Liberal democrats

One of the odd things about the polls at the moment is that the Tories lead on economic competence and leadership, traditionally the two most important issues, yet trail overall. There are, I argue in the column this week, three possible explanations for this polling paradox. The first possibility is that Ed Miliband is right, that the link between GDP growth and voters’ living standards is broken. A consequence of this is that voters put less emphasis on economic management in the round. Instead, they want to know which party will do most to help them with their cost of living. Then, there’s the possibility that the traditional political rules

Today’s Westminster Hall debate on the sugar content of preserves was positively jammed with puns. ‘The minister seems to have found himself in a sticky situation, or in a bit of a jam,’ said Tessa Munt, who was quite set on raising this subject with fellow MPs. ‘Jam today, please, but I would like to see jam tomorrow as well.’ Does anyone give a damn about the sugar content of jam? Well, according to Munt, the government’s plans to allow manufacturers to reduce the concentration below 60% risks ruining jam forever. It will mean jams that apparently are darker, duller, and muddier. According to Munt, consumer confidence in jam could

The Lib Dems are cross this afternoon about David Cameron’s PMQs announcements on cutting back on green taxes in energy bills. They are mainly cross because they were only given 30 minutes’ notice of the new policy before MPs crowded into the Chamber for the session, and are insisting that ‘nothing concrete has been agreed’. A source close to Nick Clegg told Coffee House; ‘Generally you would hope that an announcement of government policy would not be handled in this way. There was a quad discussion about this but nothing detailed was put forward and nothing concrete has been agreed.’ The source dismissed briefings from Tory sources that ‘one way

The Lib Dems are coming in for a beating this morning from the Tories over Nick Clegg’s decision to go public with his thoughts on the flaws and limitations of the free schools programme. Rachel Sylvester and James Chapman both have very strong briefings from Conservative sources about the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments, while the Lib Dems are annoyed both that there is such a fuss about a new plank in the differentiation strategy and also that they have apparently held this policy for a long time. Sources close to Clegg are highlighting that the Lib Dem spring conference backed a motion supported by the leadership which called for all

What does everyone think about free schools? That’s the question that is being asked of every Liberal Democrat who has the misfortune to pop up in broadcast interviews today, because it seems that you can now take any position you want on the subject, so long as you’re wearing a certain hat or you’ve got your fingers crossed behind your back. Ed Davey this morning tried to explain the difference between what David Laws said last week at the despatch box in defence of free schools and what David Laws apparently thinks when he’s not at the despatch box. Davey told the Today programme: ‘He is defending the Government’s position

Apparently our MPs declined the opportunity to stand up and give the heavily pregnant minister Jo Swinson a seat during PMQs. So she stood. She has made no fuss at all. My suspicion is the MPs would have happily stood for her but were worried that they’d later be castigated as sexist for having done so. And quite possibly by Ms Swinson. With the exception of air-headed Lib Dem ministers, it is right to give a pregnant woman a seat on a bus, or a train, isn’t it? Just as you’d give up your seat for a raspberry, or a very old person, no?

The Tory talk of backing an increase (£) in the personal tax allowance to £12,500 serves several purposes. First, it makes it easier for the Tories to champion raising the rate to £10,000 and it gives them a tax cuts that’s aimed at low and middle income earners. But it also draws a neat dividing line with Labour, which is not keen on this policy, ahead of any future coalition negotiation. Indeed, I understand that thinkers close to Miliband have urged Nick Clegg to drop his attachment to raising the income tax threshold and instead think about using the money for a big universal childcare offer. Danny Alexander has already been out

First things first: a reshuffle in which only one cabinet minister is sacked redeployed is a reshuffle in name only. It means the action – if you can call it that – is confined to the replacement of ministers of whom most of you have never heard with other MPs of whom you are most likely equally ignorant. A day of low drama in Westminster then. Secondly, ejecting Michael Moore from the Scotland Office is not, I think, a reflection on his performance. If he was an accidental Secretary of State whose elevation to the cabinet was the result of David Laws’ disgrace, Moore still carried out his duties diligently

The Tories are naturally the most worked up about Ukip – while trying to publicly pretend that it doesn’t exist, of course – but when David Cameron gives his speech to conference shortly, what will he say about the Lib Dems? He faces two yellow challenges: the first is to try to stop the Lib Dems claiming credit as the party of the moral high ground without which the Tories would be a rabidly unfair party unconcerned with the needs of the vulnerable. The second is giving the impression that while the Coalition may conduct itself with greater serenity than anyone could have imagined when it formed in 2010, he

In Manchester this week, there’ll be much talk from the Tories about how they are gunning for a majority. But in private, many senior Tories will admit that being the largest party in another hung parliament is a more realistic aim. As Matthew d’Ancona reveals in the Telegraph this morning, there has been talk—albeit brief– between the principals about a second coalition. Matt also reminds us how, if it had not been for Cameron’s intervention, a mansion tax would have been imposed by the coalition. I suspect that if there is to be another coalition, the Liberal Democrats would insist on some kind of mansion tax. It has come for

This is not the backdrop that Ed Miliband would have wanted for Labour conference. Labour’s poll lead has—according to YouGov—vanished, Damian McBride is dominating the news agenda and there’s talk of splits and division in this inner circle. But, as I say in the cover this week, you can’t write Ed Miliband off yet. He has three huge, structural advantages in his favour. The boundaries favour Labour: Type Thursday’s YouGov poll, the best for the Tories in 18 months, into UK Polling Report’s seat calculator, and it tells you that Labour would be three short of a majority on these numbers. It is a reminder that if the parties are

Never let it be said that the Liberal Democrats are against marriage – in fact they’re so keen on it that at their conference they voted for a motion that effectively forces marriages on commitment-phobic men. The Cohabitation Motion is aimed at giving cohabiting couples (whether they have children or not) rights currently only enjoyed by married couples. MP Julian Huppert explained: ‘Cohabitation is on the rise, creating families of all shapes and sizes. In the UK more and more couples, different sex and same sex, are choosing to live together without entering into civil partnerships or getting married. In 2010 more than 15 percent of all families in the

1. The Lib Dems think they will be in power again after 2015 This whole conference was aimed at making that easy by encouraging activists to back grown-up policies rather than argue about goldfish. The Lib Dem leader placed great emphasis in his speech on his party’s ability to work with any party, arguing that it didn’t matter who he got on with better personally. As James writes, the Lib Dems had a good conference because they think there will be another hung parliament. 2. The Lib Dems believe in coalition more than they believe in anything else. Clegg’s ‘this-is-who-I-am’ passages in his speech explained his frustration with two-party politics,