Uk politics

Will CCHQ impose an all women shortlist in East Surrey?

From our UK edition

East Surrey will be the first seat where Tory central office gets to impose a shortlist of three candidates on a local association. Peter Ainsworth, its MP, has today announced that he is stepping down and because he has waited until the New Year to make this announcement CCHQ’s emergency candidate selection rules now apply. The first thing to watch for is whether the Tories go for an all women shortlist. When Cameron said in October that the party would have some “all-women shortlists to help us boost the number of Conservative women MPs” there was a furious reaction from some sections of the grassroots. There was even talk of setting up a legal fighting fund to challenge the decision.

War of attrition may prove to be Labour’s downfall

From our UK edition

The party that nearly bankrupted Britain has bankrupt itself. The Times reports that, once again, Labour’s coffers are bare and that the party is technically insolvent. David Blunkett, chairman of Labour’s election development board, is unequivocal that Labour cannot withstand an interminable election campaign, which is precisely why the stinking rich Tories have opened one. The money men have backed the Tories, which in itself is significant as money invariably gravitates to the coming power and vice versa. Historians of New Labour’s spectacular demise will argue that it was not the recession but the cash for peerages scandal that demolished the party’s electoral supremacy, forcing it back into the arms of the unions.

Clegg keeps them guessing

From our UK edition

Yesterday was all Labour, Tories, Labour, Tories.  So, today, enter the Lib Dems.  Nick Clegg has an article in this morning's Times which, to be fair, is actually quite noteworthy.  His main point?  That the Lib Dems are a party in their own right, and will not be engaging in "under-the-counter deals" with the Big Two: "This year’s general election is likely to be the most open and unpredictable in a generation. So you have a right to know where we stand. I can promise voters wondering whether to put an “X” against the Liberal Democrats that there are no backroom deals or under-the-counter “understandings” with either of the other two parties." You can see why Clegg is broadcasting this message.

The opening day of the long election campaign is a score draw in terms of media coverage but the big development is that Labour has lost one of its main tax dividing lines

From our UK edition

During an election campaign, the press like to obsess about who won the day. Up until 3pm, the consensus was that the Tories had. The media was pointing out just how absurd it was for Labour to criticise another party for having black holes in its fiscal plans. But then came David Cameron’s marriage gaffe which has evened up the coverage on the evening news broadcasts with the Six o’clock news going particularly hard on the issue. Cameron’s credibility is central to the Tory campaign so anything that depletes that is bad news for them. But in the long term, I think the most significant development today is one that is not getting much coverage on the TV news: Darling’s refusal to commit to not raising VAT.

Why the Tories started with health

From our UK edition

The Tories today rolled out the first section of their manifesto this morning, the chapter on health. The reason the Tories started with their plans for the NHS, as they did when setting out their priorities for government last autumn, is quite simple: the leadership thinks that every time Cameron talks about health the party goes up in the polls. Certainly, one of the achievements of Cameron’s leadership has been to cancel out Labour’s traditional advantage on the question of who is most trusted on the NHS; Labour’s lead on this question has been a statistically insignificant one percent in the last two polls on the subject according to Anthony Wells of the indispensable UK Polling Report.

The Tories accuse Labour of telling “lies”

From our UK edition

The Toryies are busy rebutting Labour’s claim that there is a £34bn black hole in their tax and spending plans. The most striking thing is how strong the language Conservative sources are using is, Labour's document was described to me as ‘a “dodgy dossier” full of lies’. It is quite remarkable that Labour has the gall to criticise the other side for unfunded spending pledges and the headline Tory objections are fair enough. The document says the Tories would let married couples transfer their tax allowances, when they haven’t committed to that. It also claims that the Tories are pledged to abolishing the 50p rate before the end of the parliament which the Tories are not.

Two new Tory health policies

From our UK edition

Localism and results-based healthcare are central to the Tories’ NHS reform measures. They plan to arrest the widening gap between the life expectancy of rich and poor by introducing a Health Premium, a new policy, to direct funds to the poorest communities. The second new initiative is the creation of ‘maternity networks’, which will link hospitals, doctors, charities, volunteers and consultants, replacing top-down management with co-operation in a bid to widen expertis, improve services and lower costs. This reflects the belief that local solutions can have national benefits and concurs with the broader aspects of Tory policy regarding the state and welfare provision.

The shape of things to come | 4 January 2010

From our UK edition

Today is a taste of how politics is going to be until the election: competing Labour and Tory events, claim and counter claim. Alistair Darling kicked off proceedings with an event setting out the supposed £34 billion black hole in the Tory’s plans for the public finances. This took some chutzpah considering how vague Labour’s own spending plans are, there are currently no departmental budgets, and how big the balck hole in Labour’s plans is, remember how Brown implied on Marr yesterday that tax rises on the rich, the National Insurance hike and lower than expected unemployment would be able to take most of the strain of halving the £178bn deficit. Judging from the questions at the Darling event, the press aren’t buying Labour’s line.

Endangering impartiality

From our UK edition

Labour’s rapid rebuttal service will respond to the Tories’ policy blitz by questioning George Osborne’s spending pledges, of which more later. No objection can be raised against this action except that the government enlisted the Treasury to deliver very detailed costings under the Freedom of Information Act. The Times reports that the Tories are understandably livid: impartiality has been compromised. A spokesman said: “We are concerned at any collusion and abuse of the FOI system which has involved ministers requesting costings of what are complete misrepresentations of Conservative policies, which were subsequently released.

Tories struggling to find a line on tax

From our UK edition

After the platitudes in David Cameron's speech yesterday, comes the bluntness of Ken Clarke in today's Sunday Telegraph.  Interviewed by the paper, the shadow business secretary says that it would be a "folly" to rule out tax rises: "It is something that every Conservative tries to avoid but I didn't avoid it when I was getting us out of recession before. Coming out of a recession when you have such a severe deficit you can't rule out putting up taxes." He's right, of course.  The mammoth size of the deficit, and the lag before many spending reductions take effect, will mean that the Tories shouldn't rule out tax rises.  More than that, in fact: they'll certainly have to introduce them.  As we already know, plans are afoot to increase VAT to at least 20 percent.

Don’t take the voters for fools, Mr Cameron

From our UK edition

David Cameron can give rousing, mature, insightful speeches. Yesterday’s was not one of them. It used the word ‘hope’ 7 times and ‘change’ 27 times and that, I suspect, was its entire purpose - because there was precious little content in it otherwise. In the News of the World today, I describe the speech as vapid nonsense. Here’s ten extracts which show why. 1. “It’s because we are progressives that we will protect the NHS…We recognise its special place in our society so we will not cut the NHS; we will improve it for everyone.” Come again? Refusing to cut the NHS reflects its ‘special place’? Herewith the poisoned logic of Brown: that love means never having to say ‘cut’.

Tensions in the Cameron circle over election strategy

From our UK edition

There is a fascinating glimpse at the tensions inside the top echelons of the Conservative party in The Times today. Francis Elliott reports that Steve Hilton is trying to veto the appointment of James O’Shaugnessy, head of policy for the party, as head of the Downing Street policy unit should the Tories win the election. Francis writes that tensions between Hilton and O’Shaugnessy have been exacerbated by disputes about what should go in the initial slice of the Tory manifesto which will be published on Monday. O’Shaugnessy is one of politics' nice guys. But he has been the focus of negative briefing in recent months. Back in early September, I was told that Hilton was casting around for other candidates for the job in government.

Brown’s troubles are returning at just the right time for Cameron & Co.

From our UK edition

First she loved him.  Then she hated him.  Then she seemed lukewarm towards him.  And, today, she's gone back to hating him more than ever.  Yes, Polly Toynbee's latest column is another marker stone in her oscillating relationship with Gordon Brown, and it doesn't contain any minced words: "Cancel new year, put back the clocks and forget the fireworks. There is nothing to celebrate in the dismal year ahead. The Labour party is sledging down a black run, eyes tight shut, the only certainty the electoral wall at the bottom of the hill. In five months David Cameron will be prime minister and Gordon Brown will be toast. Remember him? The man who crashed his party. Remember them? The death-wish brigade that let him do it.

By marginalising Mandelson, Labour has put itself in a half-Nelson

From our UK edition

The Dark Lord’s grip is weakening. Lord Mandelson’s waning status dominated headlines in the prelude to Christmas, and today the Telegraph reports that Harriet Harman, and not Mandelson, will lead Labour’s election battle. Mandelson’s marginalisation is understandable. He has been the government’s fire-fighter, deployed to defend the indefensible and bamboozle voters with a fantasia of figures and the demeanour of the Widow Twankee. As the narrative of recession cedes to that of recovery and the election nears, Labour requires a different style of communicator. Labour considers Harman to be that person, and hope that she will connect with women and middle England.

Thinking the unthinkable

From our UK edition

Woah, hang on there. A Labour and Conservative coalition in the event of a hung Parliament? Crazy talk, surely? But that’s what Martin Kettle devotes his column to in today's Guardian. It’s only unthinkable, he writes, “until you start thinking about it.” Hm. So rather than dismissing the prospect out of hand, I thought I’d register one particular complaint against it. While many of Kettle’s arguments about the fracturing of the party system and the blurring lines between the main parties make sense, the idea that they might coalesce in the aftermath of this year’s election ignores one crucial factor: the Labour leadership.

Dealing with China in 2010

From our UK edition

The execution of Akmal Shaikh has brought China to our frontpages, and to the forefront of diplomatic thinking, as the New Year begins. The question is not just how to respond to this single and, in many regards, sad event – but how to deal with growing Chinese power more generally. How will we shape our relations with China for this decade and beyond? It would obviously be wrong to end all UK-China links over Akmal Shaikh’s execution. The Labour government's use of pique as a guiding principle of foreign policy had little effect on Russia and will not move China. Nor should anger over the excecution – however righteous or justified – occlude Britain's real interests in cordial Sino-Anglo relations.

The year in cuts

From our UK edition

As we’re still in that period of the year for looking back as well as forward, I thought I’d share with CoffeeHousers a political timeline I put together. It’s not everything which happened in the political year, mind – but rather the important events in the debate over spending cuts. This debate has, at very least, been in the background to almost every political discussion in 2009, and it will dominate the years ahead – so this kind of exercise probably has some posterity value. But, aside from that, you can also draw a couple of conclusions from the timeline (and I do so below).

Ministers should always be ultimately accountable

From our UK edition

Bob Ainsworth’s response to the Nimrod inquiry features one extraordinary omission: ministers do not appear to be directly accountable in the event of another tragedy. The reforms establish the MAA, the military aviation authority, which is independent from the MoD, but will not have responsibility for releasing aircraft to service – assistant chiefs of staff have that responsibility - however there the buck apparently stops. Here is the relevant section in Hansard:   ‘The single service chiefs of staff must retain responsibility for determining that our aircraft can be safely released into service. The MAA will provide full assurance, but it will not carry out this release-to-service role directly.

What a difference two years makes

From our UK edition

“Did he know who you were? I mean, not to be disrespectful, but he has been away for two and a half years...” So Five Live’s Phil Wiliams asked David Miliband who was talking about his conversation with Peter Moore who has just been released from Iraqi captivity. Brilliant image. The guy gets out of prison, then there’s a call from this nerdy Blairite bag carrier claiming to be foreign secretary. Yegawds, he’d say, what’s happened? Worse, Gordon Brown had become Prime Minister and irreparably trashed the British economy in the space of 24 months. Britain has now joined Zimbabwe in printing money to fund state spending. At the end of the interview, Williams asked Milliband if Moore was coming back to the UK immediately – it seems not.