Liberal democrats

Wednesday

Alex Massie

The Price of Nick Clegg’s Success

As Pete says, Danny Finkelstein’s column (£) today is characteristically excellent. The problems facing the Liberal Democrats now and, perhaps, at the next election are problems caused by success, not failure. The Lib Dems had three options after the votes had been counted: do a deal with the Tories, try and cobble something together with Labour or remain aloof from the hurly-burly and leave the Tories to govern as a minority – perhaps on a supply or confidence basis. Given those options Nick Clegg followed his own instincts (and those of the country as a whole) and opted for the Tories. This was both the right thing to do and

Peter Hoskin

How tightly are the Lib Dems bound to the Tories?

A thoughtful and thought-provoking column from Danny Finkelstein (£) in the Times this morning, which is well worth a trip beyond the paywall to read. In it, he makes a persuasive point: that, despite their plunging poll ratings, the Lib Dems aren’t doing too shabbily at all. After all, who, looking back at the party’s recent history, would have thought they would be in power in 2010? That they are suggests, in Danny’s words, that “this is not not the bottom for the Lib Dems, it is the top.” From there, an important point is made against those who still contend that the Lib Dems would have been better off

Peter Hoskin

The government could make political and fiscal gains if it reviews the Trident upgrade

On one level, there is something admirable about the government’s uncompromising support for a Trident upgrade: senior Tories really do believe in the deterrent’s strategic importance, and are not willing to sacrifice that. But, on many other levels, that same inflexibility is looking more and more unwise. Three former senior military figures write to the Times today with a new riff on a point that they have frequently made before. Why not squeeze another 15 years out of the current system, they say – by which time, “the anachronistic and counterproductive aspect of our holding on to a nuclear deterrent would be even more obvious.” This is an argument with

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

A postcard from Dave and Nick

Here’s a slightly curious one: David Cameron and Nick Clegg have written a public letter to their ministers, reminding them that, “deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain,” and that, “the purpose of our government … [is] … putting power in the hands of communities and individuals and equipping Britain for long-term success.” If you wanted to read into it, then you could say that the emphasis on the “long-term” throughout the letter is a warning to any disgruntled sorts: policies for the long-term require time to implement, so the coalition has to be built to last, etc. etc. But, of course,

Monday

Fraser Nelson

There is no Cabinet rift on benefit reform

Here’s me about to go on holiday, and the welfare wars seem to be opening up. Neil O’Brien has a piece on it over at the Telegraph website. And Hopi Sen, one of the better leftie bloggers, has written a response to my post yesterday. Partly, he wants to stir: it’s not so much that the Treasury want to block IDS’s reforms, he says, but rather that they are following Osborne’s orders to reduce the deficit. And so it’s one part of the government at war with another. By contrast, the Whitehall wars I outlined are hangovers from the Brown days, where the Treasury set policy for all other departments

Peter Hoskin

Who is Labour’s Mr Sun?

Writing for the Times, Tim Montgomerie neatly overlays Aesop onto the Labour leadership contest: “The next Labour leader is unlikely to be an Abbott, Balls or Burnham. Gordon Brown’s successor will be a Miliband. But I’m more interested in whether he will be Mr Sun or Mr Wind. Aesop captured the dilemma in a fable. If you want a man to take off his cloak, do you huff and puff and force him to give it up or do you cover him with warmth until he discards it freely? In Aesop, the sun scores a predictable victory. Politics isn’t so easy. Harriet Harman’s blasts at Nick Clegg’s alleged betrayal of

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s circles of influence

Andrew Rawnsley’s potted hierarchy of the coalition government – and especially its final sentence – is worth pulling out for the scrapbook: “There is still, of course, an inner circle. When not abroad, the first key fixture of the day at Number 10 is the strategy meeting. Its usual attendees include George Osborne, the chancellor; Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton, his director of communications and his senior strategist; Jeremy Heywood, the permanent secretary at Number 10; the prime minister’s chief and deputy chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn and Kate Fall. Note that Nick Clegg is not on that list. He belongs to the next circle of influence around David Cameron.

Peter Hoskin

The coalition’s Lib Dem conundrum

Yesterday, a “source close to the Prime Minister” told the Telegraph that we shouldn’t bother much with the opinion polls as at the moment. As they put it, “we’re only a few weeks into a new Parliament and we’ve got nearly five years to go before everyone really has to worry about the polls again.” But, make no mistake, there will be Lib Dems who are deeply concerned by how their party is polling at the moment. The YouGov poll in today’s Sunday Times, which has the yellow bird of liberty stuttering along at 12 percent, only underlines a remarkable decline since the election campaign (see chart above). The pressure

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

Will Cable be selling the coalition’s cuts?

Compared to the major affairs of state, David Cameron’s decision to spend part of this summer touring the nation to sell the coalition and its spending cuts may seem but a trifle. Yet it’s a good move nonetheless. After the obfuscations from all sides before the election, Osborne’s Budget swept in a more upfront approach to cuts. Cameron’s roadshow, you hope, will keep that going. One thing to look out for is how Vince Cable gets on this summer. The Telegraph reports that he will also be involved in the coalition’s big promotional drive, and will be holding his own public meetings during August. A recipe for trouble given Cable’s

Peter Hoskin

Francis Maude is right, but he must remain wary

Big words from Francis Maude, as he tells today’s Guardian that the current government is more radical than either Thatcher or Blair were in their first terms. But, to my mind, he’s right. Even looking back on the past week – with the proposals to reform policing and benefits – there’s a good deal of radical policy. And that’s before we get onto the free schools revolution or GP commissioning – or, of course, to a Budget which took shears to the size of the state as few have done so before. But Maude shouldn’t get too excited quite yet. It is all very well talking about good intentions and

Friday

Patrick Nolan

IDS’s welfare reforms aren’t perfect, but he’s right to be bold

So, Iain Duncan Smith has set out proposals to comprehensively reform of the welfare system. The goal is to replace 51 benefits with a single and flexible allowance. It has been claimed that this reform would allow people with jobs to retain more of their benefits and ensure that people who work will always be better off than people on benefits.   There are problems with Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals. Fiscal cost is one, and the Work and Pensions Secretary has already clashed with George Osborne over the price of these proposals. Lowering taper rates to make work more rewarding could mean that more people receive more generous assistance –

Matthew Sinclair

The coalition can do more for less on benefits reform

There is a lot to like about Iain Duncan Smith’s new proposals for welfare reform.  The chance to move towards a radically simplified benefits system is enormously exciting.  As I wrote for Coffee House last week, the current system is a complete mess and failing on just about every criteria.  It is so complicated that £4.5 billion a year is lost to error and fraud; working at the minimum wage of £5.80 an hour can be worth as little as 26p an hour; and too many families slip through the net so that the number living in severe poverty has actually increased from 5 to 6 per cent in the

Peter Hoskin

At last, IDS gets his chance to reform benefits

For some time now, we on Coffee House have been raving about Iain Duncan Smith’s plans for reforming benefits. And, today, it finally looks as though they – or something like them – will soon be put into action. The DWP is releasing a consultation document which aims to simplify and straighten out a benefits system which now acts as a barrier to work. Over the next few months, various think-tanks and other organisations will submit their own ideas for doing just that. Someone who will no doubt take part in that process, Policy Exchange’s Neil O’Brien, has a written a very useful summary of the main questions and arguments

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Clegg confirms his fiscal hawkishness

Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations is just under four hours away, but I suspect we’ve already heard about one of its key moments. As various outlets are reporting this afternoon, Nick Clegg tells Robinson that he had changed his mind about the pace of spending cuts sometime before the coalition agreement. Or as he puts it: “I changed my mind earlier than that … firstly remember between March and the actual general election … a financial earthquake occurred in on our European doorstep.” This matters because the Lib Dem manifesto said that spending shouldn’t be cut (above and beyond Labour’s plans) this year – and that the squeeze

Peter Hoskin

The coalition needs to think harder about renewing Trident

What do we have here, then? Another public disagreement between Downing Street and Liam Fox? Certainly looks that way, as George Osborne assures an interviewer in India that the entire cost of Trident should be borne by the Ministry of Defence’s budget. As the Telegraph reminds us, Fox suggests that the running costs of Trident should be part of the MoD’s responsibilities (as they are currently), but the approximate £20 billion capital cost of renewing the nuclear deterrent should be paid for by central government. In his words, on Marr a couple of weeks ago: “To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are

Peter Hoskin

5 days that changed the country

Westminster has rewound the tape today, in anticipation of Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations tonight. There’s speculation about what Nick Clegg did or didn’t say back in May; Anthony Seldon has a piece on Gordon Brown’s side of things in the Independent; and Robinson himself has a summary article in the Telegraph. Much of what’s revealed so far could already be pieced together from the Mandelson memoirs, as well as from Westminister chatter, but some of the new contexts are eyecatching. This, for instance, from Robinson, suggests just how important personality politics was during those days after the election: “Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer, nor

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Match-maker Merv

Mervyn King’s evidence to the Treasury select committee has Westminster’s tired tongues wagging this afternoon. King re-iterated his long-held position that market confidence will imperil long-term recovery unless the deficit was confronted immediately. Nick Clegg has said that a personal conversation with King changed his mind on cutting the deficit early. Paul Waugh, Jeremy Warner and James Macintyre have varying takes on the Governor’s remarks and their bearing on the coalition’s formation. I’d just observe that King may have been Cameron and Clegg’s unwitting matchmaker. But equally, no party was honest about cuts during the election. It was the great unmentionable, which would suggest that cutting had to come sooner

David Blackburn

Hughes leaps to the coalition’s defence

Simon Hughes is defending his party’s core interests with singular ferocity. Today, he has turned on Labour’s decision not support the AV bill. Hughes told the BBC: ‘They can’t, in any logic, oppose the idea that you have equal numbers of voters per seat. And they are trying to pretend somehow putting equal numbers of voters per seat proposal to go with AV makes it something they can’t support. It is an indefensible position, they are playing games, and their new leader will hugely embarrassed by this decision.’ It’s clever politics from the point of view of the coalition: get the Lib Dems to attack Labour’s apparent duplicity from the

David Blackburn

Who should make the concessions to appease the AV rebels? Cameron or Clegg?

The honeymoon has been spoilt by a bout of food poisoning: Tory dining clubs have decided to obstruct the AV bill. More than 50 Tory MPs will rebel because they believe the referendum should be held on a day other than May 5th and that the referendum should not be binding unless turnout exceeds an agreed minimum. Labour, already masters at opposition, will oppose the bill on the grounds that it includes changes to electoral boundaries – a reform that would lessen the in-built bias in favour of Labour, but which it haughtily considers ‘gerrymandering’. For the sake of the coalition, Cameron owes it to Clegg to at least deliver

Tuesday

Mark Littlewood

Never again should so much be wasted by so few

If you tire quickly of the tediously lengthy build up to Christmas, which starts about now, then heaven help you in dealing with two years of hyperbole about the 2012 Olympics. Even the most enthusiastic synchronised swimming fan will find it hard to imagine that the actual event will live up to the billing. And as a keen follower of sport (well, proper sport like football or motor racing), I hope that the London Olympics absolutely bomb.   I want half empty stadia, feeble athletic performances (particularly from British competitors) and embarrassingly low television viewing figures. Because – after this fiasco has finally ended – I don’t want there to