Uk politics

Saturday

James Forsyth

Will the coalition go nuclear on the enemies of enterprise?

Iain Martin has a great story in his column today about how the coalition is so frustrated with the civil service that it is considering sacking a bunch of permanent secretaries and replacing them with outsiders. This move would take the coalition’s battles with the civil service onto a whole new plane. Talking to ministers both in this government and the last one and many civil servants, there’s no doubt that large chunks of the civil service are no longer fit for purpose.  But I’d be surprised, and impressed, if the coalition did follow through with this plan. Open warfare with the people who know where all the secrets are hid is not an appealing prospect for any government.

David Blackburn

Cheap slogans and funding scandals

This week, Bagehot has devoted his column in the Economist to a popular theme: the 'shockingly low quality of the national campaigns' in the AV referendum, typified perhaps by the Yes campaign's latest funding scandal and the No poster pictured above. Bagehot writes: 'I came away from a whistle-stop tour of the country pretty impressed by the diligence of local activists, as they try to explain the intricacies of the alternative vote (AV) to members of the public. The national Yes and No campaigns are a different matter, I argue: they have blown a chance to have a proper debate about the nature of British democracy.

Fraser Nelson

Andrew Sentance: interest rates must rise

Inflation - the cost of living - is the number one issue in Britain today. It is under-discussed in the House of Commons as MPs have no say in it: the task of controlling inflation lies with Mervyn King and his nine-strong Monetary Policy Committee, and its members are rarely interviewed. Little wonder, as a lot of them should be feeling fairly sheepish. But not Andrew Sentance. He's been arguing for a rate rise for months, and doesn't have long left to serve on the MPC, so he can speak quite freely. Inflation has been above target almost all the time he's been on the MPC, he says, so in what way can it be described as a blip?

David Blackburn

Soft on crime, me?

The name ‘Ken Clarke’ and the word ‘sacking’ are inseparable to the chattering classes at the moment, but so was it ever thus. There are signs though that the normally insouciant Clarke has been shaken on this occasion. He has given an interview in defence of his contentious prison reforms to the Times this morning (£). In a clear message to concerned voters, Tory backbenchers and sceptical government colleagues, he denies that he is ‘soft on crime’. For example, he will tighten community sentences: “I want them to be more punitive, effective and organised. Unpaid work should require offenders to work at a proper pace in a disciplined manner rather than youths just hanging around doing odd bits tidying up derelict sites.

Friday

James Forsyth

Balls in fiscal isolation

Ed Balls has long said that America is the right comparison for Britain when it comes to how to deal with the deficit, contrasting the Obama administration’s fiscally loose policies with Osborne’s plan for fiscal tightening. This comparison has always been flawed; the dollar is the world’s reverse currency which gives Washington far more fiscal flexibility than HMG. But, even leaving that aside, the Obama administration is now — albeit under Congressional pressure — about to start cutting.   By 2015, Obama’s plan will have reduced the US deficit by 8 percent of GDP. Osborne’s plan sees Britain reduces its deficit by 8.4 percent by 2015. Indeed, from next year the US will be tightening at a faster annual rate than Britain.

Fraser Nelson

How the banks were framed

A week that started with the Vickers review on banking has closed without another national explosion of banker-bashing. Thank God. Beating up on the banks has lasted almost three years now, and it’s blinding us to the real causes of the financial crisis. The banks are the perfect alibi: blaming them gets everyone off the hook. How, asks Gordon Brown, was a mere Prime Minister to know that banks were doing such fiendishly complicated things? How, asks George Osborne, was an opposition expected to detect what the government could not? How, asks Mervyn King, was the Bank of England governor supposed to know that these bankers had been so wicked? For all of them, the bankers have been the perfect scapegoat.

James Forsyth

The government should recall parliament

Today’s declaration (£) by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy that Nato’s operation in Libya will continue until Gaddafi leaves power marks a shift in their rhetoric and makes explicit that regime change is the war aim. This has led to calls to recall parliament, most notably from David Davis on the World at One, to debate this change. Parliament merely voted to enforce the UN resolution which was not a mandate for regime change. The government would be well advised to heed these requests. It would be the best way of maintaining the necessary political support for the mission. Now that regime change is the explicit war aim, the allies must will the means. To do otherwise, would simply guarantee a humiliating and debilitating stalemate.

David Blackburn

Charting Labour’s future

The Labour Party is still ambling in the wilderness – sure of its destination, but uncertain of the route. Its response to last year’s general election defeat has been silence, publicly at least. In the privacy of debating chambers however, the party is charting its potential renewal. These circles murmur that ‘the state has reached its limits’; or, in other words, that Fabianism, the dominant force in the post-war Labour movement, has been tested to destruction.

David Blackburn

Oh what a lovely war

The triumvirate of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have presented a united front to NATO and the Arab League and said there will be no respite in Libya. Writing to the Times (£), they say: ‘Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.’ They also add that to leave Gaddafi in power would be an ‘unconscionable betrayal’, a marked shift in emphasis. It’s rousing stuff, designed to twist reluctant arms at the NATO summit in Berlin.

Thursday

James Forsyth

The coalition can’t go on together with suspicious minds

Vince Cable’s attack on the PM’s speech today is just the latest elbow to be thrown in what has been a fractious few weeks for the coalition. The immediate cause of these rows has been the need for the Lib Dems to assert their distinctiveness before the May elections and tensions over the AV referendum. The Lib Dems, who feel that their leader is being ‘swiftboated’ by the Tory-funded No campaign, have been increasingly assertive in the last month or so. But there are dangers to this strategy. For one thing, it has eroded trust within the coalition. Ministers are now not being frank with each other because they don't want what they say in private, turning up in the papers.

David Blackburn

Pickles’ many enemies

Eric Pickles was on Newsnight last night, in what looked suspiciously like an attempted ambush. Pickles repelled boarders, illustrating why he is one of the government's star performers. He was clear, answered questions directly and has total mastery of his brief. However, the clip gives a sense of the manifold political forces arraigned against Pickles: from Neolithic obscurantists to crazed localists to wary conservatives. The Communities Secretary needs all of his renowned pugilism to overcome these very diverse foes, but some of his supporters in town halls doubt he can last the course, such is the weight of opposition. Anyway, Pickles arrives on the scene at 8:40, after Iain Watson's excellent report.

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s other speech

There is no rest for the Prime Minster. After delivering his speech on immigration in Romsey this morning, there was another to deliver, 62 miles away in Woking, this afternoon. This second CamSpeech of the day was billed as a scene-setter for the local elections — and so it proved. Rather than dwelling on a single policy area, the main purpose was to rattle through 101 reasons to vote Tory on 5 May. If there is anything to be taken from the text, it is just how upfront and unapologetic it is. There is little room for nuance, but plenty of room for sweeping, and forceful attacks, on Labour. This passage stood out: "I think we should remember how far we’ve come.

David Blackburn

Cameron can make common cause to solve Europe’s immigration concerns

Vince, it seems, is Vince. But Britain is not alone in struggling to arrest immigration. A mass of displaced North Africans is descending on Malta and Italy. The United Nations estimate that more than 20,000 people have already landed this year and many more expected. Neither Malta nor Italy can cope alone. On Monday, Malta called for the EU to invoke a 2001 directive that grants migrants temporary protection in cases of ‘mass influx’. Italy also petitioned Brussels to spread the physical burden. The EU did not acquiesce in either case, which especially outraged the Italian government: both Berlusconi and immigration minister Maroni said that the European Union stands and falls together, and they threatened to withdraw.

Peter Hoskin

Brown to the IMF? Not with CoffeeHousers’ blessings…

What to do when you've already saved the world? Save it all over again, judging by Gordon Brown's latest reported manoeuvrings. Today's Mail claims that our former PM is "clear favourite" to be succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the International Monetary Fund. Although, as the paper says, it's likely that the Coalition would operate against any such appointment. To remind the suits what they might be imposing on themselves, I thought I'd return to this post that we put up on Monday. It asked CoffeeHousers what Brown's biggest mistake in government was. And we received more than enough responses to vote on a Top Ten, as below. We'll keep the vote open until 1700 tomorrow, at which point we'll announce the results. In the meantime, just get clicking and commenting.

James Forsyth

Pickles takes it to the Lib Dems

Vince Cable’s remarkable criticisms of David Cameron’s speech on immigration are dominating the news. But in the papers today there’s a development in another intra-coalition dispute, Eric Pickles hitting back at all the Lib Dem talk of higher property taxes. The Telegraph reports on figures released by Eric Pickles’ department which show that prosperous areas pay far more in council tax than they receive back in services. His point is that the council tax burden already falls disproportionately on the well off and so layering another band on top or doing a revaluation that would push houses into higher band would be unfair. Pickles’ reading of the politics of this is acute.

Peter Hoskin

Cable lashes out at Cameron

I wrote earlier that the immigration debate can bite back — and it's already done just that. Speaking this morning, Vince Cable has labeled the Prime Minister's speech as "very unwise," and at risk of "inflaming extremism." That, lest it need saying, is the same Vince Cable who's a member of Cameron's government. In theoretical terms, what this clarifies is the parameters of the Coalition Agreement. While almost every policy that Cameron highlights in his speech is part of that document, it seems that the Lib Dems don't have to agree with the way he sells them. The point is being made, this morning, that the idea of reducing net migration to its 1980s levels is very much, and very specifically, a Tory ambition.

Peter Hoskin

Nothing new, but much to ponder, in Cameron’s immigration speech

There is, really, little that is new in David Cameron's speech on immigration today. Besides one or two grace notes, almost all of its policy suggestions appeared in the Coalition Agreement: you know, all the stuff about a cap on immigration and a Border Police Force. Its rhetoric is strikingly similar to Cameron's last big speech on immigration in October 2007. So if he's not saying anything particularly groundbreaking, what is he saying? With the local elections only three weeks away — and on the back of the Lib Dems' newfound assertiveness — it's hard not to see this as an outreach exercise. This is one for core Tory voters, or perhaps those considering voting Ukip or worse. Which isn't to say that Cameron's speech is a Bad Thing.

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Cameron needs to tread with care

David Cameron’s Oxford gaffe is refusing to die down. Whenever I’ve called Tory MPs or other members of the Conservative family in the last few days, it has been the first subject they have wanted to raise. People are genuinely perplexed — and worried — as to why Cameron said what he said. As Pete pointed out earlier, Bruce Anderson — the commentator who is David Cameron’s longest standing media supporter — warns that the Prime Minister is fuelling fears of government encouraged discrimination against the middle classes. Another long standing Cameroon loyalist said to me earlier, that he now worried that Cameron just felt too guilty about his own upbringing to be an effective PM. I think these fears are, hugely, overblown.

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ middle-class problem?

Back in July 2003, Bruce Anderson wrote a piece on David Cameron for The Spectator. Its tone was summed up by its headline — "My hero" — and that tone has suffused through much of Bruce's writing about the Tory leader since. Which is why his piece for the FT today is striking by virtue of its differentness. Its headline is that, "Cameron is losing touch with core Tories." Its argument is that the Tory party is ignoring the hopes, fears and aspirations of the white middle classes. Admittedly, Bruce doesn't put all this down to Cameron. On his account, there are demographic factors at play — not least that the growth of the middle classes, who are now "more numerous and more prosperous than ever before," has also made them more insecure.

Peter Hoskin

The battle over universal benefits continues on the local front

Here's a question for you: should free school meals (FSM) be given to all pupils, regardless of their parents' income? I ask because this is precisely what the Labour-led council of Southwark is proposing for its primary schools. As the Evening Standard reports, the councilmen’s thinking is that by giving "healthy" FSMs to every pupil, every day, they might help "reduce childhood obesity." Oh, and the measure will cost some £4 million a year. Even if we put aside the question of whether the local praetorians should — or even could — tackle obesity on behalf of middle-class parents, this is still needling stuff.