James Forsyth

The Liberal Democrats’ strategic imperative in this parliament is to show that coalitions can work. Their response to the Leveson Inquiry is, I suspect, going to be part of this plan. Their position on the issue is hardening. Yesterday’s Guardian report that they would make clear if David Cameron was only speaking for the Conservative party not the government, has been followed by Nick Robinson’s news that Clegg will make his own statement in the Commons if no coalition position can be agreed. I understand that, ideally, Clegg would make his statement from the despatch box.

In just over 18 hours, advance copies of the Leveson Report will be sent to the Prime Minister, various ministers and the other party leaders. The expectation in Westminster is very much that the Prime Minister will steer away from statutory regulation, saying instead that he wants to see if a new beefed up form of independent but non statutory regulation can do the job. Others in the coalition, remain keen on the idea of a one line bill setting up a statutory based but independent regulator. There is though, as there is with so many stories these days given its intrusion into our national life, an ECHR angle to this debate.

George Osborne pulled off one of those bits of political theatre that he so enjoys today. Watching his statement in the Commons, one sensed something was up as Osborne delighted in delaying naming the new bank governor. It was an indication that, like the Mounties, the Chancellor had got his man. Moments later, a clearly delighted Osborne announced that Mark Carney, the Canadian Central Bank Governor, would be the new governor of the Bank of England. This is quite a coup for Osborne as Carney is widely regarded as the best central bank governor in the world. It also marks a clear break with all that has gone wrong in the City in the last dozen years or so. It was an open secret in Westminster that Carney was the preferred candidate of the Chancellor and his circle.

The Leveson Inquiry will dominate this week. Inside Number 10 they regard it as ‘the most difficult’ of the three big issues dominating their time at the moment – the other two are the autumn statement and the EU Budget. But I suspect that voters will be far less interested in Leveson and the Prime Minister’s response to it than the media and political class are. I’d be surprised if Cameron’s handling of it changed the views of voters—as opposed to those of elites— of him. So, on The Sunday Politics today it was striking to see Liam Byrne, Labour’s welfare spokesman, trying to turn Cameron’s striver rhetoric back on him.

There are some stories that become more shocking the more you think about them. The case of the Rotherham foster parents who have had the children they were caring for taken away from them for being members of UKIP is one of these. It is hard to imagine the distress that must have been caused to them by this arrogant, ill-thought out decision. First, UKIP is not a racist party: none of its policy positions could be called racist in any meaningful definition of this term. I’m sure there are some racists who are members of UKIP, just as there are — I suspect — some Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory and Green members who are racist. Now, UKIP does take a harder line on EU immigration than the three main parties: the explanation given for why the children were taken away.

So, the EU budget summit has — as expected — broken up without agreement. We await the date of the next discussion of the matter. But for the moment it means there is nothing that David Cameron will have to try to pilot through parliament. Talking to those close to the Prime Minister, I sense that they are not unhappy with this conclusion. In Downing Street, they feel that their criticisms of the running costs of the EU bureaucracy have struck a chord with other contributor countries. They’re also pleased that Cameron has managed to strike a tough negotiating position without isolating himself. But what is giving them the greatest satisfaction is how solicitous of the British position Angela Merkel was. They regard this as a promising sign for the coming renegotiation.

Politics is gearing up for the publication of the Leveson Report next Thursday. It was telling that when Boris Johnson picked up politician of the year at The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards, he didn’t use the occasion to list of his achievements in London or to reminisce about the Olympics but rather took the opportunity to decry the possibility of statutory regulation of the press. On the other side is Ed Miliband, whose party is committed to backing whatever Leveson comes up with. It is unclear yet what Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats will do. But there are a large chunk of Tory MPs who appear to have come round to the idea of statutory regulation.

On the Sunday Politics just now, Grant Shapps confirmed to Andrew Neil The Spectator’s story that 20 of the 40 Tory target seats at the next election are Liberal Democrat held. Shapps stressed that it was nothing personal about the Liberal Democrats but just a reflection of what needed to be done if the Tories were to win a majority. When asked why voters in Liberal Democrat Ministers constituencies should prefer a Tory majority to the current coalition, Shapps cited the need to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the global economic race. This suggests that these issues will form an important part of the Tory message to swing voters in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.

On Monday, the government is set to announce its alcohol strategy. It is expected that this will call for a minimum unit price of 40p. As Graham Wilson reports in The Sun, this idea is a personal favourite of the Prime Minister but opposed by several influential members of the Cabinet. These ministers worry that it’ll be seen as the rich man taking away the poor man’s pleasure. Given the media reaction to the pasty tax and the caravan tax, this is a legitimate concern. They also fear that a successful legal challenge to it, which is a distinct possibility, would do further damage to the government’s reputation for competence.

Of the three main parties, Labour will be happiest with today’s results. They’ve won Corby, the contest that was always going to get the most media attention. But, I think, there are things to worry all three parties in the results. Last week, Labour sources were talking about how the big two tests for them of the night were Corby and the Bristol mayoralty. In Bristol, they’ve been beaten by an independent candidate. Ben Bradshaw is already complaining on Twitter that this defeat can be put down, in part, to the party’s resource allocations for these elections; the fact that Corby was prioritised above everywhere else. The Police and Crime Commissioner elections also haven’t been great for the party. John Prescott suffered a spectacular defeat in Humberside.

Tonight is election night but there’s not much counting going on. The Corby by-election count doesn’t start until tomorrow morning and Wiltshire is the only place where the Police and Crime Commissioner votes are being tallied up over night. But we should get results in the next few hours in Manchester Central and Cardiff South, two safe Labour seats where the MP is standing down to run as a Police and Crime Commissioner. Most of the media attention will focus on Corby. It is, indeed, a bellwether seat. But it is worth remembering that this is mid-term and a Tory defeat here would not tell us that much, especially given the circumstances of the by-election—constituencies don’t take kindly to MPs standing down half-way through their term.