Uk politics

Thursday

James Forsyth

Cameron needs a proper party chairman

Normally, when a Tory government is in trouble, the party chairman is sent out to put themselves between the bad story and the Prime Minister. But Baroness Warsi and Lord Feldman have been noticeable by their absence in the past few days. As Paul Goodman points out, it has been Michael Fallon — not either of the chairman — who has been touring the broadcast studios trying to hose down this story. This whole episode has been yet another reminder of why Cameron needs a proper party chairman. The party chairman needs to be solid under fire, a good media performer and, for reasons that Tim Shipman explains, an MP.

Toby Young

The new generation of Tory rebels

There’s a new member of The Spectator family, and she’s called Spectator Life. This is our new quarterly magazine focusing all the more civilised aspects of life — the arts, culture, travel, etc — and it comes bundled in, for free, with the main magazine. The first issue is available on newsstands this week, but, so you can try before you buy, here is one of its more political articles: an overview of the new generation of Tory rebels, by Toby Young. The Unwhippables, Toby Young, Spectator Life, Spring 2012 On the night of the great Tory rebellion over Europe, David Cameron had good reason to think that Zac Goldsmith

James Forsyth

Davis takes the opportunity to strike

The fuel tanker strike is fast turning into a critical moment. The government, which has surprisingly few friends in the media, desperately needs something to move the story on from pasties and the politics of class. Cameron, also, has problems with his own side. On the World at One today David Davis, deliberately, hit Cameron where it hurts. He accused the Cabinet of looking like “they’re in a completely different world”. One thing that the post-Budget opinion polls have shown is just how shallow support for the coalition is: there’s still no sense of who Cameron’s people are. But I suspect that if this strike is beaten, then the Tories

Peter Hoskin

Choice — easy to talk about, a slog to deliver

The birth of the White Paper on public service reform was a tortuous business — but, now it’s been out for several months, the government is keen to make the most of it. David Cameron is launching an ‘updated’ version today, with a few new proposals contained therein. He also has an article in the Telegraph outlining those ideas, including the one that seems to be getting the most attention: draft legislation to give people a ‘right to choose’ their public services. It feels like both an important and potentially inconsequential moment all at once. Enshrining choice in the laws of this land is a powerful symbol that people shouldn’t

Peter Hoskin

Fuel for the political bonfire

Pasties and jerry cans — who’d have thought that yesterday’s politics would descend into a roaring debate about two such innocuous items? And still the hullabaloo goes on. Most of today’s front pages lead with one or both of the stories, although I’d say it’s the jerry cans that win out overall. Thanks to Francis Maude’s suggestion that ‘a bit of extra fuel in a jerry can in the garage is a sensible precaution to take,’ we’re seeing headlines such as ‘Pumps go dry as ministers provoke panic’. As with the pasty row, which James discussed yesterday evening, the political dangers of this stretch far beyond the actual matter at

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The politics of pasties

The row over the so-called pasty tax is a proxy. It is really a row about whether David Cameron and George Osborne get what it is like to worry about the family budget each week.   In truth, I suspect that they don’t. But I think the same probably goes for Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the vast majority of journalists. Most of the politics of class in Westminster, as opposed to the country, is the narcissism of small difference.   The best thing the coalition could do now is hold its nerve. The Budget did reveal that support for it is shallow. But, as one leading pollster said to

Fraser Nelson

Revealed: the grey recovery

Are pensioners doing their bit for the recovery? The agenda of ‘intergenerational fairness’ has arisen in response to the idea that they are not, and ought to be taxed more. Daniel Knowles has made the case, in our cover story this week. Carol Sarler responds to him. In the leader, we reveal some data hitherto undisclosed: the way the oldies are responding to the recession. They’re working as never before — the below graph shows (stripping out foreign-born workers) the change over the past decade: Between 2001 and 2011, all the employment increase for UK-born people was from pension-aged workers, while working-age employment dropped. This challenges the idea of the

Peter Hoskin

Your guide to Osborne’s fiscal rules

George Osborne’s two fiscal rules have been around since his very first Budget, delivered almost two years ago, so they’re hardly news. But they do underpin much of what he’s done since, including last week’s statement, so they’re also worth knowing about. Fraser touched on ome of the detail in a post last weekend, but here’s a supplementary guide for CoffeeHousers: 1) The deficit rule. This is the one that seems to cause the most confusion, perhaps because it has often been simplified — wrongly — as something like ‘eliminate the deficit by the end of this Parliament’. Fact is, the ‘end of this Parliament’ doesn’t come into it. And as for ‘eliminating

Jonathan Jones

A plan that could change the face of future Budgets

‘I’ve never seen a government document with a Laffer curve in it before’, declared Ed Balls last week. Well it looks like he might be seeing a lot more of them, if George Osborne gets his way. Yesterday, as James noted, the Chancellor told the Treasury select committee that: ‘I think the Treasury can now, and I’ve asked this to happen, start undertaking some real research into dynamic scoring, and what the broader economy effects are of changes to taxation’. Now, it’s hard to get all that excited about something with a name like ‘dynamic scoring’. It was never going to make the front pages, especially when there’s a ‘pasty

Matt Cavanagh

Riots report undermines the Tory diagnosis, but spreads itself too thin

After last August’s riots the debate became quickly polarised. Were socio-economic factors like unemployment to blame, or was it all down to the individual choices of the rioters? David Cameron and other Conservative ministers knew which side of this debate they wanted to be on. They had been taken by surprise by the riots, initially failing to realise how serious things were, but when they got back from their holidays they set out a clear and confident line, brushing off most questions about links to the state of the economy or youth attitudes, and condemning the riots as ‘criminality pure and simple’. The soundbite was deliberately simplistic; Conservative ministers’ actual

Tuesday

James Forsyth

Osborne opens the door to dynamic costings

George Osborne’s announcement that the Treasury is going to start looking at the dynamic effect of tax changes is significant. The aim, I understand, is for them to gather data on this which could then be used to work out the costs of various tax and spending changes. This would mean that most tax cuts would, in the Budget Red Book, cost the government less. The decision, though, about what system to use is no longer in the Treasury’s hands. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility now does all forecasts and policy costings so the decision on what model to use ultimately rests with them. Osborne made this announcement in

Richard Marsh

Lansley has won, in a way

At two thirty this afternoon, the Deputy Speaker announced to the House of Commons that the Queen had granted Royal Assent to the Health and Social Care Act. It seemed fitting that the House was debating assisted suicide at the time. The agonies of watching this cursed legislation twitch and stumble its way onto the statute book were enough to make anyone with half a concern for well-ordered public policy start Googling the names of Swiss exit clinics. Albeit there would have been the risk that Number 10 had already paid for Andrew Lansley’s ticket to join you there. Suddenly, though, the politics of health are very different. Mr Lansley,

Jonathan Jones

The government’s keen to avoid the petrol chaos of 2000

So, once again, we face the prospect of disruption at the pumps, as tanker drivers have voted for strike action over their terms of employment. According to the union Unite, their demands are ‘industry minimum standards and industry wide bargaining on pensions, terms and conditions, training and health and safety’. In all, around 2,000 drivers at seven fuel distribution companies voted, with 61 per cent of them in favour. A majority approved strike action at five of the seven firms, while at DHL and Suckling drivers rejected it. The government is, naturally, keen to avoid such a disruptive strike and has been quick to condemn it. Energy Secretary Ed Davey

James Forsyth

Money for Maths

If you get the incentives right, the rest should follow. So Liz Truss’ push for a subject premium should be applauded. If sixth form colleges received more money for pupils studying Maths, it is reasonable to assume that they would encourage more of them to do it. At the moment, colleges receive more money for people doing Media Studies than Maths or English on the grounds that the equipment required to teach the subject makes it more expensive. But, frankly, this is perverse. I expect that nearly every employer, including newspapers, would rather that their employees had Maths A-Level than Media Studies. Truss’ other point is that more money for

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ perception problem

Introducing Ed Miliband, Labour’s best hope since Tony Blair. Oh, I’m kidding, of course — but it’s still striking that, this morning, Labour have their biggest lead in a ComRes poll for seven years. And the size of the lead? Ten points, but it could be even bigger. The Peter Cruddas revelations fell right in the middle of ComRes’s polling. Apparently, those interviews conducted after Sunday had Labour with a 17-point lead. Of course, you can slap every caveat across this that you like: we’re still ages away from the election; one poll does not make a trend; the 17-point figure is based on a subset of a subset of

Monday

Matt Cavanagh

Replacing control orders: an unsatisfactory compromise 

A small silver lining for David Cameron in the ‘cash for access scandal’: on a quieter day, today’s report on the coalition’s replacement of control orders with ‘Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures’ (TPIMs) might have got more attention. The report, published by the Independent Reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, makes for difficult reading for ministers. Before looking at the detail of the report, it is worth remembering that control orders were always a second-best policy. Their origin lies in the dilemma, which no government looks likely to solve any time soon, of what to do with someone whom the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism, but who cannot

James Forsyth

Labour’s baggage stops it from gaining the upper hand

It now seems as if Downing Street is moving towards releasing a list of Chequers guests. This is belated recognition of the fact that their best hope of getting beyond this story is to get everything out there. But as Francis Maude’s feisty performance in the Commons demonstrated, the Tories are not short of mud to throw at Labour. The combination of Labour’s reliance on the Unions and the Ecclestone affair means that it is hard for Labour to get on the front foot. Indeed, Tory sources are claiming that when they approached Labour to see if they would support changes to the Sunday Trading laws for the Olympics, Labour

Sebastian Payne

Transparency isn’t just for scandals…

While the #cashforcameron scandal (as it is being called on Twitter) rumbles on, the calls for state funding of political parties are increasing. But as James said yesterday, and as I argued on Sky News afterwards, this is not the answer — and it seems that the majority of the public agree. Yesterday’s YouGov poll had 59 per cent of its respondents opposing the idea of taxpayers funding political parties. But will transparency work instead? Blowing open the doors on all meetings and donors would certainly help the public see who is donating what and the effect (if any) that money is having on policy — but only if it is

James Forsyth

How will the Lib Dems respond?

The key thing to watch for during Francis Maude’s statement is the Lib Dem reaction. At the moment, the Tories can rebut Labour’s criticisms of them by pointing to both union funding and the Ecclestone affair. But if their coalition partners start turning up the volume on this story, then the Tories are in a far more difficult position. What will drive the Lib Dems is their desire to get a deal on party funding. The Lib Dems are very keen to reduce the advantages that the Torties and Labour have on this front and this scandal presents the perfect opportunity to press for a restrictive cap on donations and