Coalition

Bring on the strikes

An old boss of mine once said to me: when you start a new assignment, seek out a fight — and win it. The same advice should be given to incoming Prime Ministers. U-turns, as Mrs Thatcher knew, just create demand for more U-turns. If the government is willing to revise its NHS plans, then why not reopen the Defence Review, or alter the pledge to spend 0.7 of our national income on overseas aid (or at least abandon the questionable idea of legislating for it)? But seeking out and winning battles, while avoiding too many retreats, is not enough. To be great, a Prime Minister needs good enemies. Mrs

Osborne comes to a decision on the banks — but the story doesn’t end there

In his speech to Mansion House last year, George Osborne asked a question of his frosted and cumberbunded audience: “Should we restrict or split the activities of banks?” In his speech tonight, he looks set to deliver an answer of his own. As Robert Peston reports, the Chancellor is to announce that the investment and retail arms of banks will be ringfenced off from each other, so that the dice rolls of the Masters of the Universe cannot tumble across everyday savers’ cash. This does not mean a complete, Glass-Steagall-style separation between the two halves. But, rather, it follows the recommendations of the interim report of the Vickers Commision: banks

Inflation: cock-up, not conspiracy

Britain has the worst inflation in Western Europe; this is today’s story. CPI is 4.5 per cent and RPI is 5.2 per cent. This masks even worse rises which, as the IFS says today, hit the poor hardest. The price of a cauliflower is up 38 per cent to £1.26, potatoes are up 13 per cent to £1.54 a kilo. For millions, these are the most important metrics. Historically, it’s pretty bad. You’d think a Bank of England legally mandated to keep CPI inflation at 2 per cent would be horrified at this, and start vowing to tame the cost of living. After all, this isn’t just a statistic: it

Night of the generals

Last night, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said that the aircraft carrier and the jump-jets that were scrapped in last year’s strategic defence review would have made the mission in Libya more effective, faster and cheaper. His comments follow Robert Gates’ assertion that Britain and France were struggling to lead the Libyan operation without substantial American support. It follows, in the mind of Stanhope at least, that defence cuts are impeding Britain’s military capability. This morning, Rear Admiral Parry (rtd) supported Stanhope. He told the Today programme: “I believe that he should have said that the Strategic Defence and Security Review was flawed – it defied strategic

Those three little letters

The NHS saga is over at last, or so the government hopes. The coalition is expected to adopt the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, which have been delineated by panel member Stephen Bubb in this morning’s Times (£). Last night, the prime minister and his deputy addressed their respective parliamentary brigades and each claimed the credit for re-shaping Andrew Lansley’s bill for partisan gain. The political saga continues. The Lib Dems have been crowing over their victory; the Tories are licking their wounds –a voluble Conservative MP has told Philip Johnston that a ‘once in a generation opportunity to reform the NHS has been lost.’ Some of the anger

Government split over enforcing the Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) is to be ‘rebooted’ before the summer recess, so that it can be brought into force next January. Digital policy expert James Firth explains how the Act is being brought forward by placing it before the European Commission, a process that was overlooked when the Act was passed during the ‘wash out’ at the end of the last parliament. He also hints at a possible division on this issue within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), suggesting that this new approach is “being driven personally by Jeremy Hunt”. So it seems. Some of those who were privy to discussions at the DCMS say

Balls bites back (with mixed success)

You certainly can’t fault Ed Balls for chutzpah. After the weekend he has just experienced, the shadow chancellor has an article in today’s Mirror accusing George Osborne of “spinning out of control”. It is pure, triple-distilled Balls: a fiery attack on both his political opponents and their policies. So let’s sup deep and read the whole thing, alongside my comments: THIS is the most exciting Formula 1 season for decades. Because it is not just about who has got the fastest car – it’s about race strategy, overtaking and adapting to the changing conditions. You can be the fastest driver on the track for 40 laps – but that’s no

The day of the Lib Dem’s greatest ever triumph

Or so they will try to claim. For today is the day when Steve Field, the GP doing the listening part of the NHS listening exercise, will release his report into the government’s reforms. Judging from the convulsions of the grapvine, his recommendations will go something like this: more involvement for nurses and local officials, less private sector involvement and competitiveness, and a more relaxed timescale for introducing the changes. Although there are questions of degree hidden in that checklist, it is enough to have the Lib Dems heralding their “victory” for now. Paddy Ashdown was tapdancing across the airwaves yesterday, saying that Nick Clegg had “played a blinder”. “Am

Burnham burns up

Andy Burnham has caught up with Coffee House’s revelation earlier this week that the Treasury, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Education are going to have to review their position on academy funding because of a legal challenge.  Burnham is twittering, in typically hyperbolic terms, about the matter. But the reality of the situation is rather less dramatic. The coming changes will simply be a matter of preventing the taxpayer paying twice over for a service, once from the academy to the local authority (the new system) and once from the Department of Education to the local authority (the old system). Education is fast turning into one

The problems of PR

Two centuries ago, Edmund Burke famously mocked the intellectuals of revolutionary France for trying to devise a perfectly rational constitution for their country. The Abbé Sieyès, he wrote, had whole nests of pigeon-holes full of constitutions, ready made, ticketed, sorted and numbered, suited to every season and every fancy . . . so that no constitution-fancier may go unsuited from his shop. The Abbé Sieyès has had his imitators in England lately. The last government devoted much intellectual energy and parliamentary time to producing a theoretical separation of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive, when a practical separation had existed for years. The current coalition has devoted at

The welfare revolution will require much time and effort

Forget Balls, today brings one of the most significant moments in the life of the coalition so far: the launch of its Work Programme. The name may be commonplace but, as Fraser suggested earlier, the policy is revolutionary. Over the next year, around one million unemployed people will be enrolled on work schemes run by private companies and charities. Those companies will then be paid between £4,000 and £13,700 for every person they return to proper, long-term work. It is, evidence suggests, an effective and cost-effective way of getting benefit claimants back into the labour market — and it reaches those claimants that the state-run JobCentres can scarcely be bothered

Fraser Nelson

How the coalition hopes to fix Britain’s economic dysfunction

The largest welfare-to-work programme on the planet is launched today by Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that the future of this country — and, perhaps, David Cameron – depends on its success. The lead article of this week’s Spectator looks at it, and we used various metrics — some of which puzzled David Smith of the Sunday Times. He understandably challenged our claim that 81 per cent of the new jobs created are accounted for by immigration. We had a Twitter “conversation” about it earlier this morning, but some things you can’t explain in 140 characters. So here is my argument:

Who is the coalition’s tough guy?

Next week the Prime Minister will make his much-awaited law-and-order speech. This should, under normal circumstances, be the third or fourth such speech by a Tory leader who’s been in government for more than a year. Normally, it would be an occasion to score easy points from centre-right voters. But these are not normal times. The PM has rebranded the party to such a degree that it has nearly lost its law-and-order credentials. In addition, the U-turn over sentencing policy now needs to be explained. So this is a claw-back kind of speech, where the PM has to restore trust and win friends anew. The real problem is, of course,

Cameron: a leader in need of ‘a people’

One of the odd things about David Cameron is that he wants to be a consensual radical. Unlike Margaret Thatcher he doesn’t want to have ‘a people’, a section of the electorate that is loyal to him personally. Rather he wants to be seen as a unifying national figure. He is, to borrow a phrase from The Economist, a ‘one nation radical’ But Cameron’s persona doesn’t mean that the left aren’t going to fight him with everything they’ve got. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s assault on the coalition today in the New Statesman is a classic example of the kind of opposition he is going to face. (If you read the

Blair is still a believer

To an extent, British politics is still determined by whether or not you agree with Tony Blair. For more than a year, the coalition and the opposition have been debating whether to continue Blair’s public service reforms; this is a testament to his failure as Prime Minister as much as it to his success. Today, has given an interview to the Times (£), coinciding with the release of his memoirs in paperback. He uses it to question the Labour party’s current journey back into “nostalgia”. He says: “The attraction of a concept like Blue Labour is it allows you to say that there’s a group of voters out there we

The turbulent priest

“Nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics,” said Sir Humphrey. This week’s New Statesman has been guest edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In his lead editorial, Dr Rowan Williams has launched a brutally eloquent assault on the coalition for embarking on a programme of radical reform for which, he claims, there is no mandate. With particular reference to the health and education reforms, Williams says: “With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted. At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context.” Not for the first

A missed opportunity to strengthen the Big Society in rural areas

David Cameron came into power promising to deliver the greenest government ever and this week the government published its Natural Environment White Paper. In his article on this site, Richard Benyon – Defra Minister and long-time supporter of rural affairs – explains where he believes this White Paper will make a difference. From provisions to increase outside learning for school children, to recognising the hard work that rural businesses are already doing; there is much to be commended.    ‘The Natural Choice’ promises to repair the damage that has been done to the environment in the recent past and encourage greater involvement in helping nature prosper – the ‘Big Society’

James Forsyth

The coalition has to ‘reconsider’ another policy

One of the many problems with the equalities act is that it requires a level of consultation and a number of equalities impact assessments that are not compatible with speedy decision making. Word is seeping out tonight that the coalition is now having to ‘reconsider’ its decision on Academy funding because the Treasury, the Department of Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government did not tick all the right boxes before announcing the new settlement. The reverse is the result of a legal challenge by various local authorities. But this is a pyrrhic victory as the likely result of it is that local authorities actually receive less money