Nick clegg

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,

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.

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

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

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

Fraser Nelson

The immigration battle

Why is Vince Cable kicking off about immigration? Sure, to cause trouble – this is what he sees as his role. His ego can’t quite fit in that department. But the pledge to have immigration in the “tens of thousands” was not in the coalition agreement. At the time, David Cameron said this was an oversight and that it was still government policy. But as James said in his political column in the magazine, a great divide has emerged between policies in that bald coalition agreement and those mentioned verbally. The policies in the documents are now deemed sacrosanct, and things not in it – like the extraordinary pledge to

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

The coalition’s summer challenge

How striking that, as another Parliamentary term draws to a close, all the talk is of some sort of union between the Tories and the Lib Dems.  There was Mark Field’s blog post about an electoral pact, yesterday, of course.  But now Rachel Sylvester follows it up with an article in the Times outlining a possible “metrosexual merger” between the two parties.  And Paul Goodman has a piece in the Telegraph suggesting that such a merger may well be in the offing. In many repsects, all this chatter is testament to the early success of the coalition.  What we have seen over the past few months has, on the whole,

Clegg denies it was a mistake to assert the illegality of the Iraq War at PMQs

Nick Clegg has made this statement on Channel Four News: ‘I have always been open that my personal opinion that the legal base is not justified for our going into war. That wasn’t the view of the previous government, this government as a whole, the new coalition government, doesn’t take a view on the legality of it. But I don’t think it is right for me to enter government and somehow completely airbrush out well-known personal views that I have held and expressed for a very long time. ‘I am the deputy prime minister, I am also a human being who feels with great conviction about things. I don’t think

James Forsyth

AV, what is a Conservative to do?

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share

The coalition prepares for trouble

Labour’s relentless pursuit of the cancelled Sheffield Forgemasters’ loan is finally paying dividends. The government maintain that the loan was cancelled because the directors did not want to reduce their shareholding. It has emerged that, possibly, the directors did in fact offer to reduce their equity – a point that Jack Straw attempted to make at yesterday’s dire PMQs. Today brought more intrigue. A major Tory donor advised the government to cancel the loan, on the grounds that it was not necessary and possibly illegal on EU regulations. Pat McFadden, the sepulchral Shadow Business Secretary, has demanded answers from Vince Cable, trying to break the coalition’s united front at its

Already, the anti-war lawyers leap on Clegg’s slip

Never one to miss the bus, Phillipe Sands QC has informed the Guardian that an international court would be ‘interested’ in Nick Clegg’s view that the Iraq War was illegal. Sands continues with his favourite homily: ‘Lord Goldsmith never gave a written advice that the war was lawful. Nick Clegg is only repeating what Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair on 30 January 2003: that without a further UN security resolution the war would be illegal and Jack Straw knows that.’ Well, that would be right but for Goldsmith’s draft advice of the 12 February 2003, and his final clarification on 7 March 2003. Goldsmith remains a brilliant commercial lawyer; international

Not David Cameron’s finest hour

David Cameron has just made a quite spectacular mistake. Talking to Sky News he said: ‘I think it’s important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner’. ‘We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.’ The obvious problem with Cameron’s remarks is that, as any fule kno, the Americans did not enter the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The error is even odder given Cameron’s penchant for war movies, he’s watched Where Eagles Dare 17 times apparently. This howler from Cameron

Lloyd Evans

Clegg’s revolution

At last, Nick Clegg got his chance to pretend to be PM today and he used it to give a dazzling impression of Gordon Brown.  Opposing him, Jack Straw was off-colour. Hoarse of throat and hunched of stance, he did his best to bring some clarity to Britain’s new mission in Afghan – Operation Leg It. He asked if the exit date of 2014 was ‘absolute or conditional’. Keen to offer value for money Clegg responded to a single question with two answers. He expected ‘no troops in a combat role’ by 2015 – not 2014 – although our departure was dependent on the Afghans’s ability to secure their own

James Forsyth

Clegg’s only blemish

Nick Clegg comfortably got through his first appearance standing in for David Cameron at PMQs. He was helped by a poor performance by Jack Straw, who made Neil Kinnock look like a model of concision. As Clegg said mockingly at one point, ‘that wasn’t a question it was a sort of dissertation.’ In his final response to Straw, Clegg attacked him for his role in the ‘illegal invasion of Iraq.’ Now, Clegg has long called the invasion of Iraq illegal. But it is a different matter to do so when standing in for the Prime Minister and speaking from the Treasury bench in the House of Commons. That implies it

Clegg and the coming of liberal conservatism

Nick Clegg is a liberal, and just in case you’d forgotten that fact he gave a speech today in which the word features some 64 times.  As it was made at the think-tank Demos, it’s a touch more wonkish than his recent efforts on cutting back the state – but still worth a read for those who want a general sense of how the coalition sees itself. The main purpose of the speech is, I suspect, political.  It says, to any of Clegg’s sceptical colleagues, that the government’s agenda is liberal, liberal, liberal all the way.  From cutting state spending to Michael Gove’s schools reforms, the goal is to “disperse

Meetings galore

All of a sudden, the coalition partners can’t get enough of their backbenchers.  Last night, it was David Cameron meeting the 1922 Committee to reassure them about their mutual relationship.  And, today, Nick Clegg is going on an “away day” with that half of his party which isn’t in government, all to explain his close affair with the Tories.  Presumably, flowers and chocolates will be involved. The Clegg meeting, in particular, is worth dwelling on – and Sam Coates and Greg Hurst do just that in an insightful article for this morning’s Times.  For those who can’t travel beyond the paywall, here’s the line which stands out: “Lib Dem MPs

Labour still don’t get it

As Pete asked at the weekend, will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems? Ed Miliband has mumbled that he wouldn’t oppose a possible Lib-Lab coalition, but that’s about it. According to the irreproachable Lord Mandelson, David Miliband and Ed Balls were opposed to a coalition and presumably remain so. Labour has greeted the government’s Liberal Democrats with jeers and contempt, particularly over the VAT rise, which passed last night without amendment. Now, John Denham, an arch-pluralist who has long dreamt of forming a ‘progressive coalition’, has told the Fabian Review that Nick Clegg would be the price of any Lib-Lab coalition. Only Mandelson seems to have grasped the brilliance

Five highlights from the Mandelson serialisation

So now we know what happened during those uncertain days following the election in May – or at least we know Peter Mandelson’s side of it.  The Times begins its serialisation of the Dark Lord’s book today with a front-page photo of Nick Clegg and the legend, “Clegg the Executioner”.  And, inside, Mandelson explains how the Lib Dem leader made Gordon Brown’s departure a precondition of any coalition deal with Labour.  Not the most surprising news ever, but worth having on record nonetheless. Aside from that, there’s little of much weight in these first extracts, but plenty of titbits for political anoraks. Here are five that jumped out at me:

Will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems?

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that