Uk politics

Monday

David Blackburn

A comprehensive offer to Liberal Democrats

It seems strange for Ed Miliband to veer from offensive to charm quite so quickly, but it’s a decent ruse nonetheless. Miliband deliberately cites David Cameron’s famous ‘comprehensive offer’ and many disenchanted Lib Dems will be swayed by his three point-plan, especially after the recent Grayson intervention. Disingenuous? Yes. Opportunistic? Very. Coherent and well-defined opposition to trebling tuition fees? Certainly. Now for some policies, perchance…  

Peter Hoskin

Another item for the coalition’s to-do list: intergenerational unfairness 

With an uncanny sense of timing, the latest annual British Social Attitudes Survey suggests that the “conflicts of the future may be between today’s young and their parents’ generation.” And the thinking behind this conclusion? Simple: that, in so many ways, young people have never had it so good as the babyboomers did. From tuition fees to house prices, those born after 1975-80 have always tended to fall on the less favourable side of the divide – and that has, in turn, fuelled the sense of injustice that we saw erupt onto the streets last week. As the report puts it: “As home ownership becomes less accessible to the young,

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Simmering below the surface…

By way of an addendum to Fraser’s post, it’s worth reading Melissa Kite’s account of internal Tory strife for the Sunday Telegraph (it doesn’t seem to be in the paper, but is available online here). The piece records what sounds like a tumultuous week for the Tory whips, as they struggled to keep a group of disgruntled MPs on side. There are plenty of little insights, of which this is just a selection: 1) The 1922 Committee gets angry. “The ceding of a series of major powers to Europe, the increasing of international aid, the decision to have a referendum on voting reform, the redrawing of constituency boundaries – all

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron must head for the common ground

All the attention last week was on the Lib Dem split – but what about the division within the Conservatives? This is the greater threat to the coalition, and while there is not likely to be an earthquake soon, one can discern the outlines of the tectonic plates. Ladbrokes has odds of 5-2 of an election next year, and these don’t seem so short when one considers the short life of coalitions in British peacetime history. So where might the tension lie? A while ago, I referred to the bulk of the party as “mainstream Conservatism,” as a more useful phrase than the tautological “Tory right”. Tim Montgomerie last week

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The Lib Dem insurgency

The Liberal Democrats are not like the other two parties. The acitvists still have real power and set the policy agenda of the party. This is what makes Richard Grayson’s intervention in The Observer today so important. Grayson is one of the leading activists on the left of the party. After Nick Clegg’s election as leader. he organised a concerted push by the beard and sandals brigade to take over the powerful party committees and thus check the more economic liberally instincts of the party leadership. So his call for Lib Dem members to start cooperating with Ed MIliband is far more than just a cry of pain. The Federal

Peter Hoskin

Clegg suffers the backlash

If this morning’s papers are anything to go by, Nick Clegg is in freefall. The man who was the Lib Dems’ biggest electoral asset is now a magnet for all sorts of political digruntlement. Exhibit A: the Ipsos MORI poll (£) in today’s News of the World, where 61 percent of respondents say that they don’t trust Clegg, compared to 24 percent in April. He has gone from being “the most trusted politician since Churchill,” to one of the least since … well, ever. It is no small irony that the leader who sailed most capably on the winds of “change” and “new politics” in the TV debates has, whether

Saturday

James Forsyth

A strength and a weakness

As with so many things, the coalition’s great strength is also its great weakness. On the one hand, it is two parties working together, politicians putting aside their differences to cooperate in the national interest. This is something that, broadly speaking, the electorate likes. On the other, it is a government that nobody voted for. There’s a danger that the public come to see coalition as an arrangement that just allows both parties to worm out of their manifesto commitments on the grounds that they didn’t win the election.  The coalition’s national interest case is a strong one. But it needs to be made with greater frequency. It cannot be

Friday

Daniel Korski

The students vs the Lib Dems

One of the things I heard yesterday when I strolled around the edges of the protests, particularly from older people, was how the coalition’s policies had politicised Britain’s young. “It has really made my children wake up”, said an elderly bystander with a wistful look in his eyes.  Student leaders say they now hope to punish Lib Dems who voted for the tuition fees, targeting MPs in seats such as Bath, Burnley, Bradford East, Bristol West and Brent Central.   The sense of rage directed against the Liberal Democrats comes, I suspect, from a deeper sense of betrayal – and not simply student dissatisfaction over today’s issue. In politics time

Peter Hoskin

From the archives: The student protests of ’68

No, not Paris, but the University of Essex – where, in early to mid-1968, students rallied angrily against Vietnam and all that. The situation was aggravated when three students – including David Triesman, later Lord Triesman – were summarily suspended from their studies, and The Spectator duly dispatched a correspondent to investigate. The resultant article came in the issue dated 24 May 1968; a few pages on from an editorial headlined “How to deal with the student problem”, and alongside coverage of events in France. Here it is: The truth about Essex, Ian MacGregor, The Spectator, 24 May 1968 The first thing that strikes you about Essex university is the

Ed Howker

Revealed: The Olympic cash-in

It’s costing more than the government cuts in welfare, more even than the UK’s Irish bail-out, but what exactly is all that money set aside for the 2012 Olympic Games actually being spent on? You might be surprised. In this week’s Spectator, Andrew Gilligan and I disclose, for the first time, all the petty, legally-binding demands made by the 115-member International Olympic Committee (IOC) of London. This is information that the government, the mayor and the London Olympic organisers never wanted you to see – even though it forms a binding part of the Host City Contract signed when we won the right to host the games in 2005. Paul

Peter Hoskin

The coming battle over Mainstream Conservatism

It’s not just the students who are waging a political struggle. In yesterday’s Times (£), Tim Montgomerie fired up a debate over the future of the Conservative Party that will no doubt simmer through the rest of this Parliament. For those who can’t delve behind the paywall, the argument was broadly this: that a tension is emerging between liberal Conservatism and a more traditional Conservatism. On the side of the Liberal Conservatives are those who want to extend the union with Nick Clegg and his party; a group which may well include the Tory leadership. On the other side are those who want the Tories to go it alone after

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Sifting through the wreckage

The revolution may not be televised, but protests certainly are – and the process magnifies the drama. Since last night, the news broadcasts have all had footage of two thugs trying to smash the windows of the Treasury and, in the process, familiarising themselves with the properties of bombproof glass. The attack on Charles and Camilla’s royal limo is splashed across all this morning’s front pages. The script is so well-rehearsed now that I hesitate to repeat it: the vast majority are peaceful protesters, infiltrated by vandals who soak up the attention. Many of the protesters yesterday looked like they’d get a cab straight back home to their Notting Hill

Thursday

James Forsyth

The divisions laid bare

When The Speaker called a division, the Labour side roared a passionate No while the coalition benches delivered a rather muted Aye. I did not see a single Lib Dem open their mouth at this point. Instead, they sat on their benches looking emotionally exhausted. Even those Lib Dems who have been proved right in their warning about the party’s position on fees—notably, David Laws and Jeremy Browne—appeared downcast.   In the end, the government won but with a much reduced majority. 21 Lib Dems voted against the coalition, as did six Tories. Simon Hughes abstained despite Ed Miliband’s entreaties to come with him into the no lobby.   This

Peter Hoskin

Coalition wins fees vote with a majority of 21

The final tally was 323 in favour of lifting the cap on tuition fees from £3,290 to £9,000 a year, with 302 against. The second vote, on raising the basic cap to £6,000, passed with the same majority. Although we don’t know the divisions yet, we can safely say that it’s the biggest rebellion of this Parliament so far – the lowest government majority until today was 51. UPDATE 1: 28 Lib Dems voted with the government; 21 against; and 8 either didn’t vote or abstained. This is the biggest Lib Dem rebellion since the party was founded. UPDATE 2: Six Tories voted against the government: Andrew Percy (Brigg &

Ed Howker

Exclusive: the fee hike won’t create a market

The fee vote really comes down to two questions. First, will the fee hike proposed by the coalition government actually create an internal market in higher education? Second, what will be the effect on the public finances? There is good reason to be doubtful.   First, the market: the idea, I suppose, is that world-class universities might charge higher fees than second and third tier ones. But, in the last few days, I’ve spoken to several very senior higher-education sources who privately report that universities like Leeds Met, Bolton and Worcester are very seriously considering charging the full £9,000 tuition for their courses once legislation is in place. The government is extremely concerned. As you can imagine, if that

Peter Hoskin

Putting the Lib Dem rebellion into context

A useful guide from Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart: If 11 Liberal Democrat MPs vote against the whip, it will be the largest Lib Dem rebellion so far this Parlaiment. (The current record is 10, on an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in November). If 16 Liberal Democrat MPs vote against the whip, it will be the largest Lib Dem rebellion since the party was founded in 1988-89. If 30 Liberal Democrat MPs vote against the whip (something we doubt very much), it will be the largest rebellion by the Liberal Democrats or any of their predecessor parties since the Maurice Debate of 1918, which saw

Sebastian Payne

Live-blogging the protests

1540: Heading back to Spectator HQ but it’s blocked off. They appear to be kettles in parliament square. The horses appear to be keeping the crowd back. Fence is being thrown around again. 1530: Milbank is full of police vans, they have to put them somewhere. Police are turning away people from Parliament Square. Police are using riot-proof cameras for evidence. 1455: The Met are shouting and trying to get everyone back on the planned route, but the crowd are beyond caring. A bystander pointed out Parliament Square is being used (more likely destroyed) for the first time in months. 1445: A view from a parliamentary researcher: “Life goes on

Peter Hoskin

The Lib Dems walk through the fire

Brace yourselves, CoffeeHousers. Today is the day of the tuition fee vote, along with all the froth and fury that will attend it. The government’s motion will most likely pass through the Commons – yes, even without the support of Simon Hughes – but the wider repercussions are, as yet, uncertain. The main question is what the Lib Dems will achieve by walking through the fire, as Nick Clegg puts it. Will they emerge from the other side, a more credible party of government in the public’s eyes? Or will they just get burnt to ashes? At the very least, the yellow bird of liberty is stuttering this morning. As

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

Time for an Afghan Inquiry

The Iraq Inquiry had been conspicuously silent, but now John Chilcot’s team has called Tony Blair to give evidence again. It’s expected that our former PM will make the trip to the Queen Elizabeth II centre early next year. That would push the expected deadline for the inquiry’s work finishing – at the end of this year – into 2011. Few people, however, expect the inquiry to say anything novel or get Tony Blair to say anything different than before. Its well-phrased final report may change policy in the margins – but in the security establishment there is little question of what needs doing. RUSI has published reams of reports

Ted Sumpster

Keeping the financial sector in Britain

The financial services industry in the UK is at a crucial juncture. Our new research report “Not with a Bang but a Whimper” – published tomorrow –  highlights the decline in the UK’s competitiveness as a domicile for this sector, and the increasing likelihood that both companies and workers will take the leap and choose to base themselves elsewhere. Many will see this as a good thing. The economy is still recovering from the financial crisis, the eventual cost to the public purse of the bank bailouts remains unknown, and the yearly round of hated bank bonuses are impending. On the other hand, losing such a significant contributor to GDP,