Uk politics

Another sign of coalition splits over Europe

From our UK edition

Coalition tensions over Europe are again threatening to be the story this morning. Nick Clegg has told The Guardian's Patrick Wintour that Britain has 'signalled we are happy for them [the Eurozone plus group of countries] to use EU institutions' to enforce any new treaty they agree between themselves. This is a striking claim given that David Cameron has not publicly said that he would accept this. If the Deputy Prime Minister's summary of the coalition position is accurate, then Cameron will face criticism from eurosceptics that he is backsliding on his veto. But for all Clegg's criticism of Cameron handling off the summit, he remains unconvinced by the plans that the eurozone plus countries are now pursuing.

Clegg rebukes French PM

From our UK edition

Normally, 'read-outs' on telephone calls between members of the British government and their counterparts overseas are fairly bland affairs. But today's one on a conversation between Nick Clegg and the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon is an exception to this rule. Clegg, we are told, informed the French PM that 'that recent remarks from members of the French Government about the UK economy were simply unacceptable and that steps should be taken to calm the rhetoric.' To be sure, there is some more diplomatic language before and after this (the full text is at the bottom of this post) but the willingness of the deputy Prime Minister to be quite so sharp with the French is striking especially given the tensions in the coalition over Europe policy these past seven days.

Miliband is trapped in his own foggy argument

From our UK edition

With one well-timed jab in PMQs, David Cameron turned much of this week's political debate – in domestic terms, at least – into a debate about Ed Miliband's leadership. And how is Miliband responding? Predictably, for the most part. His celebratory speech in Feltham and Heston this morning reduced down to the claim that the result 'offers a verdict on the Government's failed economic plan'. And his interview in today's FT covers much of the same territory. But the FT interview is also revealing in one particular regard: it demonstrates, once again, how Miliband is caught in a strange, undefinable strategy somewhere between attack and defence. This was, if you remember, a feature of his first speech as Labour leader – and here it crops up again.

Clegg tries to rebuild EU bridges

From our UK edition

What are the Lib Dems up to? On Tuesday, Clegg, Cable, Alexander, Huhne and Laws met with 'Business for New Europe', a group of pro-European business leaders, in what the FT describes as as 'a very public display of engagement with business over Europe' and the front page of today's Mail calls 'plotting to rally business chiefs against Cameron over Europe'. It is, of course, not surprising to see senior Liberal Democrats talking to pro-EU business people and advocating more engagement with Europe. But it does highlight what will be a key goal of the Lib Dem leadership over the next few months: building bridges with Europe, particularly to reconnect with traditional, europhile Lib Dem supporters following the PM's veto last week.

A victory for Labour, but not necessarily for Ed Miliband

From our UK edition

‘This result... is a victory for Labour that shows the progress we are making under Ed Miliband's leadership; a vote of confidence in the way that Labour is changing...’ Or, rather, it isn't. Whatever Labour's winning candidate in Feltham and Heston, Seema Malhotra, says, this byelection result was little more than an unsurprising Labour victory in a Labour area. The opinion polls, as we know, show more comprehensively what people think of the ‘progress’ that Labour is making under Ed Miliband's leadership. And it's far from a vote of confidence. Which isn't to say that Malhotra underperformed in her byelection victory, last night. Not at all. Labour actually increased their share of the vote — from 43.

The veto arguments rumble on

From our UK edition

The Times has a very interesting story (£) today on page 17. It claims that David Cameron had agreed to inform Nick Clegg if it appeared that Britain was going to be isolated at last week’s European Council. The significance of this is that it suggests that the Lib Dems believed they would be consulted before the government vetoed anything. This news emerges after senior Liberal Democrats have privately questioned why their leader did not insist that Cameron only use the veto once he had Clegg’s explicit agreement. The Times also reports that this negotiating protocol did not envisage a situation where Britain was left in a minority of only a couple of countries.

Nick Clegg’s Christmas recipe

From our UK edition

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.

The Climate Change Committee’s suspiciously opaque report

From our UK edition

The Climate Change Committee, a quango set up to advise the Government on its emissions targets, make a big claim in their report today. They have, they suggest, disproved the argument that climate policy is set to drive substantial increases in energy bills by 2020. They say that ‘policies to achieve a low-carbon economy will add a further £110 to bills in 2020, almost entirely due to support for investments in low-carbon power generation’, less than other estimates. And so the Guardian have used that as a pretext to let climate attack dog Bob Ward accuse the TaxPayers’ Alliance and Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation of an attempt to ‘confuse and misinform the public with blatantly inflated figures’.

Who’s right on public v private employment?

From our UK edition

If you listened to PMQs yesterday, then you'll have heard two very different accounts of what's happening in the labour market right now. Had Ed Miliband been able to get anyone's attention, they'd have heard him say: 'over the last three months, for every job being created in the private sector, thirteen are being lost in the public sector.' Cameron's response: 'Since the election, in the private sector there have been 581,000 extra jobs. In the public sector, he's right, we have lost 336,000 jobs.' According to the Labour leader's figures, public sector losses are far greater than private sector growth. But according to Cameron's, the private sector is more than filling the gap. Why the difference? It comes down to the timescale you chose.

The growth script still needs writing

From our UK edition

The Times is being a bit harsh on Cameron in its leader this morning. 'On the economy', it says, 'Cameron has contracted out policy to George Osborne and then followed the usual (although not invariable) practice of postwar prime ministers of supporting his Chancellor's decisions. But he has not added to this a convincing contribution of his own.' Yes, Cameron has not done very well articulating his government's growth policy. I've also noticed that he is not much good at describing the Loch Ness Monster and for the same reason. Unconfirmed rumours of its existence whirl around now and again. Grainy photos of something supposed to be a UK growth agenda surface. But when expeditions are sent out to prove its existence, they invariably fail.

Cameron targets his resources at problem families

From our UK edition

The Prime Minister's message today is, basically, that he hasn't forgotten about the riots. In a speech this morning, he's going to announce his biggest new policy in response to them so far: a network of 'troubleshooters' who will work with 120,000 of the country's most unstable families, with the aim, of course, of stabilising them. The idea is that the troubleshooters can help coordinate various services — from police to Job Centres –— to focus on these people. According to the Sun, the families will, in turn, face 'tough penalties' if they don't cooperate. Some of you may be wary of this scheme — and it's easy to see why. I mean, yet more local authority lackeys swarming through the streets?

Cameron’s warning to his applauding backbenchers

From our UK edition

David Cameron was greeted with a full-on, desk banging reception at the 1922 Committee. The applause only stopped when the chief whip told the assembled backbenchers to sit down. The Prime Minister’s message was that the next year is going to be even tougher than the 1979-81 period. He argued that the government needed to be even bolder to show that it wasn’t just a technocratic government but one motivated by a desire to help families who do the right thing, but sadly no MP pressed him on how that fitted with the coalition decision to increase out of work benefits by more than 5 per cent. One other interesting thing was that Cameron stressed to his party that they had to reach 2015 with the coalition in good order.

Miliband crumples to a new low in PMQs

From our UK edition

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.

Cameron pummels Miliband in PMQs

From our UK edition

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.

Clegg in the spotlight

From our UK edition

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.

Lansley stakes his claim on the post-2015 budget

From our UK edition

Look slightly to the left, CoffeeHousers, and what you'll see is the cover image to this week's Christmas double issue of The Spectator — a brilliant send-up of Bruegel's ‘The Hunters in the Snow’ by Peter Brookes. You're now able to buy your own copy, but we thought we'd pull out an intriguing little snippet from James Forsyth's interview with Andrew Lansley, by way of a taster. The Health Secretary, it seems, isn't just determined to see health spending rise in real terms in this parliament, but beyond that too: ‘I ask him whether, despite the ramifications of the autumn statement, the NHS budget will still be immune from cuts.

Who will say sorry to Rupert?

From our UK edition

Welcome to the world of journalism, Nick Davies. So the cops in Surrey told you the story was true — or so you claim. The cops at the Yard told you it was true — or so you claim. Every aching bone in your reporter’s anti-Murdoch body told you it was true. But there was a problem — as we all now know today. The Milly Dowler story that led The Guardian on that fateful day back in July was untrue: there is no evidence to show that the News of the World deleted Milly's voicemails. So what price has Nick Davies paid since he tried to slip his deliberately unintelligible apology into Page 10 of The Guardian on Saturday? None at all. Not suspended. Not sacked. What price has Alan Rusbridger, the paper’s ho-hum £500,000-a-year Editor paid?