Liberal democrats

In The Guardian today, David Laws argues for increasing funding for the pupil premium to £5 billion in the next parliament. But, revealingly, rather than talking about achieving this through the Liberal Democrat manifesto, Laws want to secure the increase this side of the next election and so writes about how it relies on persuading George Osborne of the premiums’ worth. Laws appears to be putting down a marker that increased funding for the premium needs to be part of Osborne’s pre-election spending review which should be in autumn 2014. If everything goes according to the coalition’s economic plan, the coalition will be able to announce plans to cut taxes

May 2015 is an age away in political terms. But the question of what happens to the coalition after the next election is too politically interesting to be able to resist speculating on; even if this speculation is almost certainly going to be overtaken by events. Over at ConservativeHome, Paul Goodman asks if Cameron and Osborne share Francis Maude’s view that the coalition should continue after the next election even if the Tories win an outright majority. My impression is that they do. If the Tories won a majority of between 10 and 30, I’d be surprised if Cameron didn’t try and keep the coalition going. There are four main

Sometimes it is the dog that doesn’t bark that matters and this week the Liberal Democrat left has failed to bark. We have not had any prolonged public outbursts against the spending review from the left of the Lib Dem parliamentary party. Sure, they may be trouble over individual welfare measures but the Simon Hughses and Tim Farrons of this world seem broadly happy with the package. Indeed, Simon Hughes’ press release on the spending review is entitled, ‘Necessary reductions in public spending are as fair as possible’. Add to this the fact that the Lib Dem revolt on higher education funding is not gathering steam at present and we

One question swirling through the sea of British politics is this: how will Ed Miliband act towards the Lib Dems? The Labour leader certainly didn’t flinch from attacking the yellow brigade during the leadership contest, at one point calling them a “disgrace to the traditions of liberalism.” But surely he’ll have to soften that rhetoric in case the next election delivers another bout of frenzied coalition negotiations. Which is why Andy Burnham’s article in the Guardian today is worth noting down. In making his point – that the Lib Dems haven’t won the pupil premium they sought – he does all he can to force a wedge between Nick Clegg

Several of tomorrow’s newspapers lead on the IFS’ conclusion that those on the lowest income will suffer most from the cuts. This charge is problematic for the conclusion but far less problematic than it would have been if we hadn’t spent so much of the last few weeks discussing George Osborne’s decision to remove child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer in them. That change, however unpopular it may have been with normally Tory voters, inoculated the coalition against the charge that it was trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Osborne’s preparation of the ground has not, though, stopped the Lib Dems slipping

Michael Gove has just been explaining in the Commons where the £7 billion for the fairness premium that Nick Clegg announced on Friday will come from. Revealingly, David Laws was present as Gove answered this urgent question. I understand that Laws was crucial to both the pupil premium being implemented at a decent level and the real-terms increase in the schools Budget.   Laws himself told John Pienaar’s show last night that “obviously I’ve talked to him [Nick Clegg] about some of the things that I’ve been associated with in the past, like the schools funding issue… because I was the schools spokesman in the last parliament”. I hear that

The Lib Dem website still says that the party stands for the abolition of tuition fees, so Vince Cable had to draw on all his presentational skill this afternoon. The ‘current system of university funding is no longer feasible’ he said, before adding that Scotland’s free system is unsustainable. Second, he made clear that he and his party have always supported a ‘progressive graduate contribution’. The Browne report incorporates a progressive contribution into an alternative to the current system; Cable vowed to introduce a ‘specific proposal along the lines of the Browne report.’ Cable also dealt with the politically sensitive issue that these changes would not disadvantage middle income earners.

A little snippet from today’s Times (£) that is worth noting down: “Tory rebels will this week lift their threat to the date of next year’s proposed referendum on voting changes – because they believe May 5 offers the best chance of stopping the alternative vote (AV) system. That date coincides with the council elections in Scotland, Wales and most of England, and was thought likely to boost the ‘yes’ vote for replacing first-past-the-post general elections. Nick Clegg insists that the Lib Dems will not budge on the date. But a tactical rethink will see many AV sceptics wave it through when the Bill comes to the floor of the