Uk politics

Labour’s tactical blunder

From our UK edition

Mike Smithson has an interesting post with how the fallout from the al-Megrahi affair is damaging Labour. He writes: ‘Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point. What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out - why not get in with their explanation first?’ He’s right that Labour have made an enormous tactical blunder by not coming clean over this piece of realpolitik.

The Libya plot thickens

From our UK edition

So the Sunday Times has got its hands on letters which suggest the al-Megrahi release was tied up with a BP-Libya oil deal, and overseen by the Government with an eye on "the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom".  The ST article deserves quoting at some length: "Two letters dated five months apart show that [Jack] Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country. In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Lisbon treaty moves closer, but Tories stay mum

From our UK edition

Sometimes if you fear something intensely or hate something very strongly, it can cloud your otherwise excellent judgement and analytical foresight. That seems to be happening to many euro-sceptics when they talk or think about the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming second Irish referendum. They do not like the treaty and so will find it almost unthinkable that the Irish will vote yes. But a 'yes' vote looks like the most likely scenario.  That will mean that the British Conservatives have to be less mealy-mouthed about their post-referendum strategy; if the treaty is ratified will they try to re-open the document if they win power or let sleeping dogs lie?

Libyagate: first denial, then silence now contradictions

From our UK edition

The Times has obtained confidential correspondence suggesting that, in 1999, Robin Cook assured Madeleine Albright that those found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentences in Scotland. A senior US official told the Times: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” So how do they explain it? Kenny MacAskill claims that US officials urged him against releasing the Lockerbie bomber because Britain had pledged he would serve his serve sentence in Scotland. Seeking clarification, MacAskill wrote to Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis on 22nd July.

The Tories’ tax question

From our UK edition

So should the Tories announce tax rises ahead of the next election?  According to Andrew Grice in today's Independent, they're certainly thinking about it: "There is a growing recognition among shadow Cabinet ministers that, if they win power, spending cuts could only be half the picture, as they would also need significant tax rises to fill the black hole in the public finances. That is why Mr Cameron and George Osborne won't rule out tax increases. The big debate among the Tory high command now is whether to announce some tax increases before the general election. Mr Cameron is reluctant to unveil a detailed 'shadow Budget'.

Brown’s hypocrisy over Lockerbie?

From our UK edition

So far, Gordon Brown has refused to specifically comment on the Scottish Government's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya.  Yes, we've heard that he was "angry and repulsed" by al-Megrahi's reception in Libya, and that our government had "no role" in the decision.  But there's been nothing on whether he actually agrees or disagrees with the Scottish government's actions. The official excuse has been that Brown has to respect the devolution settlement and can't comment on devolved matters.  But - what's this? - it seems he hasn't had a problem with commenting on another devolved matter before now: the level of health spending set by the Scottish Government.

No way to lead a nation

From our UK edition

It's been terrible a morning for Gordon Brown in the editorials and on the front pages. And David Cameron, scenting blood, has condemned Gordon Brown’s leadership over the al-Megrahi affair. These pieces share the same basic analysis: Brown’s calculated caution is the cause of his problems. John Rentoul, admittedly no fan of the PM, writes in today’s Independent: ‘This has everything to do with a pattern of behaviour, an inbuilt caution that served Brown well enough on the road to No 10, but which is disastrous in anyone actually holding the top job.

Brown faces another backbench revolt  

From our UK edition

Despite protesting to the contrary, it turns out the government have been cutting all along. The Times reports that, buried in the small print of the budget, there is a commitment to abolish the £780 per year surplus housing benefit allowance, which encourages families to pay their rent and trade quality of accommodation for cash. These changes come into force on April 1, probably a month before the election. Labour backbenchers condemn the saving, worth £160 million per year, and plan to table amendments. Frank Field, who draws a comparison between this cut and the 10p rate revolt, tells the Times:  “At one stroke, they get rid of a reform aimed at getting flexibility into a fairly inflexible market by giving people incentives to shop around.

Delicately poised in Scotland

From our UK edition

Despite a week of international codemnation, a YouGov poll shows that 42 per cent of Scottish voters still agree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release al-Megrahi, whereas 51 per cent oppose it. Channel Four’s Gary Gibbon notes that this undermines Labour’s arguments that the SNP’s decision is not backed by the Scottish working class, and that Labour will find the Glasgow North East by-election hard going. I’m not so sure. Clearly it’s going to be tight, but Labour will take heart from this poll, which also reveals voting intentions. The SNP is down 6 points to 33 per cent and Labour is up 5 to 33 per cent. It was expected that the al-Megrahi decision could end up doing the SNP more harm than good.

Is Theresa May priming a second Freud Review?

From our UK edition

In some respects, Theresa May has delivered an effective speech on unemployment and the benefits system today.  It touches on all the tragic indicators - the 6 million people on out-of-work benefits, the high levels of youth worklessness, the shocking consequences of welfare ghettoes etc. - and re-states, in no uncertain terms, the Tories' commitment to welfare reform.  She even partially responds to those critics who thought she'd been drafted into the shadow welfare role to be "softer" on single mums than Labour, by instead attacking the state for encouraging lone parents "not to bother trying to work until their youngest child was sixteen".

Dan Hannan and Enoch Powell: make your own mind up

From our UK edition

Here's footage of Dan Hannan's month-old US interview in which he cites Enoch Powell as an influence, and which has received quite a bit of news attention today: To my mind, there's little more to add to this than the points made by Spectator's very own Alex Massie and those made in two excellent posts (here and here) by Guido.  To wit: Hannan has always been clear that he doesn't endorse Powell's views on immigration, but has instead been influenced by his views on the size, scope and role of the state.  Whatever you may think of those views, they are hardly controversial.  Indeed, as Guido points out (via Mark Reckons), Tony Blair himself praised Powell as "one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics". But, predictably, Mandelson & Co.

The case for naval investment

From our UK edition

Over at ConHome, Tim Montgomerie debates Will Inboden’s review of the main themes of the Tories foreign policy. I urge CoffeeHousers to read both articles, but the section on the relationship between energy and defence struck me particularly, recalling Liam Fox’s 2006 Chatham House speech on the subject. Here’s the premise of Fox’s argument: “We are all competing for the same natural resources to feed the economic system. The potential for terrorists or even nation states to interrupt this supply to cause widespread – rather than just local – disruption increases enormously.” Fox pointed out that global energy competition requirements had evolved beyond Britain’s defence strategies and capabilities.

Exam result shock: Balls fails

From our UK edition

You know how it is.  You start reading an article by Ed Balls - in this case, in today's Guardian - and, before long, you've come across so many deceptions, half-truths and tribal slurs that you decide to fisk the whole thing.  So here is Balls's article, with my supplementary comments in bold: The first group of young people to have been entirely educated under Labour pick up their GCSE results today. No doubt this will provoke some commentators into even greater efforts to do down their achievements – claiming more young people succeeding must mean exams are getting easier. In the early years of David Cameron's leadership, the Tories didn't join in this annual "dumbing down" chorus.

Nobody’s special

From our UK edition

In The Times today, Danny Finkelstein defended the most hated profession in contemporary politics – the Special Advisers, or SpAds. Booo, hissss. The case against was (again) laid out by a number of former senior officials, with ex-Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull telling a Lords committee recently that he did not like  SpAds rising to become Cabinet ministers by the time they were 38 “without touching the sides of real life”. Booo. Hisssss. Boooo. But how many of the current Shadow Cabinet do you think have been SpAds in the past? Come on, what do you think? Half? A third? Out of the 28 members of the Shadow Cabinet, including David Cameron (who worked for Norman Lamont and Michael Howard) there are only four ex-SpAds. The others: Osborne, Clark and Willets.

Libyagate has its roots in Labour’s devolution

From our UK edition

One of the oddest parts of Libyagate is what it says about Gordon Brown’s notions of devolution. The Prime Minister does not want to comment on the affair because, we are told, he sees it as a matter for the Scottish government, not the British government. So, if the actions of a devolved but subordinate level of government go against the state’s interests, the leaders of that state should stay mum? That's certainly not the view taken by successive US administrations; they have often condemned state-level actions, even when the federal government has been legally powerless to do anything in practice. The UK has no written constitution as in the US, but a clear constitutional settlement nonetheless.

On August opinion polls…

From our UK edition

Do check out Mike Smithson's latest post over at Political Betting, in which he relays an email he received from Nick Sparrow of ICM.  Sparrow highlights the close fit between August ICM polls in the years before elections and the actual election results themselves: "August 1996 poll suggested that Labour were ahead by 12%. The result - Labour won by 13% August 2000 poll suggested that Labour were ahead by 10% The result - Labour won by 9% August 2004 poll suggested that Labour were ahead by 3% The result - Labour won by 3% August 2009 poll suggests that the Tories are ahead by 16% The result - ?????????" Of course, this isn't watertight: as Smithson points out, events could always intervene between now and the next election.

Brown breaks his silence

From our UK edition

At last, Gordon Brown has something to say about the Lockerbie bomber’s release. He said he was “angry and repulsed” by the welcome the Lockerbie bomber receive in Libya. And he also added: “I made it clear to Gadaffi in July that we could have no role in the release of al-Megrahi”. This doesn't draw a line under the controversy. As William Hague has argued, the story is now about why it took Brown so long to say those few words and still managed to say nothing. And he hasn't answered any of the serious questions being asked of the government.

The language of political debate

From our UK edition

A great spot by Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome, who highlights this Wall Street Journal graphic on the words that both sides of the US healthcare debate should be using to score a rhetorical advantage.  For instance, it suggests that the pro-Obama team should say "rules" rather than "regulations", while the President's opponents should attack the system for being "too profit-driven" and "too bureaucratic": As Tim says, words have power.