Uk politics

Wednesday

Isabel Hardman

The Workers’ Party?

Much hilarity among those of a leftish persuasion in Westminster that the Conservatives might dare call themselves the Workers' Party, as Grant Shapps enthusiastically did yesterday. Mind you, when Shapps gave his speech making this claim alongside Sir John Major yesterday, journalists were excluded, so he might not have said it at all. But assuming he did, there's no reason why the Conservatives should provoke any more hilarity than any other Westminster party when they make this claim. There are, though, two warnings that if not heeded, could make this new tag seem as hilarious to voters as previous attempts at rebranding. The first comes from David Skelton, whose campaign Renewal is pushing for the Tories to do more to appeal to working class voters.

Tuesday

Isabel Hardman

Harriet Harman’s messy war with the Mail

Go to war with the Daily Mail at your peril: Ed Miliband did it over its 'the man who hated Britain' column and now perhaps the Labour party is seeing the revenge for that with the paper's ongoing insistence that Harriet Harman apologise for the National Council for Civil Liberties' links to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s. Harman, though, is going to war with the Mail again, and her supporters in the press are arguing that the paper is on thin moral ground here. Harman's messy handling of the story has kept it going as much as anything else. She gave a forceful interview to Newsnight yesterday in which she insisted that she had nothing to apologise for, then 12 hours later suggested that the links between NCCL and PIE were 'regrettable'.

Isabel Hardman

Tory MPs dismiss minority govt hints as lacking ‘solid logic’

While Number 10 is pouring cold water on suggestions that the Prime Minister might rule out a second coalition in the 2015 manifesto, his MPs have given it a rather icy reception. If the hints about him preferring a minority government to governing with the Lib Dems were supposed to reassure those on the Right that he does love them more than he loves Nick Clegg, they seem to have backfired rather. Instead, Conservative MPs I've spoken to today are annoyed for a variety of reasons. The first is that backbenchers feel any plan to rule out a coalition in the manifesto is counterproductive. It's worth noting that Number 10 sources are insisting that 'our manifesto is about policy' rather than giving any suggestion that there would be a commitment on minority government in the document.

Isabel Hardman

How helpful can Angela Merkel be?

Angela Merkel is, as James explains in this week's magazine, central to David Cameron's hopes of getting anything meaty at all from his renegotiation and reform of the European Union. Her address to Parliament later this week will be scrutinised for every hint that she might support one reform or another - and for her enthusiasm for supporting Cameron in his quest. So it would be helpful if Merkel said some encouraging things in her speech. But can the Prime Minister suggest anything that would be particularly helpful for the German Chancellor to say?

Isabel Hardman

Minority government hint is boost for backbenchers – if they believe it

That David Cameron is reportedly considering committing to minority government above coalition is a strong message to his backbenchers that he's not preparing to hop back into bed with Nick Clegg and co in 2015. They have been growing a little feverish about the idea, and ministers have made it known in the party that they would vote against a coalition in any secret ballot on a new deal (provided, of course, that there is a secret ballot). This is good for party relations in the straightforward sense that Cameron is signalling to his backbenchers that he doesn't like the Lib Dems as much as they suspect he does, but also because he is to a certain extent signalling that he is prepared to do business with his own MPs, even though that will not be a walk in the park.

Monday

Isabel Hardman

David Cameron’s ‘unremittingly positive’ case for the Union

David Cameron says he wants the case that he makes for the Union and against Scottish independence to be 'unremittingly positive'. Is it? In an interview with BBC News, the Prime Minister said: 'That’s my whole argument, which is go back to the big picture, and I think this family of nations is better off together. Not just is better off in the United Kingdom, but we in the rest of the United Kingdom think we’re better off with Scotland that we want you to stay. That argument is one that is unremittingly positive about the success of this family of nations and how we should keep this family together.

Steerpike

Coffee Shots: Ministers visit Scotland to point at things

Today's Cabinet meeting in Aberdeen, now underway, has given ministers plenty of opportunity to stare earnestly at Scottish things while trying to make the case for the Union. Here are some of Mr Steerpike's favourites. [caption id="attachment_8719911" align="alignnone" width="620"] Image copyright The Cabinet Office[/caption]   All captions gratefully received in the comments...

Alex Massie

The Etonian, the SNP and the Black, Black Oil

You will recall that, according to the greatest account of England's history, every time the English thought they had solved the Irish Question, the Irish changed the Question.  Something similar afflicts David Cameron's grapplings with the Scottish Question. The poor man is damned if he does and equally damned if he doesn't. The other week he was lambasted for his effrontery in giving a speech about Scotland in, of all places, London. Today he is lambasted for bringing his cabinet to Aberdeen. How dare he lecture us from afar; how dare he venture north like some touring proconsul! The optics, as the pros say, are not very good for the Prime Minister. The cabinet very rarely comes to Scotland. Drawing attention to that fact may not help Mr Cameron's cause.

Isabel Hardman

Salmond attacks credibility of ‘No’ campaign threats

There's not much the Cabinet can do about accusations by the SNP that today's visit to Aberdeen is a typical Westminster attempt to bully Scots by flying up to make yet another tranche of negative announcements about the consequences of independence, focusing this time on North Sea oil. If Cabinet ministers didn't make this trip, they would be accused of being feart. On balance, it's better to engage than cower, even if today's offensive by Ed Davey and others hardly helps the impression that the 'No' campaign is wholly negative.

Sunday

Isabel Hardman

Tory call to rebrand National Insurance is politically smart

The government's legislative programme is pretty light at present. But the Bill that is going to spark the most interest this week is destined to go nowhere at all. It's a Ten Minute Rule Bill, introduced by Tory MP Ben Gummer this Tuesday, and calls for National Insurance to be renamed the 'Earnings Tax'. What's in a name? Well, there are two good reasons why this Bill which won't go anywhere (Ten Minute Rule motions are simply used as a way of making a point and drawing attention to an issue) has, as I understand it, already gained a great deal of attention and sympathy at the highest levels of government. The first is the reason that Gummer cites for introducing the motion in the first place: transparency.

Isabel Hardman

Ed Miliband: Children behave better than MPs at PMQs

A rite of passage for any Opposition leader these days is to promise to make politics more decent and connected to people's lives. One recent Opposition leader said this, for example: 'And we need to change, and we will change, the way we behave. I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing.' David Cameron, who said this in his leadership acceptance speech in 2005, now has a team of MPs who help heckle Labour in the Commons during Prime Minister's Questions. This was mainly in response to Labour being much better at heckling, with Ed Balls gesticulating and sledging away on the front bench, and Michael Dugher and Sadiq Khan doing similar dirty work on the steps on the Labour side of the house.

Saturday

Isabel Hardman

Would ending unpopular benefits test contract really solve the problem?

What will happen to the much-maligned contractor that carries out the government's work capability assessments which determine whether a sick or disabled person is fit for work or needs long-term disability benefit? Atos Healthcare is reported to be seeking an early end to its contract with the Work and Pensions department, which certainly won't dismay ministers who have been privately unhappy with the company's performance for a while. Although DWP isn't commenting beyond the statement below, it now looks as though it won't be difficult to end the contract mutually. 'Atos were appointed the sole provider for delivering Work Capability Assessments by the previous government in 2008.

Freddy Gray

Who would benefit from a ban on FOBTs?

I wrote a piece about the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals uproar in the magazine this week, and it has prompted some angry responses by email and over social media. I'm told that I didn't treat problem gambling with sufficient seriousness. I'm not sorry about that, I'm afraid: I think it's silly to be too serious about the vices of others. My point was that the political and the media classes are having something of a moral panic about FOBTs  — and as always with moral panics, the political and media classes don't really know what they are talking about. I doubt Ed Miliband or Tom Watson, who both seem dead against FOBTs, have ever spent more than 10 minutes in a bookie.

Friday

Isabel Hardman

Food banks: What would Labour do?

Was the church right to intervene in the debate about food banks and benefit cuts? I argue in my Telegraph column today that it was - but that the way the 27 bishops (more have since spoken out to support the letter to the Mirror - and Justin Welby has agreed with their argument that benefit cuts are pushing up food bank demand) intervened says a number of interesting things about the Church of England today. But there is another interesting question worth asking, which is not what would Jesus do but what would Labour do? As I explained earlier in the week, the party finds these attacks from church leaders very useful at the moment as it feeds into the Opposition narrative about government failure. But how will Labour deal with food banks if it is elected into government in 2015?

Isabel Hardman

He said ‘yes’! Farage agrees to debate Clegg on EU

He asked… and Nigel said yes. The Ukip leader and his party colleagues had whipped Westminster into a state of great suspense in the 24 hours between Nick Clegg's phone-in on LBC and Nigel Farage's own appearance on the station. And Farage took his time to say 'yes' to the Lib Dem leader's challenge to a live debate on the EU ahead of the European elections. He said: 'I nearly choked on my bacon roll when I heard Nick Clegg say he wanted to have a debate about the big European question because this was the guy three years ago advocating an in/out referendum who now says there shouldn’t be a referendum, but now wants a debate so he’s all over the place.

Thursday

James Forsyth

Nick Clegg to challenge Nigel Farage to a head to head debate on Britain’s EU membership

I understand that Nick Clegg is to challenge Nigel Farage to a debate on Britain’s EU membership ahead of the European Elections this May. The Liberal Democrat leader will issue this challenge imminently. Clegg’s decision to challenge Farage to a debate is all part of his party’s effort to try and turn the European Elections into a contest between the Liberal Democrats, championing In, and Ukip, who are for out. Those close to Clegg hope that a head to head debate between these two will highlight this contrast. They alos expect that it will put pressure on the Tories and Labour to be clearer about where they stand on the European Question. Nigel Farage has little choice but to accept Clegg’s challenge.

Wednesday

Ruth Porter

The Church should be employing its moral outrage to greater effect

Part of the role of the Church is to give the poorest in society a voice. It should be front and centre of the public debate about welfare reform, but the most recent intervention by Archbishop Nichols seems directed at the wrong target. The current disincentive for work in the welfare system is indefensible. It is telling that no voice has been heard in the debate on any side suggesting that it is a good idea to have a situation where people can earn more than the average wage on benefits or that moving to Universal Credit (a simpler system with a reduced disincentive to work) isn’t, at least in theory, a positive step. Welfare spending in the UK is now up around 40% of government spending (depending on what you include in the measure - this includes health).

Isabel Hardman

David Cameron warns Ukraine’s president: the world is watching

As violence flared up again in Kiev this afternoon, and EU leaders threatened to impose sanctions on those responsible for the violence in Ukraine, David Cameron issued this statement: 'I am deeply concerned by the scenes we are witnessing in Ukraine. The violence on all sides is completely unacceptable and President Yanukovych has a particular responsibility to pull back government forces and de-escalate the situation. 'Violence is not the way to resolve the political differences across the country. The President needs to engage with the opposition and work with all sides in Ukraine to agree political reforms that reflect the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people. There must be a clear commitment to the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights and civil freedoms.

Isabel Hardman

Why bishops are useful for the Left – for now

Even though, as I said earlier, it makes sense for David Cameron to come out fighting in favour of his party's welfare reforms after they were slammed by the Archbishop of Westminster, there's a point worth considering about how useful these criticisms from leading lights both in the Catholic Church and Church of England are for the Left. Nichols has since said that the government's cuts and reforms are 'perfectly understandable', but that 'what is beyond my understanding is why a programme of reform needs to result in people who, when they are given some food, burst into tears because they haven't eaten in three days'. This is precisely the stance that the Left has taken on welfare reform.