Liberal democrats

A Tory Case for Electoral Reform

David Aaronovitch’s column today is excellent. He makes a case for David Cameron coming out and supporting the switch to the Alternative Vote. The key bit: The pessimism that Conservatives invariably express about their fortunes under electoral reform is based on a particular assumption about the British electorate — an assumption that belies their constant invocation of “the great ignored” or the silent majority. The assumption is that there is a natural majority for the Centre Centre Left in Britain, a majority that only the division of the two centre-left parties within the first-past-the-post system neutralises. So the current system operates (in Tory eyes) as a perpetual pro-Tory gerrymander. I

The case against cutting prison numbers

With all the hoo-haa about Ken Clarke’s plan to reduce prison numbers, it’s worth disinterring the Spectator’s leader column on the subject from a couple of weeks ago.  Here it is, for the benefit of CoffeeHousers: One of the many ludicrous Liberal Democrat policies which Tories enjoyed rubbishing during the general election was their plan to send far fewer criminals to prison. But, alas, it seems that some bad ideas are infectious. Last week Ken Clarke, the new Justice Secretary, suggested that we can no longer afford to keep so many prisoners — so we should sentence fewer, and for shorter periods. Why, he asked, is the prison population twice

Waiting on AV

Every conversation I have about the durability of the Coalition comes back to the AV referendum. The conventional wisdom is that if AV is defeated then it will be very hard for Clegg to keep his party in. For this reason, people pay extremely close attention to the Tory leadership’s attitude to AV. We are waiting to see if there is even a hint that Cameron is prepared to soften his position on the issue to strengthen the Coalition.   So Danny Finkelstein’s blog this morning suggesting that ‘AV might provide the answer to the otherwise impossible question – if the parties stay together, how can they fight the election

First Commons rebellion against the Coalition a small affair

In the last few days, there’s been much speculation about how many Lib Dem MPs would vote against the VAT rise. In the end, only two did—Bob Russell and Mike Hancock. I suspect that the Lib Dem whips will be quite happy that the rebellion was so small. Other Lib Dems with misgivings about the policy are clearly not yet prepared to cross the Rubicon of rebellion. One thing we know is that once an MP has defied the whip in government once, they find it much easier to do it again. Few in Westminster would be surprised if Russell and Hancock began regular rebels. But it will be a relief

Osborne turns his attention to welfare

George Osborne suggested as much in his Today interview last week, but now we know for sure: the government will look to cut the welfare bill even further in October’s spending review, and incapacity benefit will come in for special attention from the axemen. It was, you sense, ever going to be thus. With unprotected departments facing cuts of over 25 percent unless more action is taken elsewhere, the £12bn IB budget was always going to be a tempting target for extra cuts. Particularly as so much of it goes to claimants who could be in work. The questions now are how? and how fast?  The first answer seems clear

The Lib Dems’ toughest week so far

This, in the admittedly short life of the Coalition, has been the most difficult week so far for the Lib Dems. The Coalition agreement had the Lib Dems winning huge concessions from the Tories. Afterwards, all the talk was of Lib Dem negotiating skills, what a good deal that they had won for themselves. But after the Budget, the mood was very different. It is now clear that this is, first and foremost, a fiscally conservative government. One of the problems as Andrew Rawnsley notes in his column is that the Lib Dems are now being depicted as dupes by large sections of the media and the Labour party. However

The trimmers mobilise

The Independent on Sunday reports that a cabal of four disgruntled/horrified Lib Dem MPs have held secret talks with Labour to amend contentious elements of the Budget, such as the VAT hike. Four rebels will not be enough to defeat the government, but it is the first indication that Simon Hughes’ call to arms will be answered by the social democrat wing of the party, damaging the coalition’s long-term prospects. Of course, it is healthy that government backbenchers scrutinise and improve government legislation for whatever cause – the odd amendment to public borrowing clauses would have been welcome over the last decade. Scrutiny does not imply revolution, stressed Andrew George, the four

Post-Budget polls show drop in Lib Dem support

ICM’s post Budget poll for the Sunday Telegraph confirms YouGov’s finding that the Lib Dems have dropped after the Budget. It has them down five to 16. By contrast, the Tories are up two to 41. Labour have also risen four to 35. YouGov has the Lib Dems on 16, the Tories 43 and Labour 36. These polls matter because they will add to the jitteriness that some left-leaning Lib Dem feel about such a fiscally conservative Budget. There is a feeling in Lib Dem circles that they could do with some things to please and reassure their base in the coming weeks. The Coalition is planning a policy push

Cameron and Clegg’s love-in deepens

What began as a coalition of expediency is maturing into a pact of principle – or at least that’s what Cameron and Clegg would have you believe.  Of course, relations may sour and enormous efforts are being made to preserve Cameron and Clegg’s public cordiality. Journalists are being briefed that plans are in progress to enable Cameron and Clegg to speak at each others’ party conferences.   It will be little more than a public relations exercise if it goes ahead, and an extremely hollow one in all probability. What are they going say? It’ll be a cartoonist’s dream, as Clegg is politely applauded by the contemptuous Colonels, and Cameron,

What is Simon Hughes Playing At?

The Liberal Democrat’s Deputy Leader (that still seems a strange thing to type) and tribune of the left seems to be on manoeuvers. Apparently: When it comes to the Budget next week, we will vote for the budget. But if there are measures in the Finance Bill where we could improve fairness and make for a fairer Britain, then we will come forward with amendments to do that, because that’s where we make the difference, as we will in the spending review which will follow in the months ahead. Well then! On the face of it this is a rum approach and one, I think, that is unlikely to end

Labour’s Category Error

Have you been impressed by Labour’s response to their election defeat? Hmmm. Next question: is anyone listening to Labour’s complaints that the Liberal Democrats have “betrayed” themselves and everything that is nice and sweet and wholesome about this pleasant land? Best move on from that one too. Sunny Hundal makes a good argument that, at the very least, it is much too soon for Labour to be taking this line. It’s a good post but it misses one trick, I think: Labour continue to suffer from the category error of believing that liberals are really Labour voters who don’t quite realise this. But this is not the case and it’s

Osborne winning the Budget PR battle – but VAT remains a thorny issue

Well, that’s gone as well as can be expected for the coalition.  Most of today’s newspaper coverage highlights the severity of George Osborne’s Budget – but, crucially, it adds that the Chancellor had few other options.  The Telegraph calls it a “brave Budget”.  The Times says that it delivers “the best of fiscal conservatism combined with no small measure of social justice”.  And even the FT – no friend of the Tories in recent years – suggests that Osborne might be “remembered for doing Britain a great service.” The sourest notes chime around the government’s welfare cuts and the hike in VAT.  Already, it’s clear that the latter will be

Alex Massie

New Politics, Same Old Media

When Jeremy Paxman grilled Danny Alexander on Newsnight yesterday he spent most of his time on politics, not economics. Fair enough. That’s what the media does and one wouldn’t expect it any other way. But it was the type of attack Paxman employed that was both mildly interesting and futile. This was because Paxman decided to tear into Alexander and attack him for all the things in the budget that weren’t in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Some of them, as Paxo pointed out time and time again, were actively opposed by the Lib Dems. Gotcha! Hypocrites! Why, he sneered, should anyone ever listen to anything you have to say in

Our rising debt burden

Debt may start falling as a share of GDP at the end of this Parliament (see p.2 here), but it’s still going up in cash terms.  Here’s a comparison with Labour’s last Budget:

Unspectacular, but quite effective

Well, that was excitingly unexciting.  There was little in George Osborne’s Budget that we didn’t expect, either in terms of rhetoric or policy.  But it still felt new and different nonetheless.  Here we had a Chancellor setting out exactly how much spending he will cut, and putting plenty of emphasis on both our deficit and debt burdens.  It drew a stark contrast with the Brown years, and was a solidly understated performance in itself. There will be plenty of attention paid to the hike in VAT, and rightly so.  But there were some macroeconomic forecasts which were just as eyecatching.  In his address, Osborne suggested that the deficit on “current

Budget 2010 – live blog

1343, PH: Harman has sat down now, so we’ll draw the live blog to a close.  I’ll write a summary post shortly. 1342, FN: I wish I could trash Harman’s response, but it’s actually quite good.  Many a Tory would be secretly cheering her trashing of the LibDems. “The LibDems denounced early cuts, now they’re backing them – how could they support everything they fought against, how could they let down everyone who voted for them?” Again, a fair point. “The LibDems used to stand up for people’s jobs, now they only stand up for their own.” Her main point – that forecasts for unemployment have risen – is a

Osborne makes the “progressive” case

During the Brown years it was “stability,” but it looks as though the watchword for Chancellor Osborne’s first Budget will be “progressive”.  This is the word that’s being bandied about behind-the-scenes, and the coalition seems confident that it has the policies to match the rhetoric.  As the Guardian reports today, it’s likely that the personal income tax allowance will be raised by £1,000 or so, to help shield the least well-off from tax rises elsewhere.  And the paper quotes a Tory aide saying that the richest will pay more, “both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income.” Whether he drops the p-word or not, the arguments behind

Osborne looks to the long-term

There are plenty of details for Budget-spotters to look out for tomorrow, but among the most important is just how far Osborne reaches into the future.  The current expectation in Westminster is that he will offer quite a few glimpses into the long-term.  A possible commitment to reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 20 percent over the next five years, perhaps.  Or similar provisions for making the first £10,000 of income tax-free. There are, of course, economic and political motives behind this.  Economically, the plan will be to reassure the markets that the coalition has a deliberate plan which extends beyond the next few months (which was a

Why a public sector pensions levy makes sense

Today’s papers are awash with stories that a public sector pensions levy will be announced in tomorrow Emergency Budget. Trade unions have already issued dire warnings, ranging from the PCS’s promise to “organise the widest possible popular opposition,” to Bob Crow of the RMT’s rather prosaic: “when someone’s winding up to give you a kicking you have a clear choice — you can either take them on right from the off or you can roll over and hope that they go away.”  Public sector workers, however, should not be so dismissive.   In our report, released on Friday, we argue for an “Irish style” graduated public pensions levy of 7.5

The two sides of the VAT question

There are two main aspects to the VAT issue: one distasteful, the other less so.  The distasteful one is the issue of whether the government has a mandate for hiking VAT in tomorrow’s Budget.  Of course, government is often the art of the unexpected, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see measures implemented that weren’t explicitly raised in the election campaign – particularly when it comes to tax rises.  But all the claims that there were “no plans” to raise VAT do jar against reports like: “Osborne insisted the budget measures would be spread fairly across society, suggesting capital gains tax will rise and promising a new banking levy. But