Liberal democrats

Well, Mark Field has certainly got Westminster talking with his suggestion that the Lib Dems and Conservatives might not oppose each other in marginal seats come 2015. It’s the kind of idea that has been sloshing around for a few weeks now, but having it relayed through a Tory MP’s blog post gives it a little extra punch. And so plenty of questions abound. What would this mean under AV? Who would do better out of it? Is it sensible for both parties to effectively make the next election a referendum on the coalition? etc. etc. But one question doesn’t seem to be getting enough airtime: what would this mean

Matthew Parris and Charles Moore are the two of the most eloquent exponents of conservatism. But they represent different strands of conservative thought as their views on AV demonstrate. Matthew argues in his column in The Times today that the Conservative party should let AV pass if that is what it takes to keep the Lib Dems happy. He thinks that the Lib Dems are not only needed to make the Coalition work but that their presence is, in itself, a good thing. As he writes, ‘Lib Dems bring to government a distinct and healthy slant on politics. There is a reactionary component in the Tory make-up; I often share

Never one to miss the bus, Phillipe Sands QC has informed the Guardian that an international court would be ‘interested’ in Nick Clegg’s view that the Iraq War was illegal. Sands continues with his favourite homily: ‘Lord Goldsmith never gave a written advice that the war was lawful. Nick Clegg is only repeating what Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair on 30 January 2003: that without a further UN security resolution the war would be illegal and Jack Straw knows that.’ Well, that would be right but for Goldsmith’s draft advice of the 12 February 2003, and his final clarification on 7 March 2003. Goldsmith remains a brilliant commercial lawyer; international

Given that the Labour leadership campaign is so dull, we should thank Chuka Umunna for cheering us up with his comedy economic analysis. Now on the Treasury Select Committee, he has regaled us with an ‘Open letter to George Osborne’ where he makes many entertaining points. It’s worth looking at, because it sums up a few errors swirling around the Labour benches.   1)   During our exchange, you insisted your budget was “progressive”… you stood by your decision to apply a 10 percent cut to the housing benefit of those who have been on JSA for more than 12 months. Osborne has to use words like “progressive” to assuage the

Nick Clegg is a liberal, and just in case you’d forgotten that fact he gave a speech today in which the word features some 64 times.  As it was made at the think-tank Demos, it’s a touch more wonkish than his recent efforts on cutting back the state – but still worth a read for those who want a general sense of how the coalition sees itself. The main purpose of the speech is, I suspect, political.  It says, to any of Clegg’s sceptical colleagues, that the government’s agenda is liberal, liberal, liberal all the way.  From cutting state spending to Michael Gove’s schools reforms, the goal is to “disperse

Vince Cable has floated a solution to university finance, but he’s also politicking and I wonder what David Willetts, the Higher Education Minister, makes of it. The coalition agreement does not mention a graduate tax. The agreement merely states that the government will wait for the Browne Report into university funding. When in opposition, the Liberal Democrats did not support Browne because he was likely to recommend increasing tuition fees. Cable has pre-empted Browne in partisan spirit. If he can convince the government to adopt a graduate tax, he will have abolished tuition fees, which would do him no end of good with Lib Dem voters. It’s typical Cable: eye-catching,

As Pete asked at the weekend, will Labour ever start love-bombing the Lib Dems? Ed Miliband has mumbled that he wouldn’t oppose a possible Lib-Lab coalition, but that’s about it. According to the irreproachable Lord Mandelson, David Miliband and Ed Balls were opposed to a coalition and presumably remain so. Labour has greeted the government’s Liberal Democrats with jeers and contempt, particularly over the VAT rise, which passed last night without amendment. Now, John Denham, an arch-pluralist who has long dreamt of forming a ‘progressive coalition’, has told the Fabian Review that Nick Clegg would be the price of any Lib-Lab coalition. Only Mandelson seems to have grasped the brilliance

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

There’s an snappy little anecdote in Steve Richard’s column today, which bears repeating in these parts: “Clegg is in a similar position in relation to his party as Tony Blair was over Iraq. Blair used to go around telling his colleagues: ‘It’s worse than you think. I believe in the policy.’ Clegg is known to have told friends after George Osborne’s Budget: ‘The good news is I’m not a patsy. The bad news is I believe in the Budget.'” Nothing I’ve seen or heard over recent weeks has dented my opinion from before the election: that Clegg is, in relative terms, a fiscal hawk with a strong reformist bent.  Indeed,