Coalition

The Tories turn their fire on ‘lamentable’ Johnson

Come back, you insufferable relatives, all is forgiven: the political class has devoted an afternoon to trading insults about who said what about VAT and when. However, there have been some intriguing exchanges amid the New Politics’ latest outing. First, Labour seems to be fighting the two coalition partners as a single entity in Oldham East. Cameron, Clegg and Simon Hughes have received equal measures of opprobrium this afternoon and all have been lumped together. This was always a danger, but, as Fraser noted, Clegg and Cameron invited the manoeuvre by uniting their parties’ central operations in the cause of government. If Cameron and Clegg don’t differentiate in the general,

Will Osborne be vindicated in 2015?

VAT, VAT, VAT – but what’s this? The main headline on today’s FT doesn’t mention the sales tax at all, and the piece below it only does so in passing. Instead, a declaration that “UK austerity measures [are] expected to pay off,” based on a survey of economists conducted by the paper. Although those polled have concerns about inflation and the eurozone, only 13 percent say that George Osborne needs a Plan B for dealing with the public finances. As always, we shouldn’t place too much stock in this kind of thing. Some economists will back the coalition, others will back Labour; some will be right, others will be wrong.

There is no reason to raise VAT

It is very clear that the government cannot carry on borrowing at current rates and the coalition’s proposals for reducing government borrowing are prudent. However, today’s VAT rise is unnecessary. As has been said before, we did not get into this situation because the government taxes us too little. Ever since Gordon Brown abandoned his self-imposed restraint in 2000, government spending, financed mainly by stealth taxes and increased borrowing, has expanded rapidly to its current level of over 50 percent of national income. As such the whole of the balance of fiscal adjustment should come through spending cuts. The coalition’s spending reductions have reflected political expediency, not sound economics. The

Osborne and Johnson battle over the new tax divide

Now here’s a thing: a radio appearance by Alan Johnson that actually clarified some details about Labour’s economic policy in the Miliband era. Sure, the shadow chancellor spent most of his time on the Today Programme setting about the coalition’s VAT hike, with all the usual arguments about jobs and growth. But there was also confirmation that Labour’s deficit reduction plan would split 60-40 between tax rises and spending cuts, and that they would raise national insurance levels rather than VAT. It repositions the argument some way beyond the simple Do/Don’t divide that was developing around VAT. Now there are two choices for voters to make. Do they prefer a

Boles beats his old drum

To accompany Fraser’s suggestion that Cameron and Clegg are planning a merger, it is notable that the ubiquitous Nick Boles has renewed his calls for a formal pact. Previously, Boles averred that Liberal Democrat ministers should be protected in three-way or Conservative-Liberal marginals. This time round, his argument is more philosophical. He told Radio 4’s PM: ‘The Coalition has enabled the Conservative party to be more radical than it would have been able to had it formed a government on its own with a small majority… Jacob Rees Mogg who’s a fellow MP who’s certainly not a sort of liberal Tory like I am in the sort of modernizing sense. In five

James Forsyth

Miliband on the trail

If you talk to Tory MPs privately and ask them which of the coalition’s budgetary decisions they are most uncomfortable with, they’ll generally indentify the VAT rise and the police cuts (the reductions in the defence and prisons budget are also often mentioned). So it is clever politics for Ed MIliband to be emphasising the VAT rise and the police cuts so heavily in Oldham East and Saddleworth. It enables him to oppose key bits of the deficit reduction programme without sounding like an out of touch left-winger. If Labour do hold the seat, it will be a boost to Ed Miliband. It will add to the sense that he

Wrong to be too Right

From a right-wing perspective, there are several things wrong with David Cameron’s leadership – not least the fact that he did not win the 2010 election outright. As an unassailable report by Lord Ashcroft showed, the Tory campaign squandered a historic lead over Labour. The policy disagreements – over the EU, civil liberties, and the AV referendum – are compounded by personal grievances. The Prime Minister, despite investing quite a lot of time placating quarrelsome  MPs – calling them, writing them letters, inviting them to No 10 – cannot shake the impression of a man who is buoyed by confidence verging on arrogance, and someone who is reliant on –

Miliband swings into action by warning of inflation

The seasonal interlude has ended and Ed Miliband is sallying north to Oldham East. He will resuscitate old favourites from 2010: progressive cuts, fairness and a government bent of an ideological mission: but he will illustrate his point with reference to tomorrow’s VAT rise. Miliband will say: ‘Today we start to see the Tory-led agenda move from Downing Street to your street. At midnight VAT goes up, hitting people’s living standards, small businesses and jobs. The VAT rise is the most visible example of what we mean when we say the government is going too far and too fast, because it’s clear that it will slow growth and hit jobs.’

Is it a merger?

When a Conservative leader wishes the LibDems well in a three-way marginal by-election, then what is going on? Andrew Gilligan’s piece today shows that the Conservative campaign there is muted, and my colleague Melissa Kite reported earlier that Cameron personally called off  the hunt supporters, Vote OK, who were planning to boost the Tory campaign. Little wonder that Conservative MPs are beginning to smell a rat. They are being told this is the cohabitation of rival parties; in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow, I ask if this is actually a merger.   From the start of this coalition, I’ve been struck by the differences between the coalition in Westminster, and that

Control Orders: a pyrrhic victory for the Lib Dems?

Coalition is a tricky business, full of compromise and connivance. Emblazoned across the front page of the Sunday Times (£) is the news that Control Orders are to be scrapped. A victory for Nick Clegg, we are told, won to nurture wounded Liberal Democrats and preserve the coalition. The Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto maintained that Control Orders would be abolished and many senior Liberal Democrats have been volubly opposed to Lord Carlisle’s report into Control Orders, which was understood to propose their retention. Certainly, Nick Clegg needs an outright victory on policy. The Oldham East by-election draws near, whilst the tuition fees debacle remains clear in the memory, harsh austerity

Rising costs: a problem for the public and the coalition in 2011

Ne’er mistake correlation with cause, I know. But, during the Brown premiership, the correlation between petrol prices and poll ratings was still pretty striking. Mike Smithson graphed it early last year, but the basic story was this: the Tories enjoyed their biggest poll lead over Labour when petrol prices were at their highest, and Labour closed the gap to only 1 percent when petrol prices were at their lowest. At the very least, it gives us a hypothesis to work from: prices up, the government suffers; prices down, the government recovers. And it looks as though we’ll be able to test that hypothesis soon enough. Today’s Express reports that –

Totnes trouble for the Tories

If you want to know why party managers don’t like open primaries look at page 26 of today’s Guardian. There Sarah Wollaston, the GP who won the Tory open primary in Totnes, warns that Andrew Lansley needs to watch out if his NHS reforms are not to turn into privatisation by the back door. The piece is, to put it mildly, unhelpful from a Tory perspective. For a Tory MP, and one who was a GP, to suggest that Tory health policy could lead to a privatisation of the NHS is a gift to Labour. It is also the last thing that Andrew Lansley needs given the u-turn he has

A handful of predictions

Here we go. Spurred on by Pete earlier, it’s time for that essential, although often regrettable, end-of-year ritual. Not the prosecco-fuelled partying, but rather something with far more embarrassment potential: predictions for next year. That’s right, amateur guesswork dressed up as serious-ish journalism. Some scribes are better at this than others. Ex-blogger Iain Dale hit the nail on the head by predicting the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader. In a German aquarium, Paul the Octopus nailed all eight of his predictions for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. By contrast, Mike Adams from NaturalNews probably ought to stop trying to channel Nostradamus. Last year, he predicted that

Cameron and Miliband’s New Year message: 2011 will be like 2010 

If you want to know what British politics will sound like in 2011, then just read David Cameron’s and Ed Miliband’s New Year messages one after the other. They share a lot of the same words, but bounce along to different, if familiar, drumbeats. According to Cameron, next year will be “very difficult,” due to the effort of “putting our economy … on the right path”. According to Miliband, next year will be more difficult than it needs to be, due to “the decision taken to reduce the deficit at what I believe to be an irresponsible pace and scale.” In other words, cuts versus fewer cuts. Just like 2010 all

An 80 percent elected Lords would not be a Lib Dem triumph

The Lib Dem manifesto committed the party to a fully elected House of Lords. The Tory manifesto talked about a ‘mainly-elected’ second chamber and in 2007 David Cameron voted for ‘the other place’ to be 80 percent elected (interestingly, George Osborne voted for a fully elected Lords). The coalition agreement committed the government to a ‘wholly or mainly elected upper chamber’. So it is hard to see how a Lords that retained a twenty percent appointed element could be portrayed as a major Lib Dem triumph as, according to today’s Guardian, the coalition wants. There has been talk in Westminster that Clegg’s consolation prize if the AV referendum is defeated

Fraser Nelson

A debt-filled New Year

The Spectator is out today, with a cover story that I would commend to CoffeeHousers. Failure to learn from history usually condemns a nation to repeating its mistakes. That’s why we should be nervous that no one seems to have worked out what caused the crash. Little wonder: the guys doing the analysis are the same guys who failed to spot the crisis building up, so it suits everyone to blame the banks. “How was I to know,” says everyone from Gordon Brown to Joe the Pundit, “that they were doing all these complex debt swap thingies? They deceived everyone, the bounders.” There is another analysis – and it’s our

The momentum shifts

Yesterday’s announcement that 114 Labour MPs, including 5 shadow cabinet ministers, will be voting ‘No’ in next year’s Alternative Vote referendum isn’t exactly a ‘game changer’. But it has certainly shifted the terms of debate within the Labour party. Over the past few weeks a perception had been developing that adoption of the AV system, whilst not generating unparalleled excitement and passion within Labour ranks, was at least becoming the line to take. That perception has now changed. Labour’s internal stance on the issue is important. Labour supporters effectively represent the referendum’s ‘floating voters’. Successive polls have indicated a clear majority of Conservative voters opposing AV, with an even greater

This year’s biggest story

This year was so rich in stories – Expensesgate, the election and historic coalition, the Icelandic volcano, General McChrystal’s dismissal, the Pakistani floods, Haiti’s earthquake, Greece’s near-collapse, the Will n’ Kate engagement, Wikileaks, the Chilean miners and so on – that it is hard to pick just one story. Looking back over the year, however, I think two stories stand out – because they may herald a seismic change.  The first is, of course, the establishment of coalition. By now, the novelty of government by cross-party compromise has worn off. But, despite the gossipy complaints of a few Lib Dem ministers, a new kind of politics is being forged. It may not

James Forsyth

Tzars and advocates

The coalition’s attempt to talk to two audiences at once is on full display today. The Times reports on the appointment of the Tory Lord Heseltine as a growth czar and his warning against bashing the bankers. Meanwhile, The Guardian reveals that Simon Hughes, the deputy Lib Dem leader, is to be the coalition’s access advocate. Hughes’ appointment is intriguing. On one level, the appointment of Hughes—who abstained in the fees’ vote—is a way of trying to draw a line under the matter within the Liberal Democrats. Clegg clearly hopes that having abstained Hughes will be better able to sell the package to sceptical party activists. But on the World

David Miliband’s options

Downing Street may  have dismissed as “complete nonsense” a newspaper report that the coalition was considering inviting David Miliband to become British ambassador to Washington. But the former foreign secretary is one of a few younger British politicians with international standing and while it would be odd to appoint him to a government job – and stranger still for him to accept — the coalition should consider putting him forward for a number of international assignments. Potential jobs include the international community’s “high representative” in Bosnia; as a UN envoy to Yemen; or as the representative of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. In future, these three posts need to be