Uk politics

It would be churlish to suggest that the Eastleigh by-election is ‘disastrous’, but coming third in a seat we polled almost 40 per cent in the general election is not good by anyone’s measure. This is the price that has to be paid for gay marriage because of the drastic unpopularity of it with activists and supporters, who have been less inclined to get out and campaign on the streets because of it. The issue has been a direct recruiting seargeant for UKIP, and there’s anecdotal evidence across the country for UKIP. There are two main lessons for me from this result. The first is that the government has to

So in the end Eastleigh went for the ‘crisis for Cameron’ option by putting the Tories in third behind UKIP. For those opponents of the Prime Minister, last night’s result represents a line through another one of their ‘five key tests’ for his leadership. I understand that those close to Adam Afriyie already expect the backbencher to make a number of interventions over the next few months which they hope will cement him as a serious voice speaking out against the Tory leadership, and even those who aren’t are mulling over how the party should change its strategy. The inevitable reaction, and one every commentator and opposition MP is just

It was a successful night for the Liberal Democrats in Eastleigh and a disastrous one for the Tories. The Liberal Democrats held on with a majority a touch over 1,700. While the Tories came third, polling more than a thousand votes behind UKIP who surged in to second place. Labour had nothing to cheer either, coming a poor fourth—a result that makes it hard for Ed Miliband to claim they are a ‘one nation’ party. There’ll be three immediate political consequences of this result. First, Nick Clegg’s position is strengthened. Holding the seat with a majority of more than a thousand, demonstrates that the Liberal Democrats are not in the

The Liberal Democrats have been beset by scandal in government. First there was the resignation of David Laws. Then there was the whole Chris Huhne business. And now there’s Lord Rennard and his alleged activities and the question of what the party hierarchy knew about them. But one thing unites all these stories: they all happened when the Liberal Democrats were in opposition. Indeed, no Liberal Democrat has yet had to resign for anything they’ve done in government. Their problem, as I say in the magazine this week, is that they are now paying the price for all the things they did when there was very little scrutiny on them.

How should you deal with lechery? In this week’s Spectator, Rod Liddle and Hugo Rifkind detail two instances of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ they either watched or, in Hugo’s case, personally encountered. Rod describes the vocal response of one BBC production assistant to the appearance of a ‘well-lubricated’ reporter’s hand on her inner thigh. He argues that what the women allegedly inappropriately touched by Lib Dem peer Lord Rennard should have done was give him a swift kick in the shins: ‘I was reminded of this incident by the recent hilarious revelations of apparent sexual misconduct in the Liberal Democrat party, and in particular the forlorn efforts of that blubber-mountain Lord Rennard

Ken Clarke tabled a series of amendments to the Justice and Security Bill last night, aimed at getting the legislation through the Commons when it reaches Report Stage next week. This is the ‘secret courts’ bill, the one that has upset a group of Tory MPs, the Lib Dem grassroots (and, to a lesser extent, their parliamentarians), the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Daily Mail. The changes are quite technical, but government sources insist that they should be sufficient to satisfy the critics. They are as follows: Claimants can apply for a secret hearing for material they don’t hold themselves. The judge in the case must be satisfied