Conservative party

When a Conservative leader wishes the LibDems well in a three-way marginal by-election, then what is going on? Andrew Gilligan’s piece today shows that the Conservative campaign there is muted, and my colleague Melissa Kite reported earlier that Cameron personally called off  the hunt supporters, Vote OK, who were planning to boost the Tory campaign. Little wonder that Conservative MPs are beginning to smell a rat. They are being told this is the cohabitation of rival parties; in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow, I ask if this is actually a merger.   From the start of this coalition, I’ve been struck by the differences between the coalition in Westminster, and that

The Lib Dem manifesto committed the party to a fully elected House of Lords. The Tory manifesto talked about a ‘mainly-elected’ second chamber and in 2007 David Cameron voted for ‘the other place’ to be 80 percent elected (interestingly, George Osborne voted for a fully elected Lords). The coalition agreement committed the government to a ‘wholly or mainly elected upper chamber’. So it is hard to see how a Lords that retained a twenty percent appointed element could be portrayed as a major Lib Dem triumph as, according to today’s Guardian, the coalition wants. There has been talk in Westminster that Clegg’s consolation prize if the AV referendum is defeated

Ed Miliband’s proposal to cap party donations at £500 – thereby restraining the huge one-off union payments that sustain Labour – certainly looks radical enough. But, as any fule kno, surface appearances can be deceptive. As Jim Pickard explains in an insightful post over at the FT, the result would be a system that affects the other parties far more than it does Labour and their union support. The trick is crystallised by this passage from the original Independent report: “One reform option would be to treat Labour’s income from union members who pay the political levy as individual donations. This helps to fund the party’s day-to-day spending. But a

It’s Christmas Eve, and the Daily Telegraph have wrapped up their sting operation in time for tomorrow. The final victims are the Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne and the children’s minister Sarah Teather. As it happens, Teather gets off without blemishing her copybook: her greatest indiscretion is to claim that Michael Gove is “deeply relieved” to be in coalition, as it means more funding for schools. Browne, though, is a touch more forthright: he says that Tory immigration policy is “harsh” and “uncharitable,” but that Lib Dem involvement will provoke a “more enlightened” outcome. He adds that the Tories’ EU grouping contains parties that “are quite nutty and that’s an

Today’s Lib Dem revelations are of the embarrassing, but not explosive, variety. David Heath, the deputy leader of the House, and Norman Baker, the transport minister, hypocritically say they are against tuition fees, despite having voted to let universities charge fees of up to £9,000. Baker also, crassly, compares himself to Helen Suzman, the anti-apartheid campaigner, working from within to change the system. But, beyond that, the remarks are what you’d expect a Lib Dem MP to say to a party supporter complaining about various Tory members of the government. I suspect Nick Clegg will be slightly more worried about Adrian Sanders, the MP for Torbay, issuing a broadside against

To understand why Vince Cable survived today one has to understand the dynamics of the coalition. The Liberal Democrat rank and file have had to swallow a lot recently, but the idea that one of their Cabinet ministers was going to be moved for being rude about Rupert Murdoch would have been too much to bear. The backlash to shunting Cable sideways would have destabilised the coalition, so he stayed in place. But Cable tonight is a much diminished figure. He has been shown to be eager to be indiscrete, to be overly keen to air the coalition’s dirty laundry in public. His comments about being at ‘war’ with Rupert