From our UK edition
Here, via the Guardian Data Blog, is what each department will be contributing to Osborne's £6.2 billion package of cuts this year: Department Contribution to cuts in 2010/11, £million % of department's overall 2008/09 spending Business, Innovation and Skills 836 54.60 Communities and Local Government 780 2.12 Devolved Administrations 704 1.09 Transport 683 4.
From our UK edition
Mark the date, dear CoffeeHouser – for this the day when the spending cuts began. George Osborne is set to give details on his £6.2 billion cuts package later today, but we already know the broad outlines of it all: £900 million from the business department budget, £500 million from chopping down some quangos, £150 million from cutting Whitehall recruitment, and so on. One encouraging fact is that only £500 million of these cuts will be "recycled" back into the public sector. The rest will go towards getting the government's annual overspend down. But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a start. With the deficit at £160 billion (not to mention total debt rising towards £1.
From our UK edition
After the historic events of the past two weeks, it seems odd to say that the next few days are the most important of the coalition government so far. But, until the emergency Budget on 22 June, there's little that will hold quite so much significance as tomorrow's announcement on spending cuts and the Queen's Speech on Tuesday. This will be a major chance for the coalition to get more of the public onside for a programme which is set to last years. In which case, it's unsurprising to read that the government will sweeten the medicine of cuts by hastening through some of its most radical, positive policies before summer recess. School reforms, a Great Repeals Bill, and Parliamentary reform – all are expected to be introduced in double-quick time.
From our UK edition
You may not have expected anything less, but it's still encouraging to see the new government pay so much attention to Afghanistan. After David Cameron's meeting with Hamid Karzai last week, no less than three ministers have visited the country today: William Hague, Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell. And Whitehall's number-crunchers are busy trying to find extra money for the mission. There's a sense, though, that all the attention actually represents an underlying shift in focus.
From our UK edition
Disowning the Iraq War: that's the task which Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have a set themselves today, as part of their continuing efforts to distinguish themselves from the Blair and Brown years. In interview with the Telegraph, Balls says that the public were misled by "devices and tactics" over the case for war. And, in the Guardian, Ed Miliband argues that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time, and that the conflict triggered "a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour". He has since claimed that he would have voted against the war at the time.
From our UK edition
There's an entire gaggle of noteworthy interviews in the papers this morning, but let's start with David Laws in the FT. It's generally quite hard to draw substantive conclusions about the actual interviewee in political interviews, but I'm sure you wouldn't come away from this one thinking anything but that Laws is a good man to have in the Treasury right now. Here, anyway, are five observations about what he actually said: 1. Sharing the blame. If people in Tory circles feel that there's one major consolation to working with the Lib Dems, then it's that they can share the blame over spending cut.
From our UK edition
John Redwood is interviewed by Andrew Neil on Straight Talk this weekend, and there's a rather eyecatching exchange where the Tory MP claims that he's "not sure" whether ministers will be able to vote in the 1922 Committee, after all: John Redwood: ...as I understand the ballot, the ballot was about whether Ministers should come regularly to the 22 or not, and so I have no problem with that, and if that is the agreement, then fine. Andrew Neil: So are you not clear yet whether Ministers can come along as full members of the 22 Committee? JR: Well, I’m not sure whether they vote in 1922 elections, which is the point you were asserting, and we’ll have to see whether that’s true or not.
From our UK edition
IPSA, IPSA, IPSA. If there's one thing exercising MPs across all parties at the moment, then it's the new expenses regime in the Commons: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I won't run through all of their grievances here, mainly because you can find good summaries here, here and here. But they are already a frustrating mix of seemingly legitimate concerns (about staff wages) and outrageous whining (about not having taxi fares paid for before 11pm)(erm, pay for them yourself). The latest news is that John Bercow is going to intervene, to "ensure the new rules are interpreted reasonably and that MPs are treated courteously.
From our UK edition
It is quite telling that David Cameron's first newspaper article since becoming Prime Minister is for the Daily Mail, and even more telling that its central message is, "you still have a Conservative Prime Minister". There then follows a series of reassurances about Dave's political motivations ("I believe the state is your servant, never your master. I believe in the common sense and decency of the British people") and about the policies contained in the coalition agreement. One line that jumped out at me, though, is this rather inspid description of the Tories' radical school reform agenda: "We're also giving parents, charities and other organisations the opportunity to set up their own new schools." Hardly inspiring, is it?
From our UK edition
A week ago, I wondered whether the Labour leadership contest might produce a "cuts candidate": someone prepared to responsibly debate the fiscal situation as part of their campaign. But, as Danny Finkelstein has noted, none of the candidates so far has even mentioned the deficit, let alone suggested solutions for trimming it. Their wilful silence on the issue is starting to look bizarre, to say the least. The worry, though, is that it will also prove dangerous. So long as the d-word doesn't get a look in, Ed Balls is blissfully free to do what he does best, and bang on misleadingly about "investment vs cuts".
From our UK edition
Jonathan Baume is fast becoming one of the political celebrities of the LibCon era. If you recall, he's the union chief who revealed that the senior civil servants had written letters to Labour ministers in concern at spending decisions made close to the election. And now he's popped up again, with more unflattering comments about the previous administration. Speaking at his union's annual conference, he said that "new ministers and MPs must begin to display the personal and moral integrity that was so obviously lacking in the previous Parliament, even within the Cabinet." Hm, I wonder who he could mean.
From our UK edition
Iain Martin asks a good question about today's 1922 Committee vote: "This is a rather curious little episode. In what other club, society or members-run committee would nonmembers (ministers in this case) get to vote for their being granted full membership against the wishes of the existing members?" N.B. Paul Goodman has done the maths to suggest that a majority of Tory backbenchers voted against Cameron.
From our UK edition
I've just read through George Osborne's speech to the CBI annual dinner last night, and there's much in there about free markets and tax cuts that will encourage Tory supporters. But one passsage seemed a little strange to me: "And on the subject of coalitions, let me be absolutely frank. As a member of the negotiating team, we did consider whether we could try to bluff our way into a minority government. But it was David Cameron’s bold vision and Nick Clegg’s great foresight which saw, before anyone else, that that option would be the greatest compromise of all. A weak, unstable government, risking defeat night after night in Parliament.
From our UK edition
...by 168 to 118 votes, according to Paul Waugh. Comfortable, but not comfortable enough to suggest that there won't be a strong core of resentment to this change. UPDATE: This could rumble on. Here's the latest from PoliticsHome: A number of MPs, headed by the previous 1922 secretary Christopher Chope, are planning to challenge the surprisingly close result, and have not ruled out legal action. They point out that: 1. The difference between the winners and losers is more than bridged by members of the government (who they point out are not entitled to vote according to the current rules of the committee). 2.
From our UK edition
The full coalition agreement, released this morning, is fascinating enough in itself. Here we have a step-by-step guide for how two different parties will operate together, what they will do, and, broadly speaking, when they will do it. And, perhaps to ease the general uncertainty surrounding this type of government, it is considerably clearer than party manifestos tend to be. One thing you can say, at least, is that this coalition appears keen to make itself more accountable. Skimming through the actual document, there seem to be few surprises, and a good handful of reviews designed to punt difficult policy areas into the long grass.
From our UK edition
Tales of the expected and the unexpected this morning, as two more names enter the Labour leadership fray. The first is the expected one: Andy Burnham, who announces his bid in an article for the Mirror. And the unexpected one is ... Diane Abbott, who revealed her intentions on the Today programme earlier. That thud you heard afterwards was the sound of a thousand jaws hitting the ground in Westminster. Both will, I suspect, do much to improve the contest as a spectator sport. Abbott will have no qualms about attacking the record of the Blair and Brown years. And neither, it seems, will Andy Burnham.
From our UK edition
With Ed Balls and John McDonnell announcing their candidatures for the Labour leadership, it's clear that Labour's soul-searching period has now begun in earnest. Speaking in front of the cameras just now, Balls reeled of the lines that he's been priming over the past week: "listening ... immigration ... listening ... beyond Blair and Brown," etc. While McDonnell was keen to separate himself from the other candidates, describing them as the "sons of Blair and the sons of Brown". Both of them might care to read David Lammy's appraisal of where it went wrong for Labour – and where it went right for Cameron – in tomorrow's issue of the Spectator.
From our UK edition
"The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832." That's how Nick Clegg is describing the legislative package that he's announcing today. And, even if that's pure bravado, there's certainly plenty of encouraging stuff in it. Scrapping ID cards; restricting the storage of innocent people's DNA; and the government is even set to ask the public which laws they'd like to see repealed. Sign me up. But it's one omission which is really ruffling Tory feathers today. There will not, it seems, be an immediate move to supplant or even dilute the European Convention on Human Rights with a British Bill of Rights. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning, Theresa May stressed that this is still a matter for negotiation within the coalition.
From our UK edition
Is the new government marching across scorched earth? They certainly claim so, and now they seem to have the civil service backing them up. Speaking to the Beeb this afternoon, Jonathan Baume, the leader of a civil service union, said that senior civil servants had written "letters of direction" to Labour ministers in concern at the spending decisions they took in the final months of their government. As Baume put it: "It's not a decision that is taken very often to ask for such a letter of direction, which is why it is regarded something of a nuclear option. So when it happens it tends to be a big spending decision, where the civil service believes this is not the right thing to do." Good to know, even if only in retrospect.
From our UK edition
David Cameron sat alongside Nick Clegg on the government benches, with Harriet Harman two sword-lengths away as leader of the Opposition. Even though the coalition has been around for a week now, it took the images from the Commons this afternoon to bring home just how extraordinary recent politics has been. I mean, even the SNP's Angus Robertson got to make a speech now that the Lib Dems aren't a party of opposition. This, plainly, is going to take some getting used to. They were all witness, today, to the re-election of John Bercow as Speaker. In the end, it was easy for the Buckingham MP, as the "ayes" heavily outweighed a handful of "nos," and he was duly "dragged" to the Speaker's chair without a formal vote.