Conservative party

There could barely be a starker contrast between Danny Alexander's interview with the FT today and the, ahem, Cableleaks. Unlike his fellow Lib Demmer, the Treasury Secretary knew that he was speaking to a journalist – and he keeps well within the lines when discussing the coalition. "My impression," he says, "is that the Liberal Democrats support the coalition. People knew the first couple of years would be extremely tough." Alexander saves his most enthusiastic rhetoric for the quad: the group of four ministers – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and himself – who met regularly during the spending review period to decide where the cuts would fall. As he puts it, "it was a very effective way of making sure the government is joined up".

The High Court has just declared the government's temporary cap on non-EU immigration is unlawful. Its ground was that the cap was not introduced with proper parliamentary scrutiny. However, the annual cap, which will not be in place until April next year, is not affected by this decision. But without a temporary cap there'll be a spike in applications as people try and beat the cap. It'll be fascinating to see how the PM and the Home Secretary respond to this ruling. At the moment, the government is playing it softly, softly. But there are Tories who think that the government cannot just allow a key part of its flagship immigration policy to be struck down by the courts. The combination of judges and immigration is a red rag to large sections of the Tory party.

When you talk to MPs about the new expenses’ regime there are a whole variety of grumbles you’ll hear, many of them reasonable. For example, it does seem silly that all MPs buy their own printer ink cartridges rather than the Commons buying a job lot and using bulk ordering to obtain a discount. But one of the things that really bothers them is that IPSA will publish all the refused expenses’ requests in February. Now, I expect that most of you think this is reasonable. But MPs do have a point that the way IPSA logs these things means that any enquiry about what you are or are not allowed to claim comes across as an attempt to claim.  David Cameron is being pulled two ways on expenses. His MPs wanted the system changed—and fast.

David Cameron has this evening told the 1922 Committee that IPSA will have to change by April 1st next year or be changed. He told the ’22 that he understood the ‘pain and difficulty’ caused to colleagues by the new system and denounced the new system as ‘anti-family.’ He said that IPSA would be given until April next year and if it failed to do so it would be reformed. Tonight’s address was an attempt to defuse an issue that has really rankled with Tory MPs, and has for some become a proxy for the leadership’s perceived lack of regard for them. It is, perhaps, a sign of how strained relations are that Tory MPs are tonight complaining about a Conservative party spokesmen briefing out details of the meeting.

A media narrative is rapidly emerging that the Tories are taking advantage of the Liberal Democrats, using them to defend the coalition’s most unpopular polices. On the Today Programme this morning, Justin Webb pressed Paul Burtstow, the Lib Dem health minister, on whose idea it was that he, the Lib Dem, come on the programme to defend the government against the Health Select Committee’s critical report. The implication was clear, that Burstow had been sent on because it was bad news. I think this narrative is a bit shonky. Yes, the Liberal Democrats took the brunt of the criticism over the fees hike but that was because they were breaking an election pledge and because they chose to be out there defending it.

Peter Kellner has an interesting comment piece up on the YouGov site about how we are in the unusual position of having three relatively unpopular party leaders. Nick Clegg’s approval rating is down at minus 29 but that hasn’t helped Ed Miliband who is at minus 15. David Cameron does have a positive rating, but only just. His approval rating is plus one. As Kellner points out, normally when one political leader is unpopular another benefits. But that hasn’t happened this time: a sign of how strong a hold anti-politics has on the public consciousness. This discontent is mirrored by how all three parties are having quite serious debates about what they should be.

By way of an addendum to Fraser's post, it's worth reading Melissa Kite's account of internal Tory strife for the Sunday Telegraph (it doesn't seem to be in the paper, but is available online here). The piece records what sounds like a tumultuous week for the Tory whips, as they struggled to keep a group of disgruntled MPs on side. There are plenty of little insights, of which this is just a selection: 1) The 1922 Committee gets angry. "The ceding of a series of major powers to Europe, the increasing of international aid, the decision to have a referendum on voting reform, the redrawing of constituency boundaries – all had been eating away at Tory backbenchers for months. Worse than that, their concerns had been repeatedly brushed aside by Mr Cameron.