Uk politics

The significance of today’s Cabinet bust-up

On the Today Programme this morning, David Cameron stressed that for all the tensions about the AV referendum, ministers were still capable of sitting round a table and working together. But within a couple of hours of saying this, Chris Huhne had destroyed this argument by using Cabinet to continue his attack about the tactics of the No campaign.   When the Energy Secretary is demanding that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor justify their behaviour to him it is impossible to pretend that it is business as usual. It is now indisputable that the fallout from the AV referendum campaign is having an impact on the functioning of the

James Forsyth

Clegg’s implicit attack on the Tories

Up until a few months ago, David Cameron and Nick Clegg tried to avoid doing big set piece broadcast interviews on the same day. This was driven by a desire to both maximise the coalition’s dominance of the media agenda and to avoid having to give a running commentary on what the other had said. But this rule has gone out of the window as the AV referendum has got rougher and rougher. So, following on from their both doing separate interviews on Andrew Marr on Sunday, they both were on the Today Programme this morning. Clegg even told Justin Webb to ask Cameron about the split between the two

James Forsyth

Huhne lays into Cameron and Osborne at Cabinet

At Cabinet this morning, I am told that Chris Huhne directly challenged David Cameron and George Osborne about the claims that the No campaign have been making. He asked them both in turn, if they were going to — or could — defend them. Osborne responded by telling Huhne that his behaviour was inappropriate and that Cabinet wasn’t the place for such disputes. The fact that this row broke out in Cabinet shows just how badly relations within the coalition have been damaged bv the AV campaign. That Huhne is leading the anti-Tory charge even within Cabinet will also stoke the rumours about what the Energy Secretary is planning to

Fraser Nelson

John Humphrys makes the case for voting No to AV

Is AV too complex? Ask John Humphrys, who unwittingly made the case against switching system today, in conversation with David Cameron on the Today programme. It became clear that Humphrys believed that everyone’s second preference vote would be counted under AV — and Cameron pounced. Here’s the transcript: DC: If you go to an AV system you start counting some people’s votes more than once. And you end up, in the words of Churchill… JH: No you don’t. It simply isn’t true that you count votes more than once. DC: Yes, you count all the votes. You start eliminating candidates, and you count people’s second preferences. JH: And I have

How a degree of separation will strengthen the coalition

Almost a year ago, David Cameron and Nick Clegg staged their love-in at the Downing Street rose garden. As I say in the News of the World (£) today, this era is now at a close. When they come back from the 5 May elections, Clegg and Cameron have agreed that they cannot go on as before. An agreement has been struck for an amicable separation. Not divorce — the coalition will keep going. But Cameron and Clegg will put clear blue (and yellow) water between them and drop the pretence that they agree on everything. The coalition is about to enter its Phase Two.   Clegg’s analysis is that

Chris Huhne pitches to the left

We’re used to AV platform-sharing by now — so it’s not the fact that Chris Huhne has written an article for the Observer alongside Labour’s John Denhan and the Green’s Caroline Lucas that shocks. It’s the words he then puts his name to. “Britain consistently votes as a centre-left country and yet the the Conservatives have dominated our politics for two-thirds of the time since 1900,” begins the article. “No wonder David Cameron says the current system ‘has served us well’,” it continues. Although subsequent paragraphs are more conciliatory — claiming, for instance, that Tory voters in the north also suffer thanks to our electoral calculus — this is nonetheless

The AV scrap enters its final stage

There are, as James pointed out earlier, only five days to go until the AV referendum  — and that means both campaigns are priming their final appeals for our hearts, minds and votes. So just what will those appeals look like? Today has brought some indication. As Paul Waugh reveals over at PoliticsHome, the Yes campaign is planning to wheel Eddie Izzard — of course! — in front of the microphones. The comedian is going to take part in 16 events across the country this week. And as for the No campaign, ConservativeHome have pictures of their new poster campaign and promotional leaflet. It’s the latter that really tugs at

Purnell stakes out a new welfare battleground

I said a few days ago that the spirit of James Purnell lingers over the welfare debate in Britain. Well, you can now scratch out “spirit”. The real-life, corporeal version of Purnell is giving a speech in Australia today — and, judging by its write-up in the Guardian, it is one that should have some resonance on this side of the planet. This is not just an address by a former Labour MP on where his party should go next — although it is partially that — but also the staking out of new ground on welfare policy. Whether you agree with it or not, it deserves some attention. So

James Forsyth

How the recriminations over AV’s defeat will change the debate over Lords reform

It is odd to think that only the second national referendum in our history is only five days away. The combination of the Royal Wedding and the failure of the campaign to grip the public imagination has condemned it to being ‘In Other News’, on this the final weekend before the vote. At the moment, No appears to be cruising to victory. The Yes campaign lacks both message and momentum. I also suspect that, asPaul Goodman says, the rest of the week will see debate about why it has all gone so wrong for Yes. One thing I expect we will hear a lot of in the coming days is

A princely marriage

There are some things that Britain does better than any country in the world, and we saw one of them today. Two particulars will have jumped out at the tens of millions watching the Royal Wedding from overseas: the sheer splendour of our monarchy, and the depth of its popular support. HD television made the beauty of today’s ceremony all the more breathtaking. If this were a movie, it would win an Oscar for best cinematography. The shots from the roof of Westminster Abbey were jaw-dropping, the camera angles throughout were perfect. But no less awesome was the sight of the thousands thronging the streets, or watching in Hyde Park.

Hain puts his foot in it

Crude politics has intruded on the Royal Wedding after all, and all courtesy of Peter Hain. The Shadow Welsh Secretary has complained — on Twitter, naturally — that the BBC’s coverage of the event dwelt too long on David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and ignored Ed Miliband. “BBC airbrushing Labour like the Palace?” he asked leadingly. The Tory minister David Jones has since admonished him, “time, place, Peter.” If Labour have much sense they’ll play this down as efficiently as possible. Miliband, it is true, barely featured in the television coverage — but that’s really beside the point. It is rarely smart politics to take on the Palace at any

Why David Blanchflower has it wrong

Gordon Brown may have gone, but advocates of his calamitous policies remain. David Blanchflower, the chief exponent of borrowing more, has a piece in The Guardian today which is worth examining. Written with his trademark chutzpah, it’s a very clear exposition of the Labour argument — along with its flaws. Here are some extracts, and my comments: “In his budget speech last month, Chancellor George Osborne suggested that he was hoping for ‘an economy where the growth happens across the country and across all sectors. That is our ambition”. Sadly, to judge by Wednesday’s GDP figures, growth under this coalition remains just an ambition, a mere illusion.” And why would

James Forsyth

The recriminations begin

The Royal wedding and gossip about super injunctions is rather dominating conversation at Westminster today. But there is still some politics going on. Patrick Wintour in The Guardian has the beginnings of the recriminations that will follow a No vote in the referendum. Relations between the Lib Dems and the Yes campaign are pretty bad at the moment. Clegg’s camp is happy to tell journalists about what they see as the myriad failings of the Yes campaign. They complain that the Yes campaign has been too slow on the draw, let the No side define the debate and failed to get any message across. The Yes campaign’s response to this

The government has a problem with lawyers

The government’s strained relationship with the Civil Service is a recurring story at the moment. Much of the disquiet seems to be the normal tit for tat exchanges immortalised in Yes Minister. In the main, ministers and their advisors express high regard for their officials. But there are some resilient bones of contention between the government and its lawyers. Again, this is not unusual. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor, parliamentary counsel were exasperated by his inability to take decisions. Brown’s budgetary machinations were finalised in a predictably mad rush, which incensed those who had to amend the bill hours before it was put to parliament. However, the growing volume of

Righting the wrong of sickness benefits

He may no longer be an MP, but the spirit of James Purnell lingers on. It was, after all, the former Work and Pensions Secretary who introduced the Employment Support Allowance as a replacement for Incapacity Benefit in 2008, with the idea of encouraging people – the right people – away from sickness benefits and into the labour market. And now we have one of the strongest indications yet of just how that process is working. According to figures released by the DWP today, 887,300 of the 1,175,700 claimants who applied for ESA between October 2008 and August 2010 failed to qualify for any assistance – with 458,500 of them

Cameron’s new cuts narrative

Aside from the “Calm down, dear” drama, there was something else worth noting from today’s PMQs: David Cameron trying for a calmer debate on the deficit. He admitted that his government is not really being that much more aggressive than Gordon Brown would have been. They’re cutting £8 for every £7 that Brown and Darling proposed for 2011-12, he said. It’s a line that Nick Clegg road-tested in his speech to the IPPR last week, and it represents a new and welcome strategy. To date, the rhetorical differences have been stark. The Tories have said: we’re the big bold cutters, Labour are deficit deniers. Labour has replied: your cuts are

Lloyd Evans

What a carve up | 27 April 2011

Blimey. That was a weird one. PMQs was trundling merrily away when the house was suddenly engulfed in a whirlwind of insults and accusations. Even now the row rumbles on across the blogosphere. Cameron arrived at PMQs looking genial and well-sunned. Quite a contrast with his sallow-faced opponent. Perhaps Ed Miliband’s bookish ways have kept him in the reading-room during the heat-wave while Cameron was roaming his herbaceous borders uprooting dandelions and other troublesome yellow-heads. The session began with the usual blend of opportunism and hypocrisy. Miliband demanded to know why economic growth has flat-lined in the last six months. Cameron lighted on a more favourable set of figures –

James Forsyth

Temper, temper

I have rarely heard the House as loud as it was after David Cameron’s ‘calm down, dear’ put down to Angela Eagle. The Labour benches roared at the Prime Minister and Cameron turned puce, while the Liberal Democrats looked distinctly uncomfortable. There is already a rather over-blown debate going on about whether the remark was sexist or not. But whether or not it was, it was certainly ill-judged. It was a tad too patronising and directing it at one of the more junior members of the shadow made it seem bullying. The Labour benches were heckling Cameron more than usual today, a result of him losing his rag with Ed