Uk politics

If four years ago, a Liberal Democrat politician had attempted to portray the Lib Dems as the natural party of government we all would have laughed. But that is just what Danny Alexander tried to do on The Sunday Politics. Being interviewed by Andrew Neil, he implicitly contrasted Lib Dem steadiness with Tory in-fighting. He said: “You know some people at the time in 2010 said that it would be difficult to keep a coalition going because one party might not be able to remain united and disciplined. Let me reassure you and your viewers that Liberal Democrats will make sure that this government continues to be strong and stable enough to be able to take the difficult decisions in the years to come, no matter what’s happening in other parties.

Clearly it is not a good idea for the Prime Minister's chums to call members of the Conservative party "swivel-eyed loons". No, not even at a "private dinner party". I suspect that the identity of the "senior Conservative" who is "socially close" to David Cameron will be out by close of play Sunday and that he - it seems most unlikely it is a she - will, as James says, be removed from whatever position of responsibility he currently enjoys. I also suspect most voters will have no idea who this man is even once his name is revealed. That doesn't matter. Adrian Hilton wrote a good piece at ConservativeHome last year detailing his experiences with falling Tory membership in Beaconsfield.

There's plenty of speculation in Westminster today that Philip Hammond is busy positioning himself as a future leadership contender. Last night he had some pretty strong words about the Government's proposals for same-sex marriage, saying: 'There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage.' Meanwhile the FT identifies him as a reluctant cutter of his own department's spending in its report about George Osborne's £9bn black hole.

If you ask what’s the problem with David Cameron’s European strategy, a cacophony of voices strike up. But it seems to me that most of their complaints are tactical when the fundamental problem is strategic: what does Cameron actually want back from Brussels? Some of those involved in preparation for the renegotiation tell me that this is the wrong question to ask, that what Cameron is seeking is a systemic change in the way the European Union works. But I’m still unclear on what their strategy for achieving this is. One insider tells me that inside Number 10 they’re ‘terrified of detail’. One can see why. Nearly all Tory MPs can get behind renegotiation but they have very different views on how extensive it should be.

So 130 MPs have backed the Baron/Bone amendment to the Queen's Speech. There will be Labour and other parties in this group, but reasonable estimates suggest that 100 Tories went through the 'aye' lobbies. This isn't a rebellion, because the whips have given backbenchers and PPSs a free vote, and to that extent things could have been worse because there were no aggressive resignation speeches. But it is the strongest expression of euroscepticism since the Coalition formed. Spinners will try to argue that as this was a 'relaxed' free vote, 100 Tory MPs regretting the absence of a bill in the Queen's Speech isn't a bad thing for the leadership. This might have had more currency if the party hadn't decided to rush out a draft bill at the last minute.