Liberal democrats

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Sir Menzies Campbell: Cameron and Clegg look like brothers

Surprise, surprise – Menzies Campbell doesn’t sound 100% taken with the coalition in interview with Andrew Neil on Straight Talk this weekend.  This is, don’t forget, the man who encouraged the Lib Dems to seek a deal with Labour at the last minute.  And here he claims that he “would have found it very difficult to make the kind of arrangement with David Cameron that Nick Clegg has obviously found so easy.”  He adds that: “…there is this determination to make [the coaltion] work and nowhere is that more obvious than in David Cameron and Nick Clegg.  I mean, they are quite extraordinary, the extent to which their views coincide

Peter Hoskin

Cameron creates cover for cuts

David Cameron’s speech today was, in many respects, the one he needed to make: the clean-break speech, which trashed Labour’s record on the economy while also outlining how the coalition would deliver us to the sunny uplands. As it happens, it was also quite effective: a blend of policy specifics and punchy rhetoric.  And while we’d heard many of those specifics before – corporation tax cuts, reduced regulation, carbon capture, etc. – they cohered here as they rarely have done before. The most earcatching apsect of the speech, though, was the emphasis Cameron placed on government intervention.  Yes, there was a solid core of small state fundamentals.  But the PM

Peter Hoskin

Laws unto himself

Wondering why David Laws put in such a convincing performance when defending the government’s cuts at the dispatch box on Wednesday?  This little detail from Allegra Stratton’s excellent profile of him might help explain: “A friend confirmed that for the past six months, as the official Lib Dem party line decided on by Vince Cable was no cuts, Laws had been telling friends he believed the markets wouldn’t tolerate it. ‘He has been saying privately the cuts have to start straight after the election,’ they said.”

Peter Hoskin

Was last night’s Question Time a preview of how the coalition will deal with the media?

All kinds of hoohah about last night’s Question Time, for which Downing St refused to put up a panellist because of Alastair Campbell’s involvement.  If he was replaced with a shadow minister, they said, they would happily get involved.  But, as the excutive editor of Question Time explains here, the Beeb wasn’t prepared to go along with that.  So Campbell got to lord it up in front of the cameras. For the reasons outlined by Guido and Iain Dale, it was probably a slight mis-step by the coalition – but not one, in itself, that will have any important rammifications for them or the public.  For while it’s not the

Peter Hoskin

Encouraging early signs for the coalition

Was the delayed ballot in Thirsk and Malton a referendum on the coalition government?  If so, the result released in the early hours of this morning will greatly reassure David Cameron and Nick Clegg.  The Tory candidate Anne McIntosh won the seat with 52.9 percent of the vote (up from 51.9 percent in 2005), and the Lib Dems came second with 23.3 percent of the vote (up from 18.8 percent).  Labour were pushed way down into third place on 13.5 percent (down from 23.4 percent). So, over three-quarters of the vote for the two coalition parties. I’d be hesitant to draw any firm conclusions from a one-off election, conducted under

Thursday

Peter Young

To increase capital gains revenues cut rates, don’t increase them

To address the deficit, George Osborne will probably have to raise taxes. This is a grim truth to which most people are reconciled. But raising taxes and raising revenue are two different things. If the Chancellor is serious about closing that deficit, then he would doubtless be interested in the idea that a Capital Gains Tax raise from 18 per cent to 50 per cent might be a chimera tax. That is to say, one which raises no money at all. Worse, in fact, the odds are that tax revenues will fall and the deficit will be made worse by this tax rise. The international evidence is absolutely clear. As

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s public debate with his backbenchers

So, did Cameron say anything particularly noteworthy during his interview on the Today programme?  In truth, not really.  Most of the answers were of the “let’s wait and see what in the Budget” variety.  The ratio of spending cuts to tax rises: wait and see.  Plans for hiking capital gains tax: wait and see, and so on.   The only answers that weren’t determined by the Budget seemed to be his racing tips for the sports bulletin.  You can hear them here. But that isn’t to say the interview wasn’t revealing.  For much of it, Cameron was quizzed about the objections that David Davis and John Redwood have raised to the

Wednesday

Fraser Nelson

Gove must guard against the vested interests

Polly Toynbee was on ‘mute’ on Sky News in my office, the remote wasn’t working, which is frustrating because I’d love to hear how someone mounts a passionate defence of why local government should have monopoly control of state schools. Very few things in politics are indefensible, but a system which doles out sink schools to sink estates is one of them. When Michael Gove was a journalist, he described comprehensive education as the greatest betrayal of the working class. And now, as Education Secretary, he is outlining a system that will give the poor the same choice of schools that the rich have. Who on earth could be against

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Tactical considerations over the timing of the AV referendum

A referendum on AV was the concession that Nick Clegg felt he needed to get a coalition deal with the Tories past his party. But the referendum poses obvious dangers to the coalition, just imagine the sight of Nick Clegg and the leader of the Labour party sharing a platform to denounce the Tories’ ‘reactionary’ opposition to electoral reform.   The Guardian this morning reports that the Lib Dems are pushing for this referendum to take place in May 2011 at the same time as the Scottish and Welsh elections. There is, as the article notes, a huge benefit to the Lib Dems in getting this referendum in early before

Daniel Korski

German lessons

Angela Merkel’s fall from favour is something David Cameron ought to bear in mind as he looks for lessons to guide his term in office. The German chancellor could do no wrong when she was first elected. A new “Iron Lady”, she was seen as a giant among pygmees. Tony Blair was leaving the scene, Nicolas Sarkozy had yet to be elected, the newspapers swooned, the voters applauded. Mrs Merkel was respected in the US and Europe. She made her unwieldy coalition with the Social Democrats work, almost singlehandedly picked the NATO secretary-general and ruled over EU meetings. Now, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barrosso is (rightly) calling her “naïve”

Tuesday

Martin Bright

So Who’s the Senior Partner in this Coalition?

The choreography of the new coalition is designed to make this look like a partnership of equals. But I’m increasingly convinced that Nick Clegg pulled a masterstroke here. This really is a joint premiership. Someone suggested I take a look at the full coalition document  on the Cabinet Office website to see just how much the Liberal Democrat leader had wrung from his Tory counterpart in the negotiations. The most striking phrase is: “… will be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister”, which litters the document. The “I agree with Nick” slogan used by the Lib Dems during the election campaign has thus become embedded in the

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Loving the Liberal Democrats in a Hung Britain

Over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman suggests that Nick Clegg be invited to address the Conservative Party Conference this year and, in general, that the Tories need to do more to get to know their colleagues in government. He’s right. And here, via John Rentoul, is John Curtice to help explain why. Professor Curtice suggests that this most recent election ought not to be considered a freakish result and that even if the voting system remains unaltered hung parliaments are probably as likely as not for the foreseeable future. If that’s the case – and even with redrawn constituency boundaries it seems quite probable that at least some of the factors

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Laughs, politics and sincerity

The opening of the Queen’s speech debate is, traditionally, a light-hearted affair. Peter Lilley opened up with a rather witty speech. He compared the Liberal Democrats to the bastards of the Major Cabinet, it is better to have them inside the Cabinet pissing out than outside the Cabinet pissing in. He went on to warn the new Prime Minister that the appropriate response to John Major and Gordon Brown’s microphone troubles is not to turn your microphone off but to keep ‘your receiver switched on to hear legitimate concerns.’ David Cameron would be well advised to heed this tactfully-expressed advice. Lilley ended with a heart-felt plea to bring the troops

Peter Hoskin

The debate begins in lively fashion

The initial exchanges of the Queen’s Speech Debate have just come to a close – and, I must say, it was all rather jolly.  Harriet Harman came prepared with gag after gag about the Tories’ “marriage” to the Liberal Democrats, while David Cameron had a few about Harman’s actual marriage to Jack Dromey.  There was much laughter, good-natured jeering and cat-calling.  So – business as usual. Underneath it all, though, there was a substantive clash between the two sides.  In a spritely performance, Harman wisely avoided an “investments vs cuts” style attack, instead charging the coalition with not having a mandate for many of its political reforms.  Whereas Cameron accused

Peter Hoskin

What Harriet Harman can do for us all

Today’s the day, I suspect, when it will really hit home with Labour that they are now in Opposition.  Attacking a government’s legislative agenda isn’t something they’ve had to do for 13 years.  And while you could say that the Brown machine acted as an opposition in government – geared to destroy its rivals – this is different terrain, with different priorities.  It will fall to Harriet Harman to lead the charge from 1430 onwards. The FT’s Jim Pickard has some sensible advice for Labour’s stand-in leader.  But the crucial point is this: “It will be tempting to slam ‘Cameron and Clegg’ for ‘taking £6bn out of the economy’ and

Peter Hoskin

The Queen’s Speech: full text

Via PoliticsHome: HER MAJESTY’S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TUESDAY 25 MAY 2010 MY LORDS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS My Government’s legislative programme will be based upon the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility. The first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth. Action will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the structural budget deficit.  A new Office for Budget Responsibility will provide confidence in the management of the public finances. The tax and benefits system will be made fairer and simpler.  Changes to National Insurance will safeguard jobs and support the economy.  People will be supported into work with

Peter Hoskin

A day of pomp and positivity

The sun is filtering through the garden at 22 Old Queen Street, and a brass band is marching around St James’s Park: we’re getting the light and the pomp in equal measures for today’s Queen’s Speech.  As for the actual policy, well, we largely know what it’s all about.  There will be proposals for scrapping ID cards, strengthening civil liberties, reforming schools, making the police more accountable, and more.  The emphasis from the government is on handing power back to the people. The question is whether the coalition can make today’s positives balance out the age of austerity.  The stock market today provides a gloomy reminder that their biggest challenge

Peter Hoskin

The media helps the coalition’s fiscal cause

This feels like a watershed moment: a national newspaper devoting its cover to an image of the country’s “debt mountain,” with a small shaded-off area showing how little of it is covered by yesterday’s cuts.  The paper in question is today’s Independent.  And while the cover may not perfectly depict what’s going on with our public finances – yesterday’s cuts will reduce the government’s annual overspend, not the overall debt burden which will keep rising for years to come – it is still a powerful reminder of Brown’s toxic legacy. In some respects, the coalition might not appreciate this kind of focus: after all, politicians don’t much like mentioning the

Monday

Fraser Nelson

A show of Cameron’s adaptability

Great to hear that David Cameron has decided to keep the 1922 committee reinstated. This is a significant, unexpected development – and sign of strength, not weakness. Interestingly, I hear that George Osborne had not been properly consulted about last week’s events: ie the way in which MPs were asked to vote into effectively abolishing the 1922 committee of backbenchers and being strongarmed, Blair-style, by the leadership. Cameron had not intended things to turn out as they did and Osborne, in particular, was dismayed.   I always suspected that last week’s fracas was a simple misjudgment, easily explained under the chaotic events of coalition. Cameron is, I fear, being poorly