Conservative party

The Winter Fuel Allowance has tapdanced back onto the political landscape today, and it's all thanks to some insightful work by the FT's Alex Barker. He had an article in this morning's pink 'un which suggested that IDS is lobbying to have it, and and some other "middle-class benefits", trimmed to help pay for his benefit reforms. And he's followed that up with a blog-post explaining how even an apparent "cut" in the allowance may not result in savings for the Treasury or the DWP. Strange but true, as they say. This could be a delicate situation for the coalition. In the background to it all is David Cameron's pre-election pledge that the Tories wouldn't cut Winter Fuel Allowance.

University funding is beginning to dominate op-ed pages. Yesterday, Matthew d’Ancona put the case for a graduate tax from the conservative perspective; and to which Douglas Carswell has responded. Today, Professor Alison Wolf, a specialist in Public Sector Management at KCL, makes the point that any debate about higher education funding is prejudiced because Britain’s politicians and policy makers are predominantly Oxbridge educated, and the structure of Oxbridge undergraduate degrees is radically different from anywhere else. Writing in the Times (£), she asserts: ‘I’ve sat in many meetings, in Whitehall and Westminster, where people have talked up credit systems (a modular system of assessment) without the faintest idea that we have one.

The contours of an agreement on how to pay for university education are clearer today after Rachel Sylvester’s interview with David Willetts. Up-front fees look to be on the way out.  Willetts tells Sylvester, ‘It’s very important that it’s signaled very clearly that the money that is paid back comes out of your earnings once you have graduated and are in work.’ It also seems that different courses at different institutions will have different prices. Willetts proclaims that he wants something that ‘links you to your university and the course you did at that university.’   So far, this looks like simply collecting variable fees through the tax system.

There were hints of toughness in his article at the weekend, but now David Cameron has rolled up his shirt sleeves and pulled out the baseball bat. In a combative piece for the Manchester Evening News the PM outlines out a zero tolerance approach to welfare fraud and administrative error. The two problems "cost the taxpayer £5.2 billion a year," he says, "that's the cost of more than 200 secondary schools or over 150,000 nurses. It's absolutely outrageous and we can not stand for it." And so IDS is going to prepare "an uncompromising strategy for tackling fraud and error," which will be published this autumn.    Two things are worth keeping a close eye on. First, the Lib Dem reaction to all this.

Among the most eyecatching, and potentially important, stories of the day is this one in the Telegraph. It suggests that various departments have "failed" to outline a "worst case scenario" of 40 percent cuts that was demanded by the Treasury. And it even names and shames Caroline Spelman's Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs as one of the offenders. Mrs Spelman, we're told, has now "been forced to use the time before her holiday to work up the projections with her officials and permanent secretary." Nothing like a last minute job, then. To be fair to Whitehall civil servants, there is a general sense that they have set about identifying cuts with some flair – although, obviously, the process won't go entirely smoothly.