Uk politics

Saturday

James Forsyth

A devastating assessment

This quote from a retired aide to General Petraeus about the British performance in Basra is, as Alex Massie says, devastating: "The British failure in Basra was not due to the conduct of British troops, which was exemplary. It was, rather, a failure by senior British civilian and military leaders to understand the political dynamics ... in Iraq, compounded by arrogance that led to an unwillingness to learn and adapt, along with increasing reluctance to risk blood and treasure to conduct effective counter-insurgency warfare... ...British commanders attempted to cut deals with local Shia leaders to maintain the peace in southern Iraq, an accommodation that was doomed to failure since the British negotiated from a position of weakness.

Peter Hoskin

Darling lays down the spending gauntlet – but will it be flung back in his face?

So here it is.  After rumblings that Brown is prepared to set out spending cuts - rather than hiding them away in he small print of the Budget - Alastair Darling confirms the new strategy in an interview with the Times.  He doesn't actually use the word "cuts", but it amounts to that: "'As there is less uncertainty you can decide what your priorities are,' he said. 'This doesn’t mean you are going into some sort of Dark Age but we will have to decide, given what’s happened to the economy, how much we think we can afford to spend on services, how much we should be devoting to making sure we recover our fiscal position. That’s a judgment that I’m going to have to make at the Pre-Budget Report in the autumn.' ...

Friday

David Blackburn

Brown’s Afghanistan speech was encouraging, but the strategy’s still flawed

Brown’s delivery may have been beyond sepulchral, but the content was encouraging. He laid out how Afghan stability is being bolstered by the increased activity and competence of Afghan security forces, the replacement of the heroin crop with wheat, an intensification of government in rural hinterlands and by arresting urban corruption. At least there now seems to be a degree of co-ordination between coalition and Afghan security operations, civic reconstruction and the administration of government. These are welcome changes but there is still no overarching sense of what the ‘Afghan mission’ hopes to achieve, beyond the dubious contention that it will make the West safer. As a result, a number of the initiatives Brown articulated are ill-focussed or counter-productive.

James Forsyth

Lib Dems moving towards advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan

Nick Clegg’s statement today on Afghanistan strongly suggests to me that by the time of the next election the Lib Dems will be for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Clegg told the BBC that: “I think there’s a tipping point where we have to ask ourselves whether we can do this job properly, and if we can’t do it properly we shouldn’t do it at all. I don’t think we are there yet,” he said. Clegg’s use of the word yet seems to be a definite hint that he is moving towards advocating withdrawal. In crude political terms, this would make a lot of sense for the Lib Dems. It would give them a distinctive policy and allow them to tap into public unease about the war.

David Blackburn

Buckingham Conservative Association Executive Committee stands behind Bercow

Tim Montgomerie reports that a senior source at CCHQ has said that John Bercow will not stand as an official Conservative candidate at the general election, and therefore party members will not be required to vote for him.   So, will they be for or against Bercow? Councillor Netta Glover, the Buckingham Association’s deputy chairman and political officer, told me that the executive committee were “standing firm behind Mr Bercow”, and that Tory party rules stated that “anyone seeking an official nomination against the speaker would be barred by the returning officer” – so de-selection can be discounted.

Peter Hoskin

Obama and Cameron: who thought what about whom?<br />

Remember that New Statesman article about Obama calling Cameron a "lightweight"?  Well, the Journalist Closest to Obama, Richard Wolffe, has a different take.  Here's what he told the Today programme this morning, courtesy of the ever-alert Andrew Sparrow: "He had a strong impression, a strong reaction, to both Cameron and Brown. It was right at the end of his foreign trip. And he was really taken with Cameron. He and his aides thought that he had energy and verve, a dynamism that suggested he was a good candidate – remember this was a candidate at the time, not a president. And there was bonding that took place which you might not expect of two people at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Daniel Korski

Why Britain needs to stay in Afghanistan

With the resignation of Eric Joyce as PPS to the Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the question of why Britain is part of the NATO-led Afghan mission has taken on new force. No doubt the Prime Minister will explain what he sees as the reasons when he speaks at IISS later today. But just because Gordon Brown supports a policy does not make it wrong. Here are the reasons why we should remain engaged: 1. To deny Al Qaeda a safe-haven from which to train and organise attacks on the West. Though terrorism can be organized in Oldham, Hamburg and Marseilles, Al Qaeda still believes it needs safe-havens in places like Afghanistan. 2. To prevent a new generation of terrorists and insurgencies of getting the mother of all propaganda coups by having routed NATO.

Tim Luckhurst

Who really freed Megrahi?

Who really freed the Lockerbie bomber? The question cannot be answered by deliberately looking in the wrong place. And for the fortnight since Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, announced Mr Megrahi’s release that is what journalists have been doing, obsessively. Reporting with the pack mentality that often misdirects them, British newspapers have tried to prove that Gordon Brown authorised the release. Instead they have demonstrated only that the Prime Minister wanted Megrahi to be transferred to Libya under the prisoner transfer scheme, and that he had no power to make it happen. Granted, Mr Brown and the British Cabinet desired a result that would have appalled Americans nearly as much as the actual outcome has. But their view did not prevail.

Peter Hoskin

Discontent is in the air

This morning's political firecracker comes courtesy of Martin Kettle in the Guardian, who claims that a group of Labour figures are moving to oust Brown in October: "An active network of MPs and peers now exists, involving some names you might expect, but also others – including big ones – whose participation would surprise you. This group, like probably the majority of Labour MPs, accepts that Brown is a liability to his party's election prospects. Unlike the majority, though, they claim to think something can be done about it. They believe the window of opportunity, if it comes, will be in the two or three weeks after October 12. If Brown can be pushed, then this is the time. They say they are ready to try.

Thursday

James Forsyth

If Britain hasn’t returned to growth by the end of the year, will it still be ‘no time for a novice’?

Looking at the OECD’s latest economic forecast it seems that the UK—unlike the US and the Euro-Zone--will not return to growth by the end of this year. (Although, one can’t help but wonder if Brown will start heralding zero percent growth in the fourth growth). Indeed, the OECD projects that the UK economy will shrink by 4.7 percent over this year as a whole—although the worst appears to be behind us with the rate of shrinkage slowing since the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.   As Kevin Maguire suggests today, Labour’s election strategy is likely to be that Britain is not out of the woods yet and so it is still no time for a novice.

Peter Hoskin

Getting to grips with spending

This news in today's FT makes you wonder whether we might see some kind of spending review in the next few months, after all: "A massive data collection exercise across many hundreds of public bodies has been ordered by the Treasury to determine expenditure on IT, human resources, finance and procurement, in a bid to wring better value for taxpayers out of the billions of pounds spent. ... All government departments, agencies and hundreds of other public bodies that employ more than 250 people are being asked to provide the data by the end of next month for publication ahead of the autumn pre-Budget report. In time, the data are to be collected each year and will cover the entire public sector.

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s misplaced hope

In his insightful article on Brown and the forthcoming G20 summit, Francis Elliot writes a sentence which should terrify Labour supporters: "[Gordon Brown] has already decided that his only hope of a comeback in the polls lies with the economy." Sure, we all know that Team Brown has been putting a lot of hope in a green shoots strategy.  But, as we've pointed out on Coffee House before, there's little reason to believe that an economic recovery will deliver a significant boost for the Government.  If that's all that the PM has, then his situation is looking more hopeless than ever.

David Blackburn

Farage to stand against Bercow

The Telegraph’s Andrew Porter reports that UKIP leader Nigel Farage will stand against Speaker Bercow in Buckingham at the next election. Farage explained his decisision: “This man represents all that is wrong with British politics today. He was embroiled in the expenses saga and he presides over a Parliament that virtually does nothing.” Farage has more than an outside chance of winning this very safe Tory seat. It’s fair to say that Bercow’s expense claims and his election as Speaker, facilitated almost exclusively by Mr Brown’s MPs, have not endeared him to the party faithful – even Tim Montgomerie confides he’d be tempted to vote UKIP if he were registered in Buckingham.

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Why did the SNP do it?

Looking through correspondence published yesterday, it is clear that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill understood immediately that they would be “left to deal with the consequences” of releasing a convicted mass-murderer. But, after Mr Megrahi had dropped his appeal, and therefore became eligible under the PTA, I can’t comprehend why the Scottish government took it upon itself to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, especially given the identity of the beneficiary of this decision. The 1998 Scotland Act binds Scotland to all UK treaties. Honouring the UK Libya PTA commitment would not have impinged upon the due processes and jurisdiction of Scots law, and would have shifted the public’s ire onto Mr Salmond’s political enemies: the Labour government.

James Forsyth

The government’s handling of the al-Megrahi affair has been colossally incompetent

Once one gets beyond one’s revulsion at the British government using the prospect of the release of a convicted mass murderer to grease the diplomatic skids, one is struck by the government’s incompetence during the Megrahi affair. Megrahi is the only man convicted of a bombing that killed 180 Americans—how did Whitehall think that Washington was going to react to his release? The United States is this county’s most important strategic ally and it seems bizarre to strain relations with it in the hope of improving relations with Libya. The correspondence between the Scottish Executive and the British government strongly suggests that if London had been prepared to offer this advice to Edinburgh, Megrahi would not have been freed.

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s fightback is hampered by the negative stories that hover over him

So Brown has said more about the al-Megrahi case, although he hasn't said anything particularly new.  Speaking at an event to mark the government's new "Backing Young Britain" project, the PM claimed that, "There was no conspiracy, no cover up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances to Colonel Gaddafi".  Which is exactly the message we've heard from a string of ministers, and which has been thrown into doubt by all those published letters.  No word yet on whether Brown agreed or disagreed with Megrahi's release, when it finally came. All this exemplifies the problem that Labour have had for months now, and will continue to have for months to come.

Daniel Korski

Can Cameron learn from Wilson?

Few Tories will enjoy looking back on 1974, but they may find it useful to study the second Wilson government and its successor, the Callaghan government, when it comes to the question of Europe.  Back then, we had a government coming to power in the midst of a severe economic climate, and which sought to change the pro-European course that its predecessor had set, including by re-negotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU and by appealing to fraternal parties in France and Britain. However, it ultimately ran into blades of domestic discontent and international indifference. The question is: could this end up being the story of a Conservative government from the middle of next year? Sure, there are key differences between then and now.

James Forsyth

The Sky debate could be a lifeline for Brown

As the Megrahi case grows more serious by the day, one thing should be cheering up those in the Brown bunker: Sky’s plan to host a debate among the party leaders. Now, Brown might be the only party leader yet to have agreed to the debate but he is the one with the most to gain from it. If Brown is to have any hope of stopping David Cameron from winning the next election outright, he needs a game changing moment—and a debate might just produce one. The first televised leaders’ debate will be a hugely hyped event. One has to imagine that it would draw a huge TV audience and a ton of media coverage. It would provide the clunking fist with the perfect platform to land a blow on David Cameron.

David Blackburn

The Lockerbie papers

Bill Rammell’s admission that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told the Libyans that they ‘did not want al-Megrahi to pass away in prison’ is the bombshell the government hoped to avoid. And, together with Jack Straw’s sudden decision not to exclude al-Magrahi from the PTA to protect ‘wider negotiations with the Libyans”, this disclosure requires answers from the government. David Miliband heightened the chaos the government now finds itself in on the Today programme when he very foolishly remarked: “We did not want him to die in prison”.

Tuesday

Daniel Korski

Sarkozy revs up Franco-German motor, leaving Britain behind

Last week, French President Sarkozy spoke to the annual gathering of his country’s ambassadors. Since he came to power, the French leader has used the annual event to welcome his countrymen back from their holidays and garner a few headlines. This year proved no different with an attack on the Iranian regime receiving the most attention. In a powerful line, the French president pointed out: "It is the same leaders in Iran who say that the nuclear programme is peaceful and that the elections were honest. Who can believe them?" He went on to say that he thought tougher sanctions would have to be discussed if Tehran does not change its position. But the speech was boilerplate Sarkozy – expansive, energetic, and ambitious.