Liberal democrats

Nick Clegg may or may not be thrilled that Paddy Ashdown has urged party members to stand by their leader after Lord Oakeshott’s rather vicious attack on him yesterday. It depends slightly on the Deputy Prime Minister’s reading of history: as Tim Montgomerie observed last night, the endorsement of a former party leader can sometimes seem like a death knell. It is interesting, though, that it was Lord Oakeshott who launched the first public attack on Clegg’s leadership (that is, if you discount the helpful suggestions from ex-MP Lembit Opik). Not surprising, of course: the party’s former Treasury spokesman in the Lords is not known for delicacy when it comes

George Osborne returned from his summer holidays this week to find a cacophony of advice for him on how to boost the economy, as well as advice that his boss David Cameron should sack him as Chancellor in his planned reshuffle. He quickly torpedoed one piece of wisdom generously offered by Nick Clegg, saying the Lib Dem leader’s plans for a wealth tax could ‘drive away the wealth creators and the businesses that are going to lead our economic recovery’. Anyone eagerly expecting Osborne to lose his job in the next few weeks will be disappointed, but the Chancellor will continue to come under pressure, and not just from those

Polling analyst Mark Gettleson has a fascinating piece of research on ConHome today about the implications for the Conservatives of a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote in 2015. In summary, it will be bad news for the Tories. Gettleson argues that in seats where the Lib Dems come third, those who had supported the party did so on the basis of national political messages. He says: ‘It is with these voters that an obvious left-right split becomes important – more precisely a Labour vs Coalition one. While Liberal Democrat voters who feel favourably towards the Coalition may well stick with Mr Clegg rather than leap to the defence of

The Treasury’s consultation on taxing residential property transactions closes this Thursday, and the Liberal Democrats are using it to push their preferred policy of a full mansion tax. The party has asked its members to send this email to the Treasury: I am writing in response to HM Treasury’s public consultation on the taxation of residential property transactions. Ultimately, I want the government to go further and introduce a full mansion tax charge of 1 per cent annually on all properties worth £2 million or more, with an option of delaying payment for those who are asset-rich but cash-poor. If the government wants those with the broadest shoulders to bear

The Liberal Democrats published the agenda for their autumn conference today, and one of the motions on the paper is on ‘a sustainable future for aviation’. Conference will debate the motion, tabled by Julian Huppert, on Sunday 23 September, and you can read it in full here. In essence, it rejects new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, and calls for UK aviation policy to be based on: accessibility from north and south, growth with the UK’s carbon budgets, minimal impact to the local population, minimal impact on the local environment and maximum hubbing potential. This is not surprising, but if conference approves the motion in full, it will make

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is to drop his normally conciliatory voice to attack the Tories at the Lib Dem party conference in Brighton. So what? you may well ask. The mild-mannered Alexander is unlikely to strike the fear of God into his listeners, assuming that anyone beyond the conference hall will be listening, or indeed that the conference hall is full: Brighton being lovely at that time of year. Besides, bursts of splenetic outrage at one’s coalition partners have become a feature of conferences, particularly since last year’s unhappy AV referendum. There is, dare I say it, a suggestion that they are choreographed for the TV

Nick Clegg’s decision to scupper boundary reviews in retaliation for the failure of his Lords reform programme is the very opposite of ‘mature’ government. It is the politics of the sand pit: you have annoyed me, so I’m going to kick your sandcastle down. It’s his way of putting a horse’s head in Cameron’s bed, and the public will be appalled. The coalition has entered a new, destructive phase where Lib Dems will now pride themselves on what Tory measures they can frustrate or destroy (O Levels, profitmaking schools etc). I’ve just been on the Today programme with David Hall Matthews of the Social Liberal Forum, who claimed that Clegg’s

Perhaps the most intriguing part of Nick Clegg’s decision not to support the 2015 boundary changes as a ‘penalty’  for Lords reform not happening is that Downing Street is insisting on pushing on with the matter. I’m told that Number 10 will ‘do everything we can to persuade everyone we can to vote for them.’ When I put it to this senior Cameroon that this was futile given that with Lib Dem ministers and MPs voting against, there was no chance of getting it through the Commons, the source said ‘is it feasible [to get the boundary changes through], yes’. There are two possibilities here. One is that Cameron is

The conventional wisdom about the consequences of the failure of Lords reform is that the Liberal Democrats will wreak their revenge for the Conservatives’ ‘breach of contract’ by scuppering the boundary changes. Over the past few months, the party has taken great pains to link the two reforms, and now that it is clear that the first will not go through, all focus is on the second. There is much that still needs to become clear about how this will work; the biggest question of all being how Lib Dem ministers can vote against the changes without being sacked. But don’t expect the whole party to troop through the ‘no’

In recent weeks, Downing Street has been repeatedly told by Tory MPs that if proposals for an elected element in the House of Lords were brought back to the Commons, the next rebellion would be even bigger than the 91 who voted against second reading. Downing Street, as the Telegraph reported this morning, has now accepted that Lords reform will have to be dropped and there is talk of a formal announcement to this effect as early as Monday. But, intriguingly, I understand that David Cameron does not intend to abandon efforts to get the boundary reforms through. This, as Isabel noted this morning, has the potential to cause a