David cameron

Remember this petition to have Gordon Brown resign as Prime Minister? It secured 72,222 signatures in the end: not quite enough to have it debated in Parliament under the coalition’s new plans, but enough to make you think. I mean, will we see parliamentary debates about whether Dave and Nick should step down at the public’s request? Not going to happen, I’d say. But these latest ideas for involving voters in the legislative process could certainly provoke one or two embarrassments for our political class. Take the obvious example of withdrawing from the EU: that petition could probably attract any number of votes, but is unlikely to be met positively by Parliament. Ditto an entire spectrum of political matters, from MPs’ pay to immigration.

You know the drill by know: a Cameron and Clegg joint press-conference, so plenty of easy bonhomie and political japery. And today was no different. The Lib Dem leader set the tone with his opening gag, aimed at Vince Cable: "I haven't seen as many journalists in one room since my constituency surgery." After that, it was pretty much a gag a minute. Underneath all that, though, was some serious business. Cable came up ("very apologetic," apparently), along with his claims about Winter Fuel Allowance ("not true"). But, as Iain Martin has noted, the most intriguing moment was when Cameron claimed only that he "expects" the Tories and Lib Dems to fight as separate parties at the next election. Obviously, that falls some way short of a guarantee that they will.

You can stuff your beer and sandwiches, Prime Minister – the unions want war. That's the broad sentiment of Unite's new leader, Len McCluskey, writing in the Guardian today. The union capo urges his brothers to rally behind the protesting students, and prepare to militate against the coalition. Or as he puts it, with nary a hint of self-awareness: "While it is easy to dismiss 'general strike now' rhetoric from the usual quarters, we have to be preparing for battle." Which, reading on, seems pretty similar to, erm ... general strike now. Putting aside the prospect of industrial unrest, this will be as nectar for the Tories.

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.

John Reid made a bruising and quite extraordinary appearance on the Daily Politics earlier today. He demolished the Labour leader. Reid’s analysis was concise: there has been a vacuum at the heart of Labour since Tony Blair’s departure. Gordon Brown was divisive, at best, and clearly not up to the demands of leadership. And, Reid intimated, Brown's child shares his father’s foibles. Ed Miliband has not impressed so far, having failed to understand the cause of New Labour's success. Case in point, his support for the coalition’s very liberal policies on crime, and his inability to perceive that New Labour’s sustained dominance was due to constant policy renewal, not ideological trauma.

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.

As with so many things, the coalition’s great strength is also its great weakness. On the one hand, it is two parties working together, politicians putting aside their differences to cooperate in the national interest. This is something that, broadly speaking, the electorate likes. On the other, it is a government that nobody voted for. There’s a danger that the public come to see coalition as an arrangement that just allows both parties to worm out of their manifesto commitments on the grounds that they didn’t win the election.  The coalition’s national interest case is a strong one. But it needs to be made with greater frequency. It cannot be allowed to go the way as the summer of scrutiny of Labour’s record.