Liberal democrats

Since I wrote my earlier blog, I have been contacted by Tories who are supportive of Jeremy Hunt. One minister argued to me with eloquence and passion that Hunt was not someone who would do anything improper and that would become clear when he faced Leveson. Another Tory told me that ‘Hunt is an absolute star,’ and that it is crucial that he survives as he is one of Cameron’s more effective ministers. Most backbench Tory MPs I have spoken to this evening are supportive of Hunt. But, intriguingly, among Liberal Democrats there is not the same sentiment.

23rd April, 2012 — mark it down in your calendars, CoffeeHousers. For, after weeks of froth and fury about tax, today’s the day when the government focused on spending cuts again. In a speech to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Danny Alexander has announced what are, in theory, a couple of new restraints on spending. First, government departments will have to share information about their spending with the Treasury on a monthly basis, and let Osborne & Co. pore over it. And, second, they will also have to find extra capacity in their existing budgets for unforeseen expenditure, rather than just relying on the Treasury’s central reserve.

In the debate over House of Lords reform, the Lib Dems are trying to say that they favour an elected House of Lords and anyone who opposes them is a reactionary in favour of the status quo. They believe that this is their best chance of winning the argument. But, in reality, things are more complicated than that. Some of the Tories most sceptical of the Clegg proposals are actually believers in an elected second chamber. They just don’t want it to be done through STV, a system that the Lib Dems favour because it would hand them the balance of power there. The issue of the voting system under which the Lords will be elected will take centre stage next week with the publication of the Joint Committee’s report on the matter.

Despite last night’s threats, David Cameron remains personally committed to the cause of reforming the House of Lords. The coalition is also resisting calls for a referendum on the reforms, saying that it is ‘not persuaded of a case of having one’. Their view comes despite reports that the joint committee and banks of Tory and Labour MPs want a referendum. The pressure on David Cameron, of course, pulls both ways. On the one hand, his backbenchers are vowing to prepare ‘off the scale’ rebellions that are ‘worse than Maastricht’. On the other hand, are the Lib Dems. In a show of strength that bordered on hubris, Lord Oakeshott said earlier today that his party expects all coalition MPs to vote for the bill.

What should worry David Cameron about tonight’s meeting of the 1922 Committee on Lords reform was that it was not just the usual suspects who spoke out against it. The two MPs presenting the case against were members who have never defied the whip: Jesse Norman and Nadhim Zahawi. Those present were particularly struck by some polling data that Zahawi, who used to run YouGov, presented. It showed that when asked what issues were a priority for them zero per cent of the electorate mentioned reform of the Lords. Even when prompted, this number only rose to six per cent. But Zahawi’s polling shows that if reform does go ahead, almost two thirds of the public want a referendum on it.

The departure of his senior aide Richard Reeves is a major blow to Nick Clegg. Reeves, a relative newcomer to the Lib Dems, was far less focused on party structures than many of those in Clegg’s circle and instead concentrated on the party’s long term electoral prospects. Reeves’s view was that there was a space in British politics for a party that was classically liberal on economics and socially liberal on other matters. He wanted to turn the Lib Dems into a party that was as comfortable in government as in opposition. There will be those who want to read something political into Reeves’s departure.

The Legal Aid Bill limps back to the Commons this afternoon, having had a rough ride through the upper chamber where the Lords inflicted 11 defeats on the government. And it looks like its next stint in the lower chamber might not be much smoother. As Paul Waugh reports, a group of MPs have tabled a new amendment to the Bill (actually, an amendment to an amendment tabled by the government on Friday) to continue to provide legal aid advice (but not representation) for reviews and appeals of benefit cases. What’s significant is that the amendment is signed by seven Lib Dem MPs, including party president Tim Farron, and four of Labour’s frontbench Justice spokespeople, including shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan.

The old political establishment in the cities is fighting back against the idea of city mayors. They know that a directly elected mayor threatens their traditional power base. As Jill Sherman reports in The Times today, ‘In Nottingham, the Labour council has put up posters around the city to demonstrate its opposition while the Labour group has sent newsletters to residents saying that a “Tory Extra Mayor” will cost £1 million.’ But it is not just Labour councils who are desperately trying to stop yes votes on May 3rd. Lib Dem-run Bristol City Council is also fiercely against the idea of a directly elected mayor.

It seems David Cameron's found a neat way of needling his coalition partners over their resistance to the so-called 'snooper's charter'. Last week, Nick Clegg insisted on proper pre-legislative scrutiny before any expansion of surveillance powers goes ahead, while a group of Lib Dem MPs wrote a letter in the Guardian declaring that: 'It continues to be essential that our civil liberties are safeguarded, and that the state is not given the powers to snoop on its citizens at will.' And Lib Dem president Tim Farron told the BBC that his party is 'prepared to kill' the proposals 'if it comes down to it'. 'If we think this is a threat to a free and liberal society,' he said, 'then there would be no question of unpicking them or compromising'. So now Cameron's pushing back.

There’s barely disguised fury among Conservative ministers about Ed Davey’s claim that the coalition may well be more pro-European than the Labour government was. One complained to me earlier that it was typical Lib Dem mischief making and that ‘if they are not going to behave like normal ministers then we shouldn’t either’. Indeed, this minister went on to suggest that William Hague should publicly slap down Davey for his comments. I doubt this is going to happen. Davey is the leading Lib Dem on the Cabinet’s European Affairs Committee and I suspect there’s little appetite in the Foreign Office for a coalition row over Europe.