees include George Osborne, the chancellor; Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton, his director of communications and his senior strategist; Jeremy Heywood, the permanent secretary at Number 10; the prime minister’s chief and deputy chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn and Kate Fall. Note that Nick Clegg is not on that list. He belongs to the next circle of influence around David Cameron.

Peter Hoskin

Getting credit flowing will be one of the coalition’s toughest challenges

In interview with the Sunday Telegraph today, George Osborne stresses that the banks have got to start lending again – and he’s right to do so. The easy availability of cheap credit may have done much to get us into this mess, but now we face a converse problem. As a recent Bank of England report shows, net lending from the banks to businesses remains negative – or, in other words, more is being paid back than given out – and the situation is getting worse. With small and medium businesses so reliant on credit to get themselves off the ground, this doesn’t augur well for a powerful recovery. But

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron must take this chance to end the giant evil of welfare dependency

There’s been plenty political drama in these past few weeks, but the most crucial agenda – and by some margin – is Iain Duncan Smith’s proposed overhaul of welfare. It doesn’t deserve to be categorised as just another political tussle. As I say in the News of the World today, it is easily the most important issue in Britain, and it is overlooked because of an affliction which most of our political class suffers: that of moral long-sightedness. No one wears wristbands for the British poor, Prime Ministers pledge to “eradicate illiteracy” in Africa yet are strangely indifferent to the illiteracy on our own doorstep. The plight and lives of

Peter Hoskin

The coalition’s Lib Dem conundrum

Yesterday, a “source close to the Prime Minister” told the Telegraph that we shouldn’t bother much with the opinion polls as at the moment. As they put it, “we’re only a few weeks into a new Parliament and we’ve got nearly five years to go before everyone really has to worry about the polls again.” But, make no mistake, there will be Lib Dems who are deeply concerned by how their party is polling at the moment. The YouGov poll in today’s Sunday Times, which has the yellow bird of liberty stuttering along at 12 percent, only underlines a remarkable decline since the election campaign (see chart above). The pressure

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

Will Cable be selling the coalition’s cuts?

Compared to the major affairs of state, David Cameron’s decision to spend part of this summer touring the nation to sell the coalition and its spending cuts may seem but a trifle. Yet it’s a good move nonetheless. After the obfuscations from all sides before the election, Osborne’s Budget swept in a more upfront approach to cuts. Cameron’s roadshow, you hope, will keep that going. One thing to look out for is how Vince Cable gets on this summer. The Telegraph reports that he will also be involved in the coalition’s big promotional drive, and will be holding his own public meetings during August. A recipe for trouble given Cable’s

Peter Hoskin

Francis Maude is right, but he must remain wary

Big words from Francis Maude, as he tells today’s Guardian that the current government is more radical than either Thatcher or Blair were in their first terms. But, to my mind, he’s right. Even looking back on the past week – with the proposals to reform policing and benefits – there’s a good deal of radical policy. And that’s before we get onto the free schools revolution or GP commissioning – or, of course, to a Budget which took shears to the size of the state as few have done so before. But Maude shouldn’t get too excited quite yet. It is all very well talking about good intentions and

Peter Hoskin

The past few weeks have made the struggle in Afghanistan even more difficult

Domestically speaking, it has been an encouraging week from the coalition. Internationally speaking, less so. And today we see the first real rush of fallout from David Cameron’s appearance on the world stage, as the Pakistani intelligence agency cancels a visit to London, “in reaction to the comments made by the British Prime Minister against Pakistan.” It’s not the kind of development that we should exaggerate –after all, it still looks likely that President Zardari will visit Cameron next week, even if officials in Pakistan have been wavering on that front. But we shouldn’t underestimate it either. The main reason to worry is, largely, one of personality. The Times runs

Friday

Patrick Nolan

IDS’s welfare reforms aren’t perfect, but he’s right to be bold

So, Iain Duncan Smith has set out proposals to comprehensively reform of the welfare system. The goal is to replace 51 benefits with a single and flexible allowance. It has been claimed that this reform would allow people with jobs to retain more of their benefits and ensure that people who work will always be better off than people on benefits.   There are problems with Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals. Fiscal cost is one, and the Work and Pensions Secretary has already clashed with George Osborne over the price of these proposals. Lowering taper rates to make work more rewarding could mean that more people receive more generous assistance –

Matthew Sinclair

The coalition can do more for less on benefits reform

There is a lot to like about Iain Duncan Smith’s new proposals for welfare reform.  The chance to move towards a radically simplified benefits system is enormously exciting.  As I wrote for Coffee House last week, the current system is a complete mess and failing on just about every criteria.  It is so complicated that £4.5 billion a year is lost to error and fraud; working at the minimum wage of £5.80 an hour can be worth as little as 26p an hour; and too many families slip through the net so that the number living in severe poverty has actually increased from 5 to 6 per cent in the

Peter Hoskin

At last, IDS gets his chance to reform benefits

For some time now, we on Coffee House have been raving about Iain Duncan Smith’s plans for reforming benefits. And, today, it finally looks as though they – or something like them – will soon be put into action. The DWP is releasing a consultation document which aims to simplify and straighten out a benefits system which now acts as a barrier to work. Over the next few months, various think-tanks and other organisations will submit their own ideas for doing just that. Someone who will no doubt take part in that process, Policy Exchange’s Neil O’Brien, has a written a very useful summary of the main questions and arguments

Thursday

David Blackburn

A General meeting

The machinery of British foreign policy has been transformed to accommodate a larger role for DfID; that is one reason why the aid Budget is increased. Andrew Mitchell is a canny operator, but he has a task on his hands to carry his department with him. DfID is ruled by three warring tribes. The bleeding heart tribe, who want to give oodles of cash to developing countries and leave them to it; the anoraks, who allocate pounds, pencils and penicillin per head of population; and the realists, who recognise DfID’s role in conflict zones. The government is keen that the latter group triumph; this is not the era of money

Peter Hoskin

5 days that changed the country

Westminster has rewound the tape today, in anticipation of Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations tonight. There’s speculation about what Nick Clegg did or didn’t say back in May; Anthony Seldon has a piece on Gordon Brown’s side of things in the Independent; and Robinson himself has a summary article in the Telegraph. Much of what’s revealed so far could already be pieced together from the Mandelson memoirs, as well as from Westminister chatter, but some of the new contexts are eyecatching. This, for instance, from Robinson, suggests just how important personality politics was during those days after the election: “Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer, nor

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Match-maker Merv

Mervyn King’s evidence to the Treasury select committee has Westminster’s tired tongues wagging this afternoon. King re-iterated his long-held position that market confidence will imperil long-term recovery unless the deficit was confronted immediately. Nick Clegg has said that a personal conversation with King changed his mind on cutting the deficit early. Paul Waugh, Jeremy Warner and James Macintyre have varying takes on the Governor’s remarks and their bearing on the coalition’s formation. I’d just observe that King may have been Cameron and Clegg’s unwitting matchmaker. But equally, no party was honest about cuts during the election. It was the great unmentionable, which would suggest that cutting had to come sooner