Uk politics

Tuesday

James Forsyth

Cameron in front of the press

David Cameron was in confident form at his press conference this morning. Most of the questions were about the possibility of President Blair and Tory opposition to that. But three other things from the event were worth noting. First, Cameron’s announcement that the Tories will publish their top three or four priorities for each department shows the influence of the Institute for Government on Tory thinking. Michael Bichard, the director of the Institute, was David Blunkett’s permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment and Blunkett’s success in this job is largely credited to him and Bichard working out a few priorities and sticking to them. The Tories are

James Forsyth James Forsyth

My beef with Stern

I must admit that I despaired this morning when I heard that Nick Stern was arguing that meat eating should become socially unacceptable because of climate change. Those of us who think that climate change is happening and that human activity is a part of it have a big enough case to make without people thinking that they won’t be able to have a Sunday roast or a reviving steak if the green lobby gets its way. People are, understandably, not going to accept being told that they can’t fly, eat meat or have the heating on. The solutions to the problems posed by climate-change have to be technologically led.

Daniel Korski

Can you be pro-British and pro-European?

Last night in a speech at the IISS, David Milliband laid out the case against the Tories’ Europe policy. As he started off saying: “It is very strongly in the British national interest for the EU to develop a strong foreign policy; that to be frightened of European foreign policy is blinkered, fatalistic and wrong; that Britain should embrace it, shape it and lead it.” In that one sentence lies the case for Britain’s role in shaping a liberal, open and outward-focused EU. It is probably also the line of attack that the Foreign Secretary will use against the Tories until election day and possibly beyond, if Miliband eventually assumes

Peter Hoskin

The Tories prime their shake-up of the civil service

One of the quickest wins that the next government could achieve is to change the power and accountability arrangements of Whitehall.  At the moment, there’s a convoluted system in place where its difficult to apportion blame when a government department screws up.  Sure, a minister may take the media flak if, say, a department loses a data disk.  But the people in charge of the day-to-day running of a department tend to escape any substantive judgement on their performance.  As James Kirkup points out in the Telegraph today, “no permanent secretary has been formally dismissed for more than 70 years.”  That’s hardly a set-up to incite much more than complacency

Peter Hoskin

Who’s lobbying for Blair?

Isn’t it funny how things change?  A few years ago, Brown could barely stand to talk to Blair.  But now, according to the Guardian, he’s got civil servants lobbying on the former Prime Minister’s behalf in Europe: “Gordon Brown has asked two of his most senior civil servants to lobby discreetly within Europe for Tony Blair to become its new president amid warnings from allies in government that the former prime minister will lose his chance unless he launches a dynamic campaign. John Cunliffe, the prime minister’s most senior Europe adviser, and Kim Darroch, Britain’s EU ambassador, are taking soundings at senior levels. David Miliband, meanwhile, has also intensified Britain’s

Monday

James Forsyth

An untrumpeted change

John Rentoul rightly flags up the story in this morning’s FT that about 100,000 NHS patients have gone private and had the state pick up the tab, the private hospitals have had to agree to do the work at the NHS price. For those of us who would like to see the NHS move towards a model where the state pays for healthcare but it is provided by a whole panoply of providers, this is an encouraging step. This kind of consumer-focused reform is hard to reverse. The story, as John notes, hasn’t got as much coverage as it should. John blames this on the press’s lack of interest in

Dennis Sewell

The quangocracy laid bare

At last the full facts about our burgeoning quango state are laid bare. The conclusion of a report published today by the TaxPayers’ Alliance is that it’s “big, bloated and more expensive than ever before.” The TPA document provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date listing available of all 1,152 ‘semi-autonomous public bodies’ operating in the UK, along with details of how many staff each employs and how much they spend. More than £90 billion of taxpayers’ money was spent on or channelled through quangos/SAPBs in 2007-8 (up £13 billion on the year before). That’s equivalent to £3,640 for every household in the land. The report’s authors say these facts have

Peter Hoskin

The Neather clarification

Plenty of CoffeeHousers are mentioning the Andrew Neather revelations in various comment sections.  If you haven’t seen them yourself, the story is that Neather, a former government adviser, wrote a comment piece claiming that New Labour’s immigration policy was “intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”  Many reports since have taken this as confirmation that Labour’s policy was exclusively politically-motivated.    In which case, it’s worth highlighting Neather’s latest column for the Evening Standard, in which he claims his comments have been exaggerated and misinterpreted.  Here’s the key point it makes: “As a

Peter Hoskin

The Tories develop their <em>de facto</em> Glass-Steagall Act

The most striking aspect about George Osborne’s speech today is how it concentrates on retail banks – the banks you and I do business with – rather than the big investment banks.  He’s expected to announce that retail banks should stop paying “excessive cash bonuses” to their senior staff, but should instead reward them with shares in the company and use the cash they would have dished out to increase the amount of credit in the economy.  This won’t apply to investment banks. The separation rather recalls the American Glass-Steaghall Act, which split commercial banks from their riskier investment counterparts.  The thinking behind it was that the investment banks could

Sunday

David Blackburn

The EU prepares for a Conservative government

The wheels seem to have come off Tony Blair’s EU presidency campaign and no doubt there is much genuflection and soul-searching in Connaught Square. The Director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant, gives an intriguing explanation at Comment is Free: ‘Yet it may be the Conservatives who spike Blair’s chances of getting the job. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has told the other EU governments that the Conservatives would see support for a Blair presidency as a “hostile act”. A week ago, Blair was the clear favourite, with the likely support of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, plus several of the smaller countries. But on my travels

Peter Hoskin

The Tories now have a monopoly on the language of optimism

So how big a blow was the news that we’re still in recession to Gordon Brown?  Well, compare and contrast his latest podcast on the Downing Street website with David Cameron’s article in the Sunday Times.  Brown’s effort is necessarily defensive.  Gone is the “we’re leading the world” bombast of a few weeks ago, to be replaced with a crude “pledge” to get the economy growing again by 2010: “My pledge to you is to make reform of the financial sector a reality, and to see Britain’s economy return to growth by the turn of the year.” While Cameron’s effort is considerably more agressive, and concentrates on outlining a “pro-growth,

Peter Hoskin

Still no room for complacency about the BNP

It’s an odd one is today’s ICM poll in the News of the World.  Most of it makes for sobering reading for the political class: it finds that two-thirds of voters think the mainstream parties have no “credible policies” on immigration, and that one-third agree with a core BNP policy on removing state benefits from ethnic minorities.  The Tories will be disappointed to see that only 20 percent of respondents think that their plan to cap immigrant numbers will work. But there are also some findings which support Alex’s thesis that we shouldn’t be unduly troubled by the levels of support for the BNP.  For instance – and despite all

Peter Hoskin

Get ready to feel worse about our political class

If you want an idea of how resistant MPs might be to the proposals of the forthcoming Kelly review into expenses, then I’d suggest you wander through to page 13 of today’s Sunday Times.  There you’ll find a story about how MPs are planning to counter Kelly’s expected ban on employing relatives.  Their ideas stretch from employing each others’ relatives (“a giant wife swap”) to taking legal action. In this particular case, I think there’s something attractive about the compromise revealed by James on Wednesday: that MPs be allowed to employ one relative each.  But, even if that compromise is made, it still only defuses one sub-section of Kelly’s review. 

Saturday

David Blackburn

For want of leadership and a clear aim

A Channel Four News You Gov poll suggests that an overwhelming 84 percent of the public think that the war in Afghanistan is being lost and that British troops specifically are not winning in Helmand. Just because a large majority think that British troops are losing the fight does not mean that the public are not behind the forces’ efforts, but it is hardly a ringing endorsement and British servicemen deserve support. But, this poll should send a clear message to the cross-party consensus in this country and Nato leadership that the current ill-defined strategy is failing. It is telling that Jeremy Corbyn MP, vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,

David Blackburn

The Tories’ support for the war in Afghanistan owes nothing to neo-conservatism

In his column in the Mail, Peter Oborne writes that Cameron’s stance on Afghanistan represents the same mistake made by IDS in his unstinting support for the Iraq war. Oborne fears that neo-conservatism has gripped the Tory leadership. ‘The ‘Neocons’, despite being discredited by the Iraq war, have furtively regained their position at the heart of the Tory party. Almost without exception, Cameron’s senior team are passionate Atlanticists who seem committed to the policy of ‘reinforcement of failure’ in Afghanistan. Both the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and the Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox are ‘Neocons’. As are Cameron’s two most trusted Shadow Cabinet colleagues, Michael Gove and George Osborne.’

Peter Hoskin

One in five would consider voting for the BNP

Here are the stand-out findings from today’s YouGov poll, conducted after this week’s Question Time, for the Telegraph: “The survey found that 22 per cent of voters would ‘seriously consider’ voting for the BNP in a future local, general or European election. This included four per cent who said they would ‘definitely’ consider voting for the party, three per cent who would ‘probably’ consider it, and 15 per cent who said they were ‘possible’ BNP voters.” This just reinforces my qualms about Thursday night’s show.  Yes, Griffin embarrassed himself in front of a hostile audience and panel, but that may not have mattered.  He had already reached out to any

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Worse than the Major era?

Here’s one for Coffee Housers: is this government sleazier than John Major’s?  Asked that question on the BBC News channel’s Straight Talk with Andrew Neil this weekend, Martin Bell has no doubts.  “I think this one is worse,” he says. But that’s not the end of it.  The former independent MP thinks that the parties need to start looking towards their front benches if they’re to properly cleanse the taint left from the expenses scandal: “But I do think it is going to require the assisted departure of all frontbenchers of both parties who have claimed unreasonable and disproportionate expenses.  And if you look back over the dramas of the last four

David Blackburn

There is no need to go out this Saturday

The Thick of It returns tomorrow night and by all accounts its as cynical, savage, sweary and uniformly contemptuous as ever. The subject matter of this series is, apparently, over promoted female Cabinet ministers – very topical in view of the government reshuffle and the Conservatives’ perverse all-female candidate lists. It goes without saying that the show’s producers have a sense of humour, but to make the fact plain they invited Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears and Caroline Flint to the premier on Tuesday. I’m told they didn’t like it. Anyway, The Thick of It is the sharpest and most well attuned political satire since Yes Minister; it’s essential viewing. Here’s

Theo Hobson Theo Hobson

Liberalism is good, beautiful and true

Most of the media responses to Griffin have been a bit complacent. He was exposed as a dodgy idiot, the vast majority say. I thought he came across pretty well, considering the wrongness of his views. I was uncomfortably reminded that the message of an extreme reactionary is always surprisingly seductive, tempting. The essential appeal is the promise that life can be radically simpler. This strikes a chord in the vast majority of us. We are burdened by complexity, anxiety, a sense that the contemporary world is alienating, chaotic. A vision of our culture being purged of its cultural complexity and working more effectively and more simply is, alas, beguiling.

David Blackburn

Griffin to complain about “lynch mob” Question Time

Nick Griffin has just made the following statement: “It was not a genuine Question Time, it was a lynch mob… People wanted to see me and hear me taking about things like the postal strike. Let’s do it again and do it properly this time.” He added that he would lodge a “formal complaint to the BBC over the way it twisted Question Time”. As James wrote last night, the debate was an extended navel gaze into whether it was right that Griffin appeared on the programme. Whilst Griffin unquestionably came off worse by babbling about a rather enigmatic, non-colour specific group called British aborigines, the panel missed the opportunity