Uk politics

Osborne turns his attention to welfare

George Osborne suggested as much in his Today interview last week, but now we know for sure: the government will look to cut the welfare bill even further in October’s spending review, and incapacity benefit will come in for special attention from the axemen. It was, you sense, ever going to be thus. With unprotected departments facing cuts of over 25 percent unless more action is taken elsewhere, the £12bn IB budget was always going to be a tempting target for extra cuts. Particularly as so much of it goes to claimants who could be in work. The questions now are how? and how fast?  The first answer seems clear

Smashing the welfare ghettos

There’s nothing quiet about Iain Duncan Smith this morning. Echoing Norman Tebbitt’s infamous ‘On yer Bike’ comments of 1981, Duncan Smith has vowed to obliterate ‘welfare ghettos’. For once I agree with Ed Balls: Duncan Smith is going further than Tebbitt, much further. The government is planning to move the long-term unemployed out of sink estates and into other areas, possibly hundreds of miles away, where unemployment is negative. Incentives for work and promises of low regional taxes in Northern England, Wales and Scotland were included in the Budget to this effect. This may be manna from Heaven for Balls – the traditional candidate in the Labour leadership contest can evoke the

The trimmers mobilise

The Independent on Sunday reports that a cabal of four disgruntled/horrified Lib Dem MPs have held secret talks with Labour to amend contentious elements of the Budget, such as the VAT hike. Four rebels will not be enough to defeat the government, but it is the first indication that Simon Hughes’ call to arms will be answered by the social democrat wing of the party, damaging the coalition’s long-term prospects. Of course, it is healthy that government backbenchers scrutinise and improve government legislation for whatever cause – the odd amendment to public borrowing clauses would have been welcome over the last decade. Scrutiny does not imply revolution, stressed Andrew George, the four

Post-Budget polls show drop in Lib Dem support

ICM’s post Budget poll for the Sunday Telegraph confirms YouGov’s finding that the Lib Dems have dropped after the Budget. It has them down five to 16. By contrast, the Tories are up two to 41. Labour have also risen four to 35. YouGov has the Lib Dems on 16, the Tories 43 and Labour 36. These polls matter because they will add to the jitteriness that some left-leaning Lib Dem feel about such a fiscally conservative Budget. There is a feeling in Lib Dem circles that they could do with some things to please and reassure their base in the coming weeks. The Coalition is planning a policy push

Cameron and Clegg’s love-in deepens

What began as a coalition of expediency is maturing into a pact of principle – or at least that’s what Cameron and Clegg would have you believe.  Of course, relations may sour and enormous efforts are being made to preserve Cameron and Clegg’s public cordiality. Journalists are being briefed that plans are in progress to enable Cameron and Clegg to speak at each others’ party conferences.   It will be little more than a public relations exercise if it goes ahead, and an extremely hollow one in all probability. What are they going say? It’ll be a cartoonist’s dream, as Clegg is politely applauded by the contemptuous Colonels, and Cameron,

Britain’s foreign aid should empower women

Here is a question. Which politician said the following: “We’ve seen too that when women are empowered economically they are more likely to have a voice in the community and to be advocates for other women.” Or “Britain will be placing women at the heart of the whole of our agenda for international development”. Clare Short? No. Hillary Clinton? Nope. Harriet Harman? Wrong. It is former Army officer and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell speaking yesterday to the think-tank Carnegie Endowment in Washington DC.   To some, his comments will illustrate how the Conservative Party has moved to far away from its roots. But in fact it is both a

Unwinnable war?

Today is Armed Forces Day, and I don’t recall seeing such collective negativity from newspapers and broadcasters on the Afghan war.  It borders on despair. Most news outlets have dissected David Cameron’s comments yesterday, where he could only offer the hope that troops would be withdrawn by the end of this parliament. Cameron’s non-committal answers, the regular drip of casualties and the sense that the surge has become a slog have led journalists and analysts to conclude, en masse, that the war is unwinnable.   Three interviews are particularly striking. Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, re-iterated Cameron’s comments in the exact same terms. As I argued yesterday, the vague

Cameron wants troops out of Afghanistan by 2015

Everything about the Cameron government comes in fives. Five year terms, a five-year coalition and now we learn that it is Cameron’s considered opinion that British troops cannot remain Afghanistan for another five years. All Cameron has offered is the hope that troops will be home before the proposed May 2015 election. Five more years in Helmand on the current trajectory would be extremely costly and unpopular, especially given the political pressure surrounding defence cuts. Cameron realises this but will the nature of Britain’s engagement change? The assumption was that Britain would mirror President Obama’s timetable and begin a gradual withdrawal next year. That political and military strategy depended on

James Forsyth

Abbott gives no answers

There’s one thing that people want to talk about today and that’s Diane Abbott’s appearance on This Week last night. As you can see above, it was a total disaster for Abbott. She was all over the place on her taxi claims and she got into a total tangle on whether she had meant to imply with her comment that ‘West Indian mothers will go to the wall for their children’ that West Indian mothers were better than mothers of other ethnicities. Under repeated questioning, all she would say is that she had said all she was going to say on the subject.  Even when it was clear that this

Union backing is an indication of how far David Miliband has shifted to the left

Paul Waugh has news that David Miliband has received the backing of USDAW, the shop workers’ union. Block union voting is a thing of the past, but this endorsement is a surprise nonetheless. It’s lazy to categorize Miliband as a ‘Blairite’, but he is certainly on the right of the party – vigorously pro-European, pro-business and an avowed social democrat. USDAW’s general secretary John Hannett is said to be impressed by Miliband’s defence of Labour’s record in office. To be honest, Diane Abbott is the only candidate who has lacerated the Blair/Brown governments, all the others are ‘proud of our record in government but recognise the need for change.’ The

Lloyd Evans

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Time to leave?

The Spectator’s summer debating season ended with a strident appeal. ‘Too late to save Britain. It’s time to leave’. Proposing the motion, Rod Liddle claimed to have mis-read his invitation. ‘I thought this was a foregone conclusion and we’d come here to arrange the tickets.’ Surging immigration, he said, was ruining the education system and our love lives. ‘By 2029 no one will be having sex, we’ll be so crowded out.’ The recent election had proved nothing but democracy’s impotence. ‘The poverty gap keeps widening, financiers still get bonuses and schools support Lesbian Gay and Trans-gender History Month.’ Soon he predicted that the definition of disability ‘will cover everyone except

Cameron takes to the global stage, orating for a domestic audience

From the point of view of historical curiosity, it is a pity that the great Victorian statesman predeceased the era of global summits. What would Palmerston or Melbourne have made of the pageantry? What might they have said to permeate it? Would they have wanted to? Modern British Prime Ministers have moulded themselves on the world stage: Blair as a liberal interventionist, Brown as a Keynesian. Judging by an article David Cameron has written in the Globe and Mail, he hopes to lead the world to fiscal re-trenchment and inaugurate lasting and real prosperity through free trade. Once again, Cameron’s premiership appears to be descended from Gladstone. Cameron insists that

Hughes and Davis fomenting rebellion?

From opposing sides of the coalition’s strait, two warning shots have been fired across the government’s bows. David Davis has challenged Theresa May’s decision to renew the 28-day detention limit for six months pending a review. And Simon Hughes has declared that he and a like-minded posse will seek to amend ‘unfair’ aspects of the Finance Bill. Neither is an outright revolt. Neither move amounts to what Ed Miliband termed ‘cracks appearing in the coalition’. Both Davis and Hughes remain in support of the coalition agreement – Hughes will ‘support the Budget’, and Davis, to his enormous credit, has made excessive and illiberal detention periods his raison d’être. The coalition

The Budget PR battle enters a second phase

The government is on the defensive. The IFS’ pronouncement that the Budget was ‘regressive’ and the VAT hike ‘avoidable’ has given sustenance to the opposition and their supporters in the media. At the time, Harriet Harman’s response to the Budget seemed execrable. Now, I’m not so sure. Harman is like a Swordfish bi-plane attacking a battleship: she is so slow and obsolete that her superior opponents cannot bring their modern guns to bear. So she closes the range and scores a hit. Tuesday was one of her more successful strikes. As John Rentoul notes, Harman had a point beneath the bluster. The OBR is George Osborne’s weak spot; it downgraded

Fraser Nelson

Cable begs for protection

Vince Cable is announcing to Metro that “We do not want to make such deep cuts to transport, energy, science research and universities.” Really? According to whom? The science budget, which has shot from £1.3bn to an indefensible £3.7bn, is a prime example of a cost that should not be borne by the taxpayer. Scientists are best left to get on with this themselves, and companies are more than capable of funding research. On energy, again, there are many expensive vanity projects just begging for the axe. Given that Cable is in charge of the universities brief – the most important part of his otherwise non-job – you can expect

Fraser Nelson

The true meaning of Osborne’s Budget

To understand the budget properly, read James Forsyth’s cover story in The Spectator today. Sure, it was about reducing the deficit – but within it lie several political strategies which explain how George Osborne hopes to win a majority Conservative government. James says that those around Cameron will not entertain this notion – they “have been persuading themselves that coalition government is the best possible result”. But Osborne, he says, finds it deeply unsatisfactory and has a twin mission: fix the economy, and win outright next time. “He has been observing recently that Gordon Brown spent 13 years successfully creating Labour voters — mainly through state dependency — and that

RIP Lord Walker

Peter Walker, Baron Walker of Worcester, has died aged 78. He served as a Cabinet Minister in both the Heath and Thatcher governments. He was what might be termed derisively as a ‘Wet’, and was a leading figure on the liberal side of the Conservative Party for thirty years. He was a founder member of the Tory Reform Group, which propounds One Nation Toryism and economic efficiency, ideals that have, it might be argued, profoundly influenced David Cameron’s leadership. Walker served with distinction throughout the Thatcher government, carrying the brief for Wales, Energy and Food and Fisheries. As Energy Secretary, he was a key figure during the Miner’s Strike. Walker

How good intentions can be counterproductive

Might the coalition’s emphasis on fairness be making it harder to get people off welfare and into work? Not a question that I can answer with confidence, but certainly one which has been thrown up by the IFS’s Budget briefing. Take the government’s action on child tax credits, for instance. By increasing it at the lower end of the income distribution, and restricting it at the upper, some claimants now stand to lose more, more quickly, by moving up the income ladder. Or, as the IFS put it, their marginal effective rate of taxation has increased. Of course, this will have been offset by other measures such as the rise