Uk politics

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Sarkozy revs up Franco-German motor, leaving Britain behind

Last week, French President Sarkozy spoke to the annual gathering of his country’s ambassadors. Since he came to power, the French leader has used the annual event to welcome his countrymen back from their holidays and garner a few headlines. This year proved no different with an attack on the Iranian regime receiving the most attention. In a powerful line, the French president pointed out: “It is the same leaders in Iran who say that the nuclear programme is peaceful and that the elections were honest. Who can believe them?” He went on to say that he thought tougher sanctions would have to be discussed if Tehran does not change

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Brown’s new dividing lines are merely muddled hypotheticals

Reading the transcript of Gordon Brown’s interview with the FT one is struck by how little of a domestic policy message Brown has. Say what you like about Labour’s mantra in 2001 and 2005 of Labour investment versus Tory cuts but it was clear. By contrast, Brown’s attempt to explain his new dividing lines to the FT is distinctly muddled. Brown’s main line is that things could have been a lot worse without the government’s action. But that is, of course, a hypothetical. It also seems doubtful that the public will share this view or forget who was Chancellor in the decade before the crisis. Brown then moves on to

David Blackburn

Cameron should be wary of taking the moral high ground in opposition

I’ve just re-read Cameron’s article in the Times and it contains one section that might come back to haunt him, should he become Prime Minister. He writes: ‘Many will be disgusted by the suggestion that ministers in Whitehall encouraged al-Megrahi’s release — and did so for commercial reasons. Diplomacy often involves hard-nosed backroom deals. It would be naive to think otherwise. But there need to be lines you are not prepared to cross; values you will not compromise, whatever deal you broker. I believe even to hint that a convicted terrorist could be used as makeweight for trade is a betrayal of everything that Britain stands for.’  I agree with

David Blackburn

Cameron is the winner of the al-Megrahi scandal 

It is clear that the al-Megrahi release has damaged Labour, not least because their collective refusal to condemn, or at least have an opinion on, the release of the Lockerbie bomber has confirmed that the government is totally out of touch with public opinion. On the other hand, David Cameron has played a blinder. In stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s Trappist monk act, Cameron has led this issue, voicing considered condemnations of Kenny MacAskill’s decision, the government’s reticence and the its supposedly ethical foreign policy. Cameron writes a piece in today’s Times branding the entire affair a ‘fiasco’ and a ‘failure of judgement by the Scottish government…the British government…and

Monday

David Blackburn

But he did for the both of them with his plan of attack

The tension between defence ministers and senior officers has been a running story throughout the summer, perhaps at the expense of the opinions of troops on the ground. The Times’ war correspondent, Anthony Loyd, wrote a piece today describing soldiers’ views in the wake of the Prime Minister’s visit: ‘One can only hope that if Mr Brown had braved the journey northwards from Bastion to Sangin (he didn’t), where British infantrymen are getting killed or wounded at a rate directly comparable to that of their predecessors in Western Europe in 1944, his media men would have first whitewashed the graffiti in the latrine third from the left on the northern wall. ‘“I

David Blackburn

Labour’s new dividing line is a gamble

Alistair Darling has long suggested that the original dividing line between the Tories and Labour concerned Labour spending, which will stimulate growth, versus Tory inaction. And last week, Darling was quoted in the Mail on Sunday setting out a new dividing line between the parties by framing the “debate in terms of our cuts being better than their cuts”. It is a stance that presupposes Britain is returning to growth thanks to the government’s strategy. And that is the message of an opinion piece, titled ‘The cure is working’, penned by Darling in this morning’s Guardian. Here’s the key section: ‘The Tories have opposed our measures every inch of the

Sunday

David Blackburn

Labour’s tactical blunder

Mike Smithson has an interesting post with how the fallout from the al-Megrahi affair is damaging Labour. He writes: ‘Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point. What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out – why not get in with their explanation first?’ He’s right that Labour have made an enormous tactical blunder by not coming clean over this piece

Peter Hoskin

The Libya plot thickens

So the Sunday Times has got its hands on letters which suggest the al-Megrahi release was tied up with a BP-Libya oil deal, and overseen by the Government with an eye on “the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom”.  The ST article deserves quoting at some length: “Two letters dated five months apart show that [Jack] Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country. In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before

Saturday

Daniel Korski

Lisbon treaty moves closer, but Tories stay mum

Sometimes if you fear something intensely or hate something very strongly, it can cloud your otherwise excellent judgement and analytical foresight. That seems to be happening to many euro-sceptics when they talk or think about the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming second Irish referendum. They do not like the treaty and so will find it almost unthinkable that the Irish will vote yes. But a ‘yes’ vote looks like the most likely scenario.  That will mean that the British Conservatives have to be less mealy-mouthed about their post-referendum strategy; if the treaty is ratified will they try to re-open the document if they win power or let sleeping dogs lie?

David Blackburn

Libyagate: first denial, then silence now contradictions

The Times has obtained confidential correspondence suggesting that, in 1999, Robin Cook assured Madeleine Albright that those found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentences in Scotland. A senior US official told the Times: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” So how do they explain it? Kenny MacAskill claims that US officials urged him against releasing the Lockerbie bomber because Britain had pledged he would serve his serve sentence in Scotland. Seeking clarification, MacAskill wrote

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ tax question

So should the Tories announce tax rises ahead of the next election?  According to Andrew Grice in today’s Independent, they’re certainly thinking about it: “There is a growing recognition among shadow Cabinet ministers that, if they win power, spending cuts could only be half the picture, as they would also need significant tax rises to fill the black hole in the public finances. That is why Mr Cameron and George Osborne won’t rule out tax increases. The big debate among the Tory high command now is whether to announce some tax increases before the general election. Mr Cameron is reluctant to unveil a detailed ‘shadow Budget’. But there appears to

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s hypocrisy over Lockerbie?

So far, Gordon Brown has refused to specifically comment on the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya.  Yes, we’ve heard that he was “angry and repulsed” by al-Megrahi’s reception in Libya, and that our government had “no role” in the decision.  But there’s been nothing on whether he actually agrees or disagrees with the Scottish government’s actions. The official excuse has been that Brown has to respect the devolution settlement and can’t comment on devolved matters.  But – what’s this? – it seems he hasn’t had a problem with commenting on another devolved matter before now: the level of health spending set by the Scottish Government. 

David Blackburn

No way to lead a nation

It’s been terrible a morning for Gordon Brown in the editorials and on the front pages. And David Cameron, scenting blood, has condemned Gordon Brown’s leadership over the al-Megrahi affair. These pieces share the same basic analysis: Brown’s calculated caution is the cause of his problems. John Rentoul, admittedly no fan of the PM, writes in today’s Independent: ‘This has everything to do with a pattern of behaviour, an inbuilt caution that served Brown well enough on the road to No 10, but which is disastrous in anyone actually holding the top job.’ Brown’s leadership style has been unremittingly disastrous because it is not leadership; it is the political equivalent

David Blackburn

Brown faces another backbench revolt  

Despite protesting to the contrary, it turns out the government have been cutting all along. The Times reports that, buried in the small print of the budget, there is a commitment to abolish the £780 per year surplus housing benefit allowance, which encourages families to pay their rent and trade quality of accommodation for cash. These changes come into force on April 1, probably a month before the election. Labour backbenchers condemn the saving, worth £160 million per year, and plan to table amendments. Frank Field, who draws a comparison between this cut and the 10p rate revolt, tells the Times:  “At one stroke, they get rid of a reform aimed

Thursday

David Blackburn

Delicately poised in Scotland

Despite a week of international codemnation, a YouGov poll shows that 42 per cent of Scottish voters still agree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release al-Megrahi, whereas 51 per cent oppose it. Channel Four’s Gary Gibbon notes that this undermines Labour’s arguments that the SNP’s decision is not backed by the Scottish working class, and that Labour will find the Glasgow North East by-election hard going. I’m not so sure. Clearly it’s going to be tight, but Labour will take heart from this poll, which also reveals voting intentions. The SNP is down 6 points to 33 per cent and Labour is up 5 to 33 per cent. It was

Peter Hoskin

Public scepticism about Labour’s record on education

Isn’t it funny how things work out?  I imagine the government once thought they’d get credit for the ever-improving GCSE and A-level pass rates, but now results day just rekindles the debate about slipping standards – and rightly so.  Ed Balls may have tried to divert attention on to the Tories this morning, but he can’t really escape the verdict of this ComRes poll commissioned by Newsnight.  Here are the main results: 67 percent of respondents said Labour hasn’t lived up to Tony Blair’s “education, education, education” vow. 52 percent said Labour hasn’t improved the overall quality of education.  41 percent said they have. 47 percent said the standard of

Peter Hoskin

Is Theresa May priming a second Freud Review?

In some respects, Theresa May has delivered an effective speech on unemployment and the benefits system today.  It touches on all the tragic indicators – the 6 million people on out-of-work benefits, the high levels of youth worklessness, the shocking consequences of welfare ghettoes etc. – and re-states, in no uncertain terms, the Tories’ commitment to welfare reform.  She even partially responds to those critics who thought she’d been drafted into the shadow welfare role to be “softer” on single mums than Labour, by instead attacking the state for encouraging lone parents “not to bother trying to work until their youngest child was sixteen”.  But perhaps the most crucial passage

Peter Hoskin

Dan Hannan and Enoch Powell: make your own mind up

Here’s footage of Dan Hannan’s month-old US interview in which he cites Enoch Powell as an influence, and which has received quite a bit of news attention today: To my mind, there’s little more to add to this than the points made by Spectator’s very own Alex Massie and those made in two excellent posts (here and here) by Guido.  To wit: Hannan has always been clear that he doesn’t endorse Powell’s views on immigration, but has instead been influenced by his views on the size, scope and role of the state.  Whatever you may think of those views, they are hardly controversial.  Indeed, as Guido points out (via Mark

David Blackburn

The case for naval investment

Over at ConHome, Tim Montgomerie debates Will Inboden’s review of the main themes of the Tories foreign policy. I urge CoffeeHousers to read both articles, but the section on the relationship between energy and defence struck me particularly, recalling Liam Fox’s 2006 Chatham House speech on the subject. Here’s the premise of Fox’s argument: “We are all competing for the same natural resources to feed the economic system. The potential for terrorists or even nation states to interrupt this supply to cause widespread – rather than just local – disruption increases enormously.” Fox pointed out that global energy competition requirements had evolved beyond Britain’s defence strategies and capabilities. Nowhere was