Uk politics

The government’s keen to avoid the petrol chaos of 2000

So, once again, we face the prospect of disruption at the pumps, as tanker drivers have voted for strike action over their terms of employment. According to the union Unite, their demands are ‘industry minimum standards and industry wide bargaining on pensions, terms and conditions, training and health and safety’. In all, around 2,000 drivers at seven fuel distribution companies voted, with 61 per cent of them in favour. A majority approved strike action at five of the seven firms, while at DHL and Suckling drivers rejected it. The government is, naturally, keen to avoid such a disruptive strike and has been quick to condemn it. Energy Secretary Ed Davey

James Forsyth

Money for Maths

If you get the incentives right, the rest should follow. So Liz Truss’ push for a subject premium should be applauded. If sixth form colleges received more money for pupils studying Maths, it is reasonable to assume that they would encourage more of them to do it. At the moment, colleges receive more money for people doing Media Studies than Maths or English on the grounds that the equipment required to teach the subject makes it more expensive. But, frankly, this is perverse. I expect that nearly every employer, including newspapers, would rather that their employees had Maths A-Level than Media Studies. Truss’ other point is that more money for

The Tories’ perception problem

Introducing Ed Miliband, Labour’s best hope since Tony Blair. Oh, I’m kidding, of course — but it’s still striking that, this morning, Labour have their biggest lead in a ComRes poll for seven years. And the size of the lead? Ten points, but it could be even bigger. The Peter Cruddas revelations fell right in the middle of ComRes’s polling. Apparently, those interviews conducted after Sunday had Labour with a 17-point lead. Of course, you can slap every caveat across this that you like: we’re still ages away from the election; one poll does not make a trend; the 17-point figure is based on a subset of a subset of

Replacing control orders: an unsatisfactory compromise 

A small silver lining for David Cameron in the ‘cash for access scandal’: on a quieter day, today’s report on the coalition’s replacement of control orders with ‘Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures’ (TPIMs) might have got more attention. The report, published by the Independent Reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, makes for difficult reading for ministers. Before looking at the detail of the report, it is worth remembering that control orders were always a second-best policy. Their origin lies in the dilemma, which no government looks likely to solve any time soon, of what to do with someone whom the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism, but who cannot

Transparency isn’t just for scandals…

While the #cashforcameron scandal (as it is being called on Twitter) rumbles on, the calls for state funding of political parties are increasing. But as James said yesterday, and as I argued on Sky News afterwards, this is not the answer — and it seems that the majority of the public agree. Yesterday’s YouGov poll had 59 per cent of its respondents opposing the idea of taxpayers funding political parties. But will transparency work instead? Blowing open the doors on all meetings and donors would certainly help the public see who is donating what and the effect (if any) that money is having on policy — but only if it is

James Forsyth

How will the Lib Dems respond?

The key thing to watch for during Francis Maude’s statement is the Lib Dem reaction. At the moment, the Tories can rebut Labour’s criticisms of them by pointing to both union funding and the Ecclestone affair. But if their coalition partners start turning up the volume on this story, then the Tories are in a far more difficult position. What will drive the Lib Dems is their desire to get a deal on party funding. The Lib Dems are very keen to reduce the advantages that the Torties and Labour have on this front and this scandal presents the perfect opportunity to press for a restrictive cap on donations and

Cameron’s Downing St dinners with donors

14 July 2010, dinner at No.10 Anthony and Carol Bamford Michael and Dorothy Hintze Murdoch and Elsa Maclennan Lord John and Lady Sainsbury Andrew Feldman Jill and Paul Ruddock Mike and Jenny Fraser Michael and Clara Freeman 28 Feb 2011, dinner in the flat David Rowland and Mrs Rowland Andrew and Gabby Feldman 2 Nov 2011, dinner in the flat Mike and Jenny Farmer Ian and Christine Taylor Henry and Dorothy Angest 2 February 2012, dinner in the flat Michael Spencer Sarah, Marchioness of Milford Haven

Cameron u-turns on donor secrecy — but what now?

One distinct feature of the ‘cash for access’ row is that we’ve seen it all before. And not just the glutinous mix of politics and money, but also the debate over what should be done to fix it. Last November, Sir Christopher Kelly, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, released a report into the funding of political parties that featured many of the options we’re hearing today. It landed on 24 recommendations, of which one stood out: ‘the only safe way to remove big money from party funding is to put a cap on donations, set at £10,000’. But to prevent a subsequent shortfall in parties’ funds,

The problem for Cameron is his proximity to the problem

The happiest news for David Cameron this morning is that the ‘cash for access’ story hasn’t quite made it onto every front page. But that’s it, really, so far as the glad tidings are concerned. All the rest is poison for No.10. The Prime Minister is now fighting off calls — including from his own MPs — to release the names of those donors who enjoyed dinner at his Downing Street flat. Labour are, of course, pressing for him to go further than an internal party inquiry, and launch an independent investigation instead. Today’s furore is not going to simmer down after a few days, or even after a few

Transparency, not state funding

Cutting the 50p rate was economically the right thing to do, but the politics of it are hugely complicated. The biggest danger is that it bolsters the sense that the Conservatives are the political wing of the privileged classes. For this reason, it is particularly unfortunate for the Conservatives that it is this Sunday that The Sunday Times has done an expose (£) on how potential donors were being lured with the offer of supper with Cameron and Osborne and the chance to influence policymaking. Labour are already trying to link the two, asking the Prime Minister to ‘provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and

Fraser Nelson

The borrowing behind Osborne’s Budget

Will George Osborne’s refusal to look again at high levels of state spending become the greatest risk to Britain’s economic stability? There have been plenty of rude comments about the Chancellor’s supposed tactical ineptitude in the weekend press, but he has still managed to keep on borrowing and have almost no one notice. Osborne’s iron commitment is to spending, and a programme of cuts which total just under 1 per cent a year. His commitment to deficit reduction is flexible, as his three Budgets have demonstrated: Osborne spent the election campaign berating Labour for its lack of ambition in halving the deficit in four years. He’s now doing it in

Fraser Nelson

Why access Cameron? The Lib Dems would be an easier target…

Why would anyone pay £250,000 to change Tory policy when the Liberal Democrats would do it for £2.50 and a hug? The brilliant Sunday Times investigation today makes you wonder whether businessmen don’t actually realise that out that, in this coalition, it doesn’t matter what you persuade David Cameron of. Policy is decided by horsetrading with the Lib Dems, who wield disproportionate power (for good or for ill). For example, Osborne was personally inclined to bring the top rate of tax down to 40p, but the Lib Dems told him they’d only allow this in exchange for their mansion tax. Cameron refused to do the deal, so 45p it was.

Ken’s identity crisis

Jonathan Freedland’s column in The Guardian today, explaining why he can’t vote for Ken Livingstone, is a remarkably direct piece of journalism. Freedland states that he ‘can no longer do what I and others did in 2008, putting to one side the statements, insults and gestures that had offended me, my fellow Jews and — one hopes — every Londoner who abhors prejudice’. Now, as Paul Goodman argues, we shouldn’t overstate the importance of a traditionally Labour supporting Guardian columnist coming out against Ken Livingstone. But Freedland’s reasons for doing so are ones that, I suspect, will resonate with a significant section of opinion. The issue with Livingstone is that

Spending will become more significant as 2015 approaches

Four days after George Osborne signed its death warrant, there is still life in the 50p rate yet. The two main political interviews in today’s papers — Ed Miliband in the Telegraph, Danny Alexander in the Times (£) — both focus heavily on the top rate’s impending demise. The Labour leader, of course, is continuing to ask whether David Cameron and George Osborne will themselves benefit from the move to 45p, without actually managing to commit his party to a policy. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is left defending a 45p rate, and does so by borrowing a recent Lib Dem slogan for the coalition as a whole: ‘This

Fraser Nelson

Previewing my Week in Westminster

I’m presenting Week in Westminster at 11am on Radio Four today, and get to choose four topics for discussion. My political nodes were, of course, amputated for the purposes of this production. Here are the topics I chose: 1. Young vs Old. Osborne stepped on a landmine on Thursday: he didn’t expect his pension tax (minor, as Charles Moore argues in the Telegraph) to cause such a reaction. But I suspect he hadn’t realised the depth of feeling in this emerging clash of the generations. Osborne’s idea for freezing pensioners’ tax threshold was lauded on Twitter but lambasted in (most of) the press. Ian Mulheirn’s blog for us claims that

What did the public make of the Budget?

After weeks of hearing what people think about the policies that Osborne might’ve adopted, we now have the first evidence of what they make of the Budget itself. Today’s YouGov poll lists eight of its main policies, and it seems they fit into three broad groups. First, the very popular ones: raising the personal allowance and increasing stamp duty for £2 million houses. Second, those backed by the majority but not so overwhelmingly: the corporation tax cut, the child benefit changes, Sunday trading during the Olympics and the tobacco duty rise. And finally, the unpopular measures: cutting the 50p tax rate and phasing out the extra personal allowance for over-65s.

James Forsyth

Cameron’s minimum pricing plan is politically risky

David Cameron’s plan for a minimum price for alcohol is one that several of his Cabinet colleagues, including the Health Secretary, have grave reservations about. But the Prime Minister’s personal enthusiasm for the policy has overridden these reservations. To my mind, a minimum price for alcohol is not a good idea. I expect that the effect of it will be to shift those who are intent on getting drunk, off beer and wine and onto spirits, whose prices will probably remain unchanged. Tory MPs also tend not to like the idea, viewing it as an unnecessary interference with the market. Indeed, I suspect there’ll be a fair few Tory backbenchers

In defence of Special Brew

The Prime Minister today introduces plans for minimum pricing on alcohol. In this week’s Spectator, Leo McKinstry mounts a defence of Special Brew, the tipple of Kingsley Amis and Churchill. I have a confession to make: I am writing this article under the influence. As I tap away at my laptop, a can of lovely Carlsberg Special Brew sits on the table beside me, acting on my brain as oil acts on a car engine: lubricating the moving parts. Ever since I found that it could help to speed up my word output, strong Danish beer has been essential to my writing career, so it’s a great shock to discover

Another voice: Pensioners ought to contribute more

The pensioner lobby has been predictably and tiresomely strident about George Osborne’s ‘granny tax’. Ros Altmann, Director-General of Saga, called the move to bring pensioners’ tax allowances into line with everyone else’s an ‘outrageous assault on decent middle-class pensioners’. It’s nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s high time that pensioners start to contribute to the unprecedented fiscal squeeze we’re going through — and here are the three main reasons why.   First, they’ve contributed next to nothing to the deficit reduction programme so far. Better-off pensioners are set to lose just over 1 per cent of their income from the changes planned by 2014, according to the IFS. Meanwhile,