Coalition

Reid: essentially, Miliband’s not fit for purpose

John Reid made a bruising and quite extraordinary appearance on the Daily Politics earlier today. He demolished the Labour leader. Reid’s analysis was concise: there has been a vacuum at the heart of Labour since Tony Blair’s departure. Gordon Brown was divisive, at best, and clearly not up to the demands of leadership. And, Reid intimated, Brown’s child shares his father’s foibles. Ed Miliband has not impressed so far, having failed to understand the cause of New Labour’s success. Case in point, his support for the coalition’s very liberal policies on crime, and his inability to perceive that New Labour’s sustained dominance was due to constant policy renewal, not ideological

James Forsyth

Keeping the troops happy

A media narrative is rapidly emerging that the Tories are taking advantage of the Liberal Democrats, using them to defend the coalition’s most unpopular polices. On the Today Programme this morning, Justin Webb pressed Paul Burtstow, the Lib Dem health minister, on whose idea it was that he, the Lib Dem, come on the programme to defend the government against the Health Select Committee’s critical report. The implication was clear, that Burstow had been sent on because it was bad news. I think this narrative is a bit shonky. Yes, the Liberal Democrats took the brunt of the criticism over the fees hike but that was because they were breaking

The clot at the heart of the MoD

Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire collapsed under the weight of its own stupendous fabric. So too is the Ministry of Defence. An investigation by the Times (£) has revealed that bureaucratic intransigence has cost the taxpayer £6bn and several servicemen their lives. We have been here before with the Nimrod disaster and the subsequent Gray and Haddon-Cave reports. ‘A culture of optimism’ in procurement and maintenance leads to unsustainable costs, expensive delays, and, occasionally, the indefensible loss of life. At last, the Commons Public Accounts Committee is volubly shocked and has called for urgent reform.  The Times and the Committee blame the labyrinthine complexity of Whitehall’s last great monolith,

Who are the government’s regulation busters?

Each time politicians fight regulation, regulation normally wins. So far it seems like this coalition government is no different. John Redwood has been busy tabling parliamentary questions asking each department how many regulations have been introduced, and how many repealed. Rather than “one in, one out” in turns out that two regulations have been introduced for every one revoked. Eric Pickles emerges as the star, having revoked twice as many as he introduced. But the rest? Here’s the league table: I don’t think that the “guilty” ministers have been lax. It’s just that the system is out of control. Three years ago, John Hutton renamed his department “Business, Enterprise and

And a comprehensive rejection?

After Ed Miliband’s buttery overtures to the Lib Dems earlier, a response courtesy of the party president, Tim Farron. It offers, on the surface at least, a vicious rebuke to the Labour leader – and a staunch defence of what the coalition has achieved. Here it is in full: “Labour have just spent 13 years sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush – why would any sane progressive even give them a second glance? As part of the coalition government, Liberal Democrats have started fixing Labour’s economic mess, taking millions of people out of Income Tax and reforming British politics. Things Labour had 13 years to do but failed

A comprehensive offer to Liberal Democrats

It seems strange for Ed Miliband to veer from offensive to charm quite so quickly, but it’s a decent ruse nonetheless. Miliband deliberately cites David Cameron’s famous ‘comprehensive offer’ and many disenchanted Lib Dems will be swayed by his three point-plan, especially after the recent Grayson intervention. Disingenuous? Yes. Opportunistic? Very. Coherent and well-defined opposition to trebling tuition fees? Certainly. Now for some policies, perchance…  

Another item for the coalition’s to-do list: intergenerational unfairnessĀ 

With an uncanny sense of timing, the latest annual British Social Attitudes Survey suggests that the “conflicts of the future may be between today’s young and their parents’ generation.” And the thinking behind this conclusion? Simple: that, in so many ways, young people have never had it so good as the babyboomers did. From tuition fees to house prices, those born after 1975-80 have always tended to fall on the less favourable side of the divide – and that has, in turn, fuelled the sense of injustice that we saw erupt onto the streets last week. As the report puts it: “As home ownership becomes less accessible to the young,

Simmering below the surface…

By way of an addendum to Fraser’s post, it’s worth reading Melissa Kite’s account of internal Tory strife for the Sunday Telegraph (it doesn’t seem to be in the paper, but is available online here). The piece records what sounds like a tumultuous week for the Tory whips, as they struggled to keep a group of disgruntled MPs on side. There are plenty of little insights, of which this is just a selection: 1) The 1922 Committee gets angry. “The ceding of a series of major powers to Europe, the increasing of international aid, the decision to have a referendum on voting reform, the redrawing of constituency boundaries – all

Fraser Nelson

Cameron must head for the common ground

All the attention last week was on the Lib Dem split – but what about the division within the Conservatives? This is the greater threat to the coalition, and while there is not likely to be an earthquake soon, one can discern the outlines of the tectonic plates. Ladbrokes has odds of 5-2 of an election next year, and these don’t seem so short when one considers the short life of coalitions in British peacetime history. So where might the tension lie? A while ago, I referred to the bulk of the party as “mainstream Conservatism,” as a more useful phrase than the tautological “Tory right”. Tim Montgomerie last week

James Forsyth

The Lib Dem insurgency

The Liberal Democrats are not like the other two parties. The acitvists still have real power and set the policy agenda of the party. This is what makes Richard Grayson’s intervention in The Observer today so important. Grayson is one of the leading activists on the left of the party. After Nick Clegg’s election as leader. he organised a concerted push by the beard and sandals brigade to take over the powerful party committees and thus check the more economic liberally instincts of the party leadership. So his call for Lib Dem members to start cooperating with Ed MIliband is far more than just a cry of pain. The Federal

Clegg suffers the backlash

If this morning’s papers are anything to go by, Nick Clegg is in freefall. The man who was the Lib Dems’ biggest electoral asset is now a magnet for all sorts of political digruntlement. Exhibit A: the Ipsos MORI poll (£) in today’s News of the World, where 61 percent of respondents say that they don’t trust Clegg, compared to 24 percent in April. He has gone from being “the most trusted politician since Churchill,” to one of the least since … well, ever. It is no small irony that the leader who sailed most capably on the winds of “change” and “new politics” in the TV debates has, whether

A strength and a weakness

As with so many things, the coalition’s great strength is also its great weakness. On the one hand, it is two parties working together, politicians putting aside their differences to cooperate in the national interest. This is something that, broadly speaking, the electorate likes. On the other, it is a government that nobody voted for. There’s a danger that the public come to see coalition as an arrangement that just allows both parties to worm out of their manifesto commitments on the grounds that they didn’t win the election.  The coalition’s national interest case is a strong one. But it needs to be made with greater frequency. It cannot be

Conservatism is a broad church

A long time ago, I worked for CCHQ, David Cameron’s leadership campaign and them back in CCHQ again. We spent months trying to define what Conservatism really is. I don’t think we ever really got a pithy soundbite, because the root of its success is that it evolves to suit the times. Perhaps the best description is that it is a pragmatic creed, wary of dogma, going with the grain of human nature, and focusing on effective policy that leads to real improvements. We have some fundamental values – a belief in individual freedom but also in social and personal responsibility, an understanding that power must be devolved as close

The students vs the Lib Dems

One of the things I heard yesterday when I strolled around the edges of the protests, particularly from older people, was how the coalition’s policies had politicised Britain’s young. “It has really made my children wake up”, said an elderly bystander with a wistful look in his eyes.  Student leaders say they now hope to punish Lib Dems who voted for the tuition fees, targeting MPs in seats such as Bath, Burnley, Bradford East, Bristol West and Brent Central.   The sense of rage directed against the Liberal Democrats comes, I suspect, from a deeper sense of betrayal – and not simply student dissatisfaction over today’s issue. In politics time

The coming battle over Mainstream Conservatism

It’s not just the students who are waging a political struggle. In yesterday’s Times (£), Tim Montgomerie fired up a debate over the future of the Conservative Party that will no doubt simmer through the rest of this Parliament. For those who can’t delve behind the paywall, the argument was broadly this: that a tension is emerging between liberal Conservatism and a more traditional Conservatism. On the side of the Liberal Conservatives are those who want to extend the union with Nick Clegg and his party; a group which may well include the Tory leadership. On the other side are those who want the Tories to go it alone after

Fraser Nelson

Sifting through the wreckage

The revolution may not be televised, but protests certainly are – and the process magnifies the drama. Since last night, the news broadcasts have all had footage of two thugs trying to smash the windows of the Treasury and, in the process, familiarising themselves with the properties of bombproof glass. The attack on Charles and Camilla’s royal limo is splashed across all this morning’s front pages. The script is so well-rehearsed now that I hesitate to repeat it: the vast majority are peaceful protesters, infiltrated by vandals who soak up the attention. Many of the protesters yesterday looked like they’d get a cab straight back home to their Notting Hill

The divisions laid bare

When The Speaker called a division, the Labour side roared a passionate No while the coalition benches delivered a rather muted Aye. I did not see a single Lib Dem open their mouth at this point. Instead, they sat on their benches looking emotionally exhausted. Even those Lib Dems who have been proved right in their warning about the party’s position on fees—notably, David Laws and Jeremy Browne—appeared downcast.   In the end, the government won but with a much reduced majority. 21 Lib Dems voted against the coalition, as did six Tories. Simon Hughes abstained despite Ed Miliband’s entreaties to come with him into the no lobby.   This

Coalition wins fees vote with a majority of 21

The final tally was 323 in favour of lifting the cap on tuition fees from £3,290 to £9,000 a year, with 302 against. The second vote, on raising the basic cap to £6,000, passed with the same majority. Although we don’t know the divisions yet, we can safely say that it’s the biggest rebellion of this Parliament so far – the lowest government majority until today was 51. UPDATE 1: 28 Lib Dems voted with the government; 21 against; and 8 either didn’t vote or abstained. This is the biggest Lib Dem rebellion since the party was founded. UPDATE 2: Six Tories voted against the government: Andrew Percy (Brigg &

Exclusive: the fee hike won’t create a market

The fee vote really comes down to two questions. First, will the fee hike proposed by the coalition government actually create an internal market in higher education? Second, what will be the effect on the public finances? There is good reason to be doubtful.   First, the market: the idea, I suppose, is that world-class universities might charge higher fees than second and third tier ones. But, in the last few days, I’ve spoken to several very senior higher-education sources who privately report that universities like Leeds Met, Bolton and Worcester are very seriously considering charging the full £9,000 tuition for their courses once legislation is in place. The government is extremely concerned. As you can imagine, if that