Uk politics

Clarke and Osborne are working well

The Daily Politics featured a telling exchange between Stephen Timms and Ken Clarke. Their arguments were unclear and their hypotheticals relentless – they were debating deficit reduction. A football phone-in DJ had been invited onto the programme to adjudicate. After 7 minutes he broke his befuddled silence and declared, understandably, that Clarke and Timms were a turn-off to ordinary voters. Immediately, Clarke responded clearly and directly, making a case for reducing the deficit with reference to the chillingly close reality of Greece’s collapse. He avoided patronising, homespun economics; and simply delivered bald analysis and a statement of intent with his characteristic gusto. By contrast, Timms remained silent. Clarke is the

Nick Clegg pulls those fences down

Continuing the current vogue for sensible economic debate, here’s what Nick Clegg said on Radio 4 just now: ‘We’re not entering into this dutch auction about ringfencing. Good outcomes aren’t determined by drawing a redline around government departmental budgets.’ Given the current speculation about a hung parliament, you’ve got to wonder what this might mean for any potential Lib-Con partnership.  The common wisdom, almost certainly correct, is that the resulting political paralysis would sink the public finances.  But it would be intrigiuing to see if Clegg could get the Tories to tighten their fiscal plans, and perhaps even smash a few of their ringfences.

ECR’s record so far

The decision by David Cameron to pull the Tories out of the EPP and form the ECR was a victory of principle and party politics over pragmatism. While many Tory grassroots howled with joy, it is worth examining the practical consequences on Tory influence in the European Parliament – not to reverse the decision, but validate or disprove the oft-made charge that the decision has made the Tories impotent.   Let us eschew any discussion about the views of key members of the ECR on Jews; let us also not dwell on whether the Tories have cut themselves off from other centre-right leaders. The first point is a matter of

Brown faces the horror of the petrol pumps

Yes, I know, cause and correlation aren’t the same thing – but Mike Smithson’s latest graph over at Political Betting is still incredibly striking.  It shows that the Tories’ strongest poll position over the last few years coincided with a high in the petrol price.  It also shows that the smallest gap between Labour and the Tories coincided with when petrol prices were at their lowest.  Which all makes today’s Telegraph story about petrol potentially hitting a new high of 120p a litre, as the election approaches, very resonant indeed. The problem for the government is twofold.  First, rising petrol prices are something which millions of people will understand and

Tories to outline spending cuts after the Budget

Now here’s a turn up: according to Nick Robinson, the Tories are going to announce details of what spending they would cut in the forthcoming fiscal year after next week’s Budget.  So it looks like Cameron might come good on his promise, after all. We’ll have to wait and see before judging whether those cuts are credible.  But, along with George Osborne’s FT article today, it does seem that the Tories have rediscovered the will to take on Labour over when and what to cut.

Brown sets the stage for a scorched earth Budget

Gordon Brown must be feeling generous today, for he did the Tories two favours on Woman’s Hour earlier.  David has already mentioned the first one: Brown saying that he would “keep going” as party leader even if Labour loses the next election, which ups the potential for more summertime Sturm und Drang on his own side.  But the second, as Ben Brogan points out, is his claim that the state of the economy makes it difficult for the government to detail any spending cuts.  The Tories will happily seize on that to justify their own “wait until we see the books” approach. More broadly, Brown’s claim also sets the stage

Fraser Nelson

Cameron must win outright

Heaven forbid that the Tories and LibDems end up in coalition – but the Guardian asked me to write a piece war-gaming what would happen if they did. The result is here. I really do believe it would be a short-lived calamity because no one would be playing for the long-term. The Westminster system does not handle coalitions, and hung parliaments lead to second elections. From day one of any Lib-Con coalition, everyone would have an eye on that second election. The Tories would want to accuse the LibDems of recklessly pulling the plug, the LibDems would be briefing against the Tories making out that they were the only competent

Brown dithers over BA

At last, Gordon Brown has been forced from the comfort of silence on the Unite/BA strike. Yesterday, Lord Adonis said that he “absolutely deplored the strike” because the “stakes were too high”. Brown has done nothing more than echo those sentiments, but that is at least a step in the right direction. Obviously, the strike poses an enormous problem for the government. Betting men would get decent odds on BA collapsing, but it is a failing business that needs to change. Labour is a near insolvent party that needs Unite, and not just for its funds but for Charlie Whelan’s tireless work in support if the PM in an election

Osborne colours the water blue

George Osborne has long been in the City’s crosshairs, and criticism peaked last week when less than a quarter of a City panel believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor. Today, Osborne fights back in the FT, with a piece co-penned by Jeffrey Sachs. The pair set out an argument for immediate ‘frugality’, rather than ‘cuts’, and damn Brown’s economic policy as short-term politicking: ‘We are sceptical that a sustainable economic recovery can be based on either reinflating the sectors that have declined or believing future job creation can come simply from the public sector payroll.’ Two thirds of jobs created between 1997 and 2007 were in the public

Cameron is synonymous with change

It was mostly standard fare for a political interview, but the Cameron/Trevor McDonald show reminds you of what I think is one of Cameron’s foremost positives, and one that is welcome amid the Tories’ current self-doubt. Cameron and his team turned the unelectable Tories into a modern and truly representative force. Jonathan Freedland may argue that the change is cosmetic, but candidates, such as Shaun Bailey, selected by the Hammersmith association, say otherwise. If Cameron saw-off grass-roots interests who were still fighting Margaret Thatcher’s early battles, if not those of Churchill too, he has the resolve to tackle the legacy that Gordon Brown is likely to bequeath him.   I’d expected to be left

A welcome return of defence diplomacy

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has given an interview to the Sunday Express, where he talks about overcoming a sense of “colonial guilt” bestowed by revisionist historians and the need for a new government to forge defence links with commonwealth nations, such as Australia and New Zealand, but he also cited India and Saudi Arabia. They have a “strong appetite” for closer defence links with the UK, he argues.   Looking at variable defence relationships with countries like India, and non-NATO partners like Australia makes good sense. Nicolas Sarkozy has done the same – and even invited Indian troops to march down the Champs-Élysées last year on Bastille Day. A

Down with declinism | 14 March 2010

Everywhere you turn, it is hard to escape the sirens of decline. Their song echoes through Coffee House: “Buy supplies”, they sing, “take the kids out of schools, close down the hatches – for Britain is going under, broken beyond repair, stuck in a rot from which it cannot escape, while the weaklings of yesteryear (like China and Brazil) roam free on the land that our forbears toiled.” Next month, they will take the stage at a Spectator Debate.   I have even succumbed to their sentiment. It is easy to do. The vicissitudes of Britain’s military operations, the failure of the nation’s elite, the short-sighted over-reliance on the City

34 percent  think a hung parliament is in the country’s best interests

It would be news if the Tory lead didn’t contract every Sunday. James has already noted the latest retreat in the Tory lead, detailed in the Sunday Telegraph’s ICM poll. Tory poll contractions are the new banking bailouts – so numerous you scarcely notice them. What struck me about this poll is the large minority who want a hung parliament. Not just those who think such an outcome is likely, but actively seek its realisation – 34 percent according to this poll.   I do not understand this impulse. Coalition and co-operation are laudable but, as the recent care row proves, fanciful aims. Other than fighting World Wars, modern British politics has struggled to accomodate coalitions. The Tories are losing

McMillan-Scott makes no impression

Edward McMillan-Scott fights a lone and determined battle. Timing his defection for maximum destruction, McMillan-Scott characterises the Tory party in the style of Orwell’s Big Brother. He told the LidDem spring conference: “People are controlled within the Conservative party, as I was.” It is a common charge, but, because the Tory leadership currently resembles Channel Four’s Big Brother, it doesn’t stick. Consequently, McMillan-Scott sounds shrill. He accuses David Cameron of ‘propitiating extremism abroad’, a charge usually reserved for Abu-Hamza, and condemns Cameron as being ‘committed to power for its own sake’. You can argue the toss over whether McMillan-Scott is poetic or pompous, personally I think he makes Speaker Bercow

Fraser Nelson

Brown’s latest confidence trick

One of the Brownie’s we’ve been hearing recently from the Dear Leader is that it is in some way ambitious to “halve the deficit by 2014”. It’s a Brownie because it is technically accurate, yet designed to mislead the voter. Two years ago, he forecast no deficit at all by 2014. Now he’s projecting one of 5 percent of GDP – simply mammoth – and still makes out that this is something to be proud of. It’s a confidence trick: the voter is supposed to think ‘I don’t know about the figures, but if he’s boasting about it then it must be good’. When Brown told the Economist that his deficit

The Tories should ignore Byrne’s tax fantasy

Liam Byrne told The Daily Politics yesterday that Labour would reduce the deficit without raising additional taxation to that which is already planned. Iain Martin describes this pledge as being akin to a chocolate fireguard. He’s right. It’s less realistic than a Jeffrey Archer novel. As Andrew Neil notes, Labour plans to reduce £82bn from the deficit by 2014 with £19bn in tax rises and £38bn in cuts. They bank on economic growth eradicating the remaining £25bn. The government’s optimism for Britain’s economic prospects is touching but scarcely credible on the basis of 0.3 percent growth and the frightening trade deficit. Andrew Neil observed that Byrne was armed with books

BNP fails to publish European parliament expenses

I’m aghast. I never imagined that even Griffin and Brons would fall at the first, and eminently negotiable, jump. The Telegraph reports that Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons have given insufficient detail of their expenses, worth nearly £500,000. All other parties provided detailed returns. Griffin stood on an anti-sleaze ticket last June, and successfully exploited the widespread contempt for mainstream politics. Griffin has abused those disenfranchised voters’ trust. For which we should be grateful, but there is a possibility that some will respond by completely disengaging with politics and embracing deeper extremes; mainstream parties must ensure they do not and take the opportunity they have been presented. Griffin cannot save

Do these slogans hit the mark?

Michael Savage called it right. The LibDems’ campaign slogan (Change that works for you. Building a better Britain) is a wooden, overly alliterative union of Labour’s and the Tories’ respective slogans. All three party slogans are jumbled. ‘A future fair for all’ is mealy-mouthed and grammatically suspect – where will they build this national fairground? Similarly, ‘Year for change’ is vague, and ‘We can’t go on like this’ is a staple line of Radio 4 afternoon plays. So to be fair, the Liberals didn’t have much to work with. Campaign slogans are important, reducing a vision to a firm phrase. For me, none of these quite hit the mark.