Liberal democrats

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

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

Oldham East will determine whether Clegg or Miliband is the leader under pressure

A few weeks ago Ed Miliband was the leader under pressure. There was, absurdly, talk of leadership challenges if things did not improve. But now all the pressure is on Nick Clegg, he’s the one facing stories about whether he can cope. Whether the unforgiving media spotlight stays on Clegg or not will be determined by the re-run of the election in Oldham East and Saddleworth. The result of this contest will frame the first quarter of the political year. If the Lib Dems take the seat from Labour, then Miliband will again be the leader under pressure. Clegg will have won the time and the space that he needs.

The final sting

It’s Christmas Eve, and the Daily Telegraph have wrapped up their sting operation in time for tomorrow. The final victims are the Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne and the children’s minister Sarah Teather. As it happens, Teather gets off without blemishing her copybook: her greatest indiscretion is to claim that Michael Gove is “deeply relieved” to be in coalition, as it means more funding for schools. Browne, though, is a touch more forthright: he says that Tory immigration policy is “harsh” and “uncharitable,” but that Lib Dem involvement will provoke a “more enlightened” outcome. He adds that the Tories’ EU grouping contains parties that “are quite nutty and that’s an

Nick Clegg’s balancing act

Today’s Lib Dem revelations are of the embarrassing, but not explosive, variety. David Heath, the deputy leader of the House, and Norman Baker, the transport minister, hypocritically say they are against tuition fees, despite having voted to let universities charge fees of up to £9,000. Baker also, crassly, compares himself to Helen Suzman, the anti-apartheid campaigner, working from within to change the system. But, beyond that, the remarks are what you’d expect a Lib Dem MP to say to a party supporter complaining about various Tory members of the government. I suspect Nick Clegg will be slightly more worried about Adrian Sanders, the MP for Torbay, issuing a broadside against

The Liberal Democrats and the Fallacy of Sunk Costs

John McTernan makes the case: Paradoxically, it is the increaing unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats that will bind them closer to the Tories. It’s illogical, I know. Being in the Coalition has halved their support, so really they should leave as soon as possible. But they won’t, they’ll cling on for dear life. Economists know this as the “sunk cost fallacy” – ordinary people use the phrase “good money after bad”. Essentially, most of us have an aversion to loss, so we tell ourselves any stories we can think of rather than do the logical thing and cut our losses. For sure, some Lib Dems think that there will be an upside.

Alex Massie

A Real Coalition, Not a Sham One

Mind you, Ed Miliband doesn’t understand coalition either. Fair enough. It’s not what he’s paid to understand. Still, according to Miliband (whom I keep forgetting is actually leader of the Labour party): Secretly recorded comments by Liberal Democrat ministers show the coalition government is “a sham,” Labour leader Ed Miliband has said. He described Vince Cable as “a useful prop for David Cameron as he seeks to pretend this is something other than a Conservative government”. “These are decisions of a Conservative-led government propped up by Liberal Democrat passengers. Passengers not in the front seat, not even in the back seat of the car, passengers who have got themselves locked

The political year in ten videos

With Westminster winding down for Christmas, and Coffee House with it, it’s probably time to start looking back on the year in politics. In which case, here’s an opener: a chronological selection of ten videos that capture the some of the glories, iniquities and embarrassments of 2010. If CoffeeHousers have any alternative suggestions, then just shout out in the comments section, and we can add them to the bottom of this post. Here goes: 1.Terror on Downing St: The Movie A Taiwanese news report about the bullying allegations made against Brown in Andrew Rawnsley’s book. The computer animations are astonishing, to say the least: 2. Gordon Brown calls the election

Alex Massie

Cable’s Survival is a Sign of Cameron’s Strength

James understands the dynamics of coalition government rather better than Simon Heffer. This may not surprise you. Mr Heffer complains that by letting Vince Cable survive – albeit in gelded form – while dumping the likes of Lord Young for other more trivial indiscretions, the Prime Minister is guilty of setting double standards. One would be appalled if this were not the case. And the double standard – for such there certainly is since Lib Dems may, indeed must, be opposed to at least some parts of coalition policy – reminds us that this is a Tory government leavened by the Liberal Democrats, not a Liberal Democrat government with added

Grim parallels with Germany for Nick Clegg?

Germany is one of the few countries that Nick Clegg has been able to look to for tips on how to be a successful Liberal party in coalition with a larger Conservative party. In 2006, Guido Westerwelle even took a delegation of Free Democrats to a Lib Dem frontbench meeting. Coffee House once predicted that, if the AV referendum was won, Clegg could one day become Britain’s Hans-Dietrich Genscher, a permanent powerbroker. The parties are of course different in many ways. The Free Democrats are decidedly more pro-market and pro-business than the Liberal Democrats. They also have a lot more experience of government. Before the last election, the Free Democrats

James Forsyth

Minor indiscretions

The Telegraph’s latest Lib Dem revelations are embarrassing for the ministers concerned, but won’t cause the coalition much trouble. Ed Davey is caught being critical of the announcement to take child benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers and expressing concerns about the changes to housing benefit. Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, is captured expressing regret about the Lib Dem u-turn on tuition fees and saying he couldn’t work with Tories like Liam Fox “for very long.” Steve Webb, the highly numerate pensions minister, was trapped into revealing that he had written to the Chancellor about the child benefit changes because “the details aren’t right.” There are, the Telegraph tells us, more

Broken Cable

To understand why Vince Cable survived today one has to understand the dynamics of the coalition. The Liberal Democrat rank and file have had to swallow a lot recently, but the idea that one of their Cabinet ministers was going to be moved for being rude about Rupert Murdoch would have been too much to bear. The backlash to shunting Cable sideways would have destabilised the coalition, so he stayed in place. But Cable tonight is a much diminished figure. He has been shown to be eager to be indiscrete, to be overly keen to air the coalition’s dirty laundry in public. His comments about being at ‘war’ with Rupert

Cable to remain as Business Secretary, but with diminished responsibilities

1750: Here’s the Downing Street statement: “Following comments made by Vince Cable to the Daily Telegraph, the prime minister has decided that he will play no further part in the decision over News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. In addition, all responsibility for competition and policy issues relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors will be transferred immediately to the secretary of state for culture, media and sport. This includes full responsibility for OFCOM’s activities in these areas. The prime minister is clear that Mr Cable’s comments were totally unacceptable and inappropriate.”

Cable waltzes into trouble with an attack on Murdoch

Those choppy waters that I mentioned earlier? They’ve just become perilous for Vince Cable. The BBC’s Robert Peston has an extract from the Telegraph tapes that was omitted from the paper’s coverage – and it is revelatory stuff. In it, the Business Secretary discusses Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take majority control of BSkyB, and he drops this particular line: “And I don’t know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.” Declaring war on Rupert Murdoch – and declaring that you’re declaring war – may be inadvisable for most

Cameron and Clegg play the expectations game

You know the drill by know: a Cameron and Clegg joint press-conference, so plenty of easy bonhomie and political japery. And today was no different. The Lib Dem leader set the tone with his opening gag, aimed at Vince Cable: “I haven’t seen as many journalists in one room since my constituency surgery.” After that, it was pretty much a gag a minute. Underneath all that, though, was some serious business. Cable came up (“very apologetic,” apparently), along with his claims about Winter Fuel Allowance (“not true”). But, as Iain Martin has noted, the most intriguing moment was when Cameron claimed only that he “expects” the Tories and Lib Dems

A tale of two quads

There could barely be a starker contrast between Danny Alexander’s interview with the FT today and the, ahem, Cableleaks. Unlike his fellow Lib Demmer, the Treasury Secretary knew that he was speaking to a journalist – and he keeps well within the lines when discussing the coalition. “My impression,” he says, “is that the Liberal Democrats support the coalition. People knew the first couple of years would be extremely tough.” Alexander saves his most enthusiastic rhetoric for the quad: the group of four ministers – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and himself – who met regularly during the spending review period to decide where the cuts would fall. As

Leaked Cable

Loose lips sink ships – but can they sink sages too? Probably not, but Vince Cable has certainly entered tumultuous seas with the publication of candid remarks he made to a couple of Telegraph journalists posing as Lib Dem voters. In the tapes – which you can listen to above – the Business Secretary rattles on unrestrainedly about the inner workings of the coalition. The stand-out line is his claim that “If they push me too far then I can walk out of the government and bring the government down” – but there’s more, including: 1) The arguments that are being waged, and won. “We have a big argument going

Ten things you need to know about the Localism Bill

Last week’s Localism Bill introduced a range of novel measures, from elected mayors to local referendums. We’ve put together a list of Ten Things You Need To Know about it, by way of a primer for CoffeeHousers. The bill marks an important leap into the unknown. The dangers are less political – it’s hard for Labour to attack the principle of decentralisation – than practical, because it involves a genuine and significant loss of control for the centre. Pickles and company can’t predict what councils do with the new “general powers of competence,” nor what will happen if and when a new community-run service goes awry. But these challenges will