Our Christmas issue is so packed that, sadly, there wasn't enough space to include everything that was originally commissioned. Among the ejectees was a series of Christmas recipes and tips from politicians, writers and friends of The Spectator. In which case, we thought we'd put them up online, where the real estate, just like the goodwill, is endless. You can read Nick Clegg's recipe for Patridge ‘Estofada’ below.
Inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy, crap. With thesaurus-rifling regularity Ed Miliband comes to PMQs and delivers a performance which is inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy and crap. The only virtue the Labour leader has is consistency. He’s consistently worse than last week. In theory he should have scored some damage today. Unemployment is soaring. Growth seems grounded. Cabinet ‘partners’ scuffle in public whenever they get the chance, and Nick Clegg changes his mind as often as he changes his socks. And Miliband’s tactics had some merit too. By disinterring the PM’s New Year Statement from January 2011 he was able to open up the Coalition’s wounds and have some seasonal fun at their expense.
Today, was yet another reminder that David Cameron knows just where to hit Ed Miliband to make it hurt. After a few questions on the economy, Miliband moved to Europe — the coalition’s greatest vulnerability. Miliband joked that it was ‘good to see the deputy Prime Minister back in his place’, before mocking the coalition’s divisions over Europe. Cameron began his reply by saying it was no surprise Tories and Lib Dems don’t agree on Europe before saying that the split on the issue could be exaggerated: ‘it’s not like we’re brothers or anything,’ Cameron said in his most mocking tone. At this line you could see the Labour benches deflate and one of his aides visibly winced.
All eyes at PMQs will be on a man who isn’t speaking, Nick Clegg. His refusal to attend the Prime Minister’s statement on the European Council means that today he will be the centre of attention. Labour will attempt to embarrass him as much as possible, trying to highlight both the divisions in the coalition and the impotence of the deputy PM. For its part, the press will read an awful lot into his body language every time Cameron mentions the E or V words. The worry for the coalition is that this split over Europe is just going to keep repeating. There are going to be many more European summits where Britain will be in the minority between now and 2015.
Others have already been there, but it's still worth noting Douglas Alexander's article for the lastest issue of the New Statesman. Much of it, it's true, is a predictable attack on David Cameron's recent activity in Brussels. But slightly more surprising is the fact that, rather than criticising the coalition in toto, Alexander saves his ire for the Tories and reaches out to the Lib Dems. Here's the relevant passage: ‘The roots of what happened on the night of Thursday 8 December lie deep in Cameron's failure to modernise the Tory party. Just because he puts party interest before the national interest, there is no reason others should do the same.
Reading through the paper's this morning, it's even clearer that we didn't learn much from that marathon Europe debate yesterday. But here are my thoughts, anyway, on where it leaves us: 1) Ed Miliband lacked credibility from the outset. As Malcolm Rifkind put it, he’s had three days to work out whether he’d have signed that Treaty or not — and he still can’t make his mind up. God knows Cameron is vulnerable on this, but he won’t be hurt being attacked for indecision by a man who still cant make any decisions. 2) Clegg’s misjudgment, cont? First, Clegg backed Cameron after the veto. Now, he says he disagrees with Cameron.
The text of David Cameron's statement on the European Summit was clearly designed as balm for the coalition's wounds. He devoted a large chunk of it to defending Britain's membership of the European Union in a clear effort to reassure the Lib Dems about the future direction of European policy. But this effort was rather undermined by the absence of the deputy Prime Minister. This was, predictably, the story of the session. In response to repeated Labour questions about where Clegg was, Cameron replied 'I'm not responsible for his whereabouts. I'm sure he is working very hard.' Nick Clegg has now given a TV interview in which he has escalated the coalition divide over Europe.
Could it be an accident of timing that the government, in the shape of Sarah Teather, is announcing an expansion of the pupil premium today? Or is it part of a careful response to David Cameron's adventures in Euroland? In any case, the Lib Dem-devised scheme to help the poorest pupils will be extended in 2012-13, so that both the amount given to each pupil and the number of pupils eligible are increased. What's not clear yet is whether this was planned all along, or whether it's because of some previously unforeseen slack in the existing £1.25 billion budget for next year. The pupil premium has, for instance, already been increased for this financial year because fewer children registered for free school meals than expected.
It's no surprise that David Cameron's actions in Brussels last week appear to be popular with the voting public, but it is significant nonetheless. The Times is carrying a Populus poll today (£) which suggests just how difficult Labour and the Lib Dems will find it to recapture ground over the Continent. 57 per cent of respondents say that ‘David Cameron was right to exercise Britain's veto’, against only 14 per cent who believe he was wrong to do so. And it turns out that 49 per cent of the folk who voted Lib Dem at the last election support the PM too. With one particular exception (which we shall get on to below), most of the poll's other findings will both hearten and embolden the blue half of the coalition.
It is starting to feel like the build-up to the AV referendum again, if not worse. No longer the casual bonhomie of the coalition's early days, but a great show of mutual distrust and loathing between the Lib Dems and Tories. There was Nick Clegg's interview on the Marr Show earlier, of course, which James has already blogged about. There are rumours that Vince Cable is set to quit. And there is also Paddy Ashdown's caustic article in the Observer, which he has followed by attacking, Major style, the Tory ‘bastards’ on Sky this morning. For their part, many of those ‘bastards’ are looking on at the Lib Dems' pain with glee, eager to make it worse. Some of this is probably choreographed.
Nick Clegg has just given a quite astonishing interview to Andrew Marr in which he accused David Cameron of being incapable of getting a good deal for Britain because of pressures from within the Conservative parliamentary party. When Marr asked him if things would have been different if Lib Dems had been in Brussels, Clegg said they would have been because he is ‘not under the same constraints from my parliamentary party.’ Clegg described Cameron as being trapped between the ‘intransigence’ of the French and Eurosceptics in the Conservative party. Intriguingly, the deputy Prime Minister blamed the French for there being no negotiation about the British asks.
It's days like this when we should remember that Britain is, officially, the most eurosceptic nation in the EU. Europe may not rank high on the average Brit's list of policy priorities, but many will nonetheless cheer at the idea of us stepping aside from Merkel and Sarkozy's bulldozing plan. Whether the PM swashbuckled or blundered into saying ‘No’, that ‘No’ is unlikely to harm the public's perception of him — and will probably boost it. That's what makes all this particularly difficult for Ed Miliband. Unlike some in his party, the Labour leader is not inclined to out-sceptic Cameron, so that leaves basically one alternative: to claim that the PM has irresponsibly alienated Britain from Brussels, and that our influence will wane as a result.
As French and German officials make final preparations ahead of tomorrow’s meeting on fiscal union, it’s worth reconsidering the coalition’s triple referendum lock. James Kirkup has an incisive post on the issue, describing a potential government split. The division was evident on TV this morning: Iain Duncan Smith told Dermot Murnaghan that a referendum would be held ‘if there is a major treaty change’, while Nick Clegg told Andrew Marr that only ‘an additional surrender of sovereignty from us to Brussels’ can spark a vote. Kirkup argues that IDS reflects the broader sceptic position on the Tory backbenches: that the PM has promised a vote on all substantial treaty changes.
One of the advantages the governing party has during an election campaign is the ability to set the baseline. It is your plans which every other parties’ are measured against. So, if they plan extra spending you can accuse them of a ‘tax bombshell’ or if they want to spend less than you, then you can say they want ‘savage cuts.’ After Tuesday’s autumn statement, Treasury sources were adamant that there would be a spending review before the end of this parliament setting out the cuts the coalition would make to meet its fiscal mandate. Danny Alexander confirmed on Newsnight that these would be jointly-agreed coalition cuts.
Nick Clegg’s interview in The Observer today highlights what is fast becoming one of the biggest tensions in the coalition: the Lib Dem desire to show that they are the governing party who cares. Allies of Iain Duncan Smith have been infuriated by Lib Dem suggestions that the government would be doing little about youth unemployment if it was not for them. But Clegg repeats the claim to The Observer: ‘Whether it's on youth unemployment, whether it's on youngsters, whether it's on getting behind advanced manufacturing and not putting all our eggs into the City of London basket, I don't think that would have happened without the coalition.
There was a time when Nick Clegg was the most agile and persistent defender of the coalition's deficit reduction programme. But now — although he's still got it in him — he is more often wheeled out to announce some spending wheeze or other. A couple of weeks ago, it was the next instalment of the government's regional growth fund. Today, it's a £1 billion scheme, spread out over three years, to encourage companies to take on young people. This latest scheme is one of those that looks very neat on paper. Put aside questions about how it will be funded, and what we have is a plan whereby £2,275 will be paid to companies for each young recruit they bring on. It means that, in effect, the state will cover half of the youth minimum wage for a six-month period.
In Brixton this morning, Nick Clegg delivered a speech on race equality. He said 'There is another front in the war on race inequality that is too often neglected: economic opportunity... It simply cannot be right that that we still live in a society where, if you are from an ethnic minority, you face unfair hurdles when you strive for success.' As a counterpoint to the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks, here is Samir Shah's Spectator cover piece from 2009: Race is not an issue in the UK anymore, Samir Shah, 7 October 2009 I first arrived in this country from Bombay in January 1960. Harold Macmillan had yet to make his Winds of Change blowing through Africa speech. Coronation Street hadn’t appeared on our television screens.
The recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life's review into party funding are not going to happen. Both the Labour and Tory members of the review have issued notes of dissent to it. Nick Clegg has, on behalf of the government, issued a statement gently rolling the report into the long grass. Interestingly, the Tory party - which was for a while attracted to additional state funding - has now ruled it out completely. Unlike Clegg's statement saying it shouldn't be done while economic times are so tough, the Tory rejection of it is not time limited. One other thing worth noting is that Labour, via Margaret Beckett's dissent, has not set itself against trade union members having to opt in to pay the political levy.
This might seem a very odd question. A pro-EU position is part of the party's internationalist DNA. Listen to any EU-related speech by the likes of Nick Clegg or Paddy Ashdown and heartfelt support for the European project is apparent. The Liberal Democrats have also made a virtue of reining in Tory euroscepticism, for example rejecting a call for repatriation of powers in the Coalition Agreement. The Deputy Prime Minister remains, in private and public, pro-EU. And to many activists and MPs, the party's European stance is what makes it different to the Tories – and is the reason why they are Lib Dems. They see in Tory euroscepticism a boorish Little Englanderness they abhor and find out of synch with the way of the modern world.
David Cameron's speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last night was a significant moment — the clearest articulation yet of his European Policy. In the crucial paragraph, he declared: 'we sceptics have a vital point. We should look sceptically at grand plans and utopian visions. We’ve a right to ask what the European Union should and shouldn’t do and change it accordingly. As I said, change brings opportunities. An opportunity to begin to refashion the EU so it better serves this nation’s interests and the interests of its other 26 nations too. An opportunity, in Britain’s case, for powers to ebb back instead of flow away and for the European Union to focus on what really matters.
