This week Ireland had a very successful bond auction. The fact that there were €44.5bn worth of offers for €5bn worth of bonds suggests that investors have rediscovered their faith in the Irish economy, but unfortunately things are not that simple. Ireland's bonds were so popular because they are supported by the EU's new bailout fund, the EFSF (European Financial Stability Fund). And not only is this fund backed by 13 of the Eurozone members, but well over half of the €440bn that makes up the fund comes from European states which have AAA credit ratings: indeed €119bn, or 27%, comes from Germany alone. So the markets weren't really buying Irish debt – they were buying German. And they were doing it at a discount rate, for less than it costs to buy real German debt.
These problems are at the heart of the big struggle between Eurozone powerhouse Germany and the European Commission. Angela Merkel and Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso are at loggerheads over Barroso's desire to get the EFSF reformed at next Friday's EU Heads of State summit. Merkel wants to wait for two reasons: First, as the Irish bond auction illustrated, Germany is being put in a difficult position through the EFSF. It wants to wait until the next EU Heads of State summit in March to look at the issue and prepare a broader set of measures which force struggling states to agree to strict, standardised, fiscal controls. Secondly, parts of Germany are going to the polls in the upcoming months, and Merkel cannot afford to be seen to be bailing out the rest of the Eurozone and getting nothing in return.
The fundamental differences in Eurozone economies and the divide between the fiscally 'responsible' northern states like the Netherlands and Germany and the indebted southern states like Italy and Portugal have yet to be resolved. The recession and the creation of a permanent bailout fund have just brought them to the fore.
This week was dominated by figures released on Tuesday which showed that the UK economy had shrunk by 0.5% in the final quarter of 2010. Most economists had predicted 0.5% growth. Combined with December's inflation figure of 3.7% - way above the Bank of England's 2% target - and Mervyn King's warning that inflation could top 5% in 2011, it was a bad week for George Osborne. The figures were a gift to Labour but Ed Miliband failed to make the most of them at PMQs on Wednesday, as Cameron put in one of his best, and most statesmanlike performances.
The other big news this week was the belated publication of the Government's review into the UK's counter-terrorism measures. There was some good news - a reduction in the duration of detention without charge from 28 days to 14 days, curbs on police stop and search powers and measures to stop local councils using surveillance operations so much - and the review was definitely a success for Nick Clegg and the liberal wing of the Tories, but it did not go as far as some would have liked. Control Orders were replaced with TPIMs (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) but contain many of the same provisions, even if they are a little less stringent. The problem of dealing with these suspects outside the criminal justice system still exists though.
Elsewhere, Lord Lawson and Mark Pritchard helpfully stuck it to David Cameron by kicking up a fuss about the undesirability of coalition government. We also saw the MoD scrambling to defend itself against allegations from senior military figures that they were leaving a huge hole in Britain's defence capabilities by scrapping nine new Nimrod aircraft. And we were treated to more Eurozone grumblings as Germany continued to push for stringent budget checks across Europe rather than immediately back Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso's bail-out fund.
For the past few weeks the Chinese Government has, to an extent, had the Americans on the back foot following revelations about its new stealth fighter. People in the West have been re-evaluating the balance of power in Asia and wondering where they got the technology from. No doubt wanting to confirm this superiority and uphold its patriotic duty, CCTV released a very impressive video of the J-10 fighter blowing up another plane. Unfortunately for CCTV it seems like they underestimated the investigative powers of Chinese internet users, who were pretty quick to point out that the scene of the plane being destroyed was first shown in Top Gun, way back in 1986. The sheer audacity just takes my breath away...
My prediction that the economic figures released yesterday would dominate PMQs was borne out as Ed Miliband made the UK's 0.5% contraction the focus for has six questions. The problem was that he faced the most agile David Cameron I've seen at the dispatch box in weeks and that he was relentlessly barracked by the Government benches.
Miliband got a cheer when he rose - reflecting new found belief on the Labour benches - but his first question was predictable and weak. He asked, in the deadpan way that he always does with his first question, what the cause of the poor economic performance was: Cue dozens of Tories and Lib Dems shouting 'YOU!' at the Labour leader.
Cameron's approach clearly confused Miliband. He stepped up and said the figures were 'disappointing' even without the impact of snow. Cameron taking responsibility and bringing up the bad weather first was clearly not something that Miliband was prepared for, and it exposed Miliband's inability to adapt. He asked Cameron if without the weather growth would have been flat. Cameron simply said 'yes'.
The next exchange began with Miliband's best line of the day, when he shot back at Cameron that the PM didn't understand that without growth there would be no recovery. But he was clearly rattled and the Tory backbenches began to mercilessly mock his stuttering style of delivery. Cameron responded by quoting the head of the OECD, who had said that before the Coalition's deficit reduction plan the economy had been 'out of control'.
The following question was another example of Miliband's apparent inability to 'war game' PMQs properly. If he'd been through a preparatory dual with an aide then he would have rapidly realised that claiming that the Labour Party left a legacy of growth was a poor strategy. Cameron jumped on the 'laughable proposition' that Labour left a 'golden legacy' and reeled off a list of Labour's economic failures.
Miliband was beaten. Lost. He didn't seem to know what he was going to ask so just made some comment about Cameron being out of touch. The Tories laughed at him. Miliband went personal and attacked Cameron's 'arrogance'. Cameron made a joke - which to be frank he's already used too much in the House - about Miliband's inability to think on his feet before highlighting Labour's own deficit reduction plans, which were due to start this year.
Miliband recovered with his last question. He launched into an attack on Andy Coulson, which wasn't particularly coherent but did raise an important point. He also raised the comments by David Davis, who said that without the former NotW man Cameron's inner circle was out of touch. Unfortunately he then said the Coalition's policies were 'hurting not working'. It didn't even rhyme properly. Cameron finished him off by asking why he was claiming credit for appointing Ed Balls when he didn;t want him in the first place and by outlining the coalition's plan to deal with the deficit to ensure growth.
I said yesterday that Miliband would have no excuses for not winning today. In fairness to him, Cameron's strategy was proactive and he gave his best ever performance against the new Labour leader. But so many of Cameron's lines were easily prepared put-downs to predictable questions. And too often when put on the spot Miliband simply failed to think quickly and adapt. He almost always starts with a simple factual question, before asking a couple more and then getting confused when the course of the debate takes a different route to the one he'd prepared. With better preparation he could be so much more effective.
One of the most short-sighted things about Labour's filibustering in the Lords is the long-term damage that it could do to the current structure of the Upper House. Unlike in the Commons, there are no mechanisms to restrict the length of debates in the Lords. This means that there is a risk of filibustering, but until now this has not been a problem because it was seen as poor form. It goes against the general intention of the Sailsbury Convention of 1945, which gave the Commons primacy and acknowledged that the Lords did not have democratic legitimacy.
I happen to think that, despite being obviously anachronistic and undemocratic, the Lords plays a very positive role in our legislative system. But it cannot continue as it is if the opposition party in the Commons uses its peers to filibuster Government legislation. By breaking convention Labour's actions necessitate the creation of new rules limiting debates in the Lords. And by raising the topic of reform in one area, people will naturally start to look more widely at the way the Lords operates.
This is not going to be a long post. In fact I wrote that sentence just to beef it up a bit. Because PMQs tomorrow is only going to be about one thing: today's shock 0.5% GDP contraction. Balls has already launched a pretty effective broadside on Osborne tonight, claiming that the 0.7% GDP growth in the previous quarter was a legacy of Labour's spending plans and that these are the first set of figures that reflect the Conservatives' economic policies.
Surely even Ed Miliband can make this stick tomorrow. For all their bluster Cameron and Osborne know that the weather did not cause all this damage alone - and that blaming the snow is a line that won't play well in the House. Expect their VAT hike to take a beating. Despite this, Balls' record under Brown and the resignation of Alan Johnson late last week should give Cameron something to hold on to, even if Miliband can just point to Coulson and previous Tory calls for more financial deregulation. It should be fun...
Just a quick post to highlight a few statistics from this weekend's YouGov poll. First up, we have the results of a question asking how well certain politicians are doing, which gives Cameron an approval rating of -6%, puts Miliband on -11%, and Clegg on -34%. The discrepancy with the overall voting intention is obvious: Labour are ahead on 43%, followed by the Tories on 39% and the Lib Dems on 9%. It seems that despite a steady decline since May, Cameron is still the Conservative's best electoral asset and Miliband is still failing to impress the public.
Despite Cameron's personal popularity, the Government's approval rating has fallen to -22%. But this figure won't upset the coalition too much, given that they believe that by 2013 there will be a resurgent economy and that they'll get all the credit. Based on this, the -28% rating for Miliband's ability to handle the economy, and the fact that all anyone in politics has talked about for the past two years has been recession and debt, I think the coalition will feel that if they stay committed to their deficit reduction programme they'll come out the other end in a very strong position indeed.
This week will certainly be remembered for the two dramatic resignations that came on Thursday and Friday. Alan Johnson's decision to resign, taken late Thursday afternoon, was a shock because despite his rather embarrassing inability to master his economic brief he still retained the confidence of Ed Miliband. His decision to leave for personal reasons - it appears his wife is filing for divorce -will mean that the attacks on Miliband's personal judgement which will inevitably come next week will not be as effective. But the Labour leader will still have to answer some awkward questions now that Ed Balls, the man that he deliberately snubbed last year, is his new Shadow Chancellor.
We were also treated, early on Friday morning, to the resignation of Andy Coulson, David Cameron's Director of Communications. This was not a total surprise - it had been a question of when not if - but the timing was a little unexpected. The case against Coulson personally has a lot of circumstantial evidence but has so far lacked concrete proof. He had quite accurately realised that he had committed the cardinal sin for a press officer and become the story, but that had been true to some extent since he was hired. While it was excruciating to see an opportunistic Ed Miliband question Cameron's judgement just hours after his own inept Shadow Chancellor had walked, the PM will quite rightly face some hard questions next week about his decision to hire the former NotW Editor. As a final point, it is worth noting that without question both Johnson and Coulson chose to use the appearance of Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry as cover for their resignations.
The rest of the week was dominated by unemployment figures that made particularly depressing reading for young people, and the official launch of Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms, which - although well-intentioned and if successful will radically improve the way the NHS operates - represent an unusual gamble by the PM.
I have long argued that Labour could make life a lot harder for the Tories if they put Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper in the Shadow Chancellor's role. Now that Balls is there, expect him to make the brief his own and really push Osborne on every decision. While the Conservatives will no doubt mock Balls's closeness to Gordon Brown and lambast Miliband for his decision to hire Johnson for a job he was never suited for, after a couple of weeks this will die down and the Tories will be left facing someone who is ruthless and totally on top of his brief.
But while it's not good news for the Tories, and it definitely is good news for Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper - who will no longer be wasted shadowing William Hague - I'm not too sure that it's good news for Ed Miliband. He didn't put Balls into that role for two reasons: they have different ideas about what Labour's economic policy should be, and Miliband thought Balls would become too powerful as Shadow Chancellor. Both of these problems still exist.
Ed Balls has a different economic agenda to Miliband. It was evident in the leadership election and it is still there now. Miliband clearly had problems controlling Johnson as well, but Balls is different because unlike Johnson, he actually has a plan of action and knows what he's doing. Johnson was never really a threat even when he disagreed: Balls could be. It's not surprising that Balls has said that he is fully supportive of Darling's deficit reduction plan, because he has to show that they're on the same team. But he will deviate soon enough.
Balls is convinced his economic approach is right, and won't be worried by Tory attacks on Labour for being unwilling to tackle the deficit. Public support for that is falling anyway, and Miliband's half-hearted attempts at moderation will disappear. 2011 will not just see the pressure increase on the coalition: there will be equally as much pressure on the Labour Party to oppose cuts everywhere: across every department and across every county. Balls will heed all these calls, and Miliband won't have the political clout to stop him.
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour. The two worked closely for a long time under Gordon Brown and will have seen the chaos that was his relationship with Tony Blair. They will work hard to avoid that happening again. Even if Miliband is initially weakened personally, the Labour Party as a whole will undoubtedly be strengthened by having a competent Shadow Chancellor in the midst of the most dramatic changes to Government in over a decade. And that in turn will strengthen Miliband's claim that the Labour Party has a plausible, alternative agenda to the Coalition and that they can win in 2015.
Bit of an odd session today, with a six-question break in the middle of Ed Miliband's questions to the PM. Even odder, however, was the huge cheer that Miliband got when he stood up to speak: for a split-second I think he thought something else was going on in the Chamber. Still, it's definitely good news for the Labour leader that his party is starting to support him. The first question, as it tends to be with Miliband, was very simple. He asked if it was a good thing that unemployment was rising. Cameron responded very well and actually gave an honest answer, stating that he was worried about the figures but that there was some progress being made. He then, cleverly, raised the issue of youth unemployment and pre-empted the Leader of the Opposition by saying that it had increased by 40% under Labour.
And so it all started to go wrong for Ed. He clumsily read out his clearly scripted line which bore no relation to what Cameron had just said, and accused him of being complacent - Cameron's answer had been anything but. He then delivered a hopeless line about how the PM was 'rumbled' in Oldham. It made no sense. Predictably, Cameron laid into him for his inability to debate properly and his reliance on his notes, before easily swatting away his attack on the coalition's decision to scrap the Future Jobs Fund with some excellent statistics.
We then endured a 6-question interlude before Miliband got back up to ask the PM if he could guarantee that hospital waiting times would not increase. This was a well-designed question, because the PM can't guarantee it. He can't because he's abolished top-down targets, and that means that there is no longer scope for a centrally imposed guarantee. But Cameron failed to make this point, and to argue that his reforms would reduce waiting times, which was his biggest slip-up of the day. Instead he just started to attack Labour for not promising an increase in NHS spending.
Miliband then pushed him on the same point again, and made a very good point about NHS waiting times going down under Labour. Cameron made the same response as before, criticising the Labour Party for not promising to increase NHS spending and trying - pretty unsuccessfully - to paint the Conservatives as the party of the NHS.
Miliband said Cameron was taking the 'National out of the NHS', which is a nice line but didn't really reinforce the point Miliband made in the previous question. Miliband then got a little personal, and called the PM 'arrogant'. By now Cameron had got back into his swing, and he came up with a line - I've no idea why he didn't use it earlier - that the waiting list times were in the NHS constitution. He also said the reforms would save £5bn and improve the NHS.
The session started with Cameron on top and ended the same way too. Miliband made some comments about broken promises which didn't fit his earlier questions and were horrendously delivered, prompting Cameron to make yet another joke about his sub-standard debating skills.
What's most worrying for Miliband is that if he can't kick Cameron around on Lansley's NHS reforms and bankers' bonuses then what can he beat him on? These were golden opportunities for Miliband to make life very hard for Cameron and yet, aside from a couple of good questions, he has not managed to do it. So poor is his delivery and his inability to divert from his script that he's managed to make it an issue that Cameron highlights as much as Miliband picks up on dodged questions. Cameron was on better form than last week and, aside from one missed opportunity, was on top for the whole debate. So while Miliband's attacks on the NHS might play well in public, they were not good enough to save him from defeat today.
Daft. That's the word that comes to mind when you look at the letter Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband's new spinner, sent to pretty much everyone in the media. First of all, he's become the story, which is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing. And secondly, he's created a situation whereby if the press do start calling the coalition the 'Conservative-led Government' then they'll look like they're taking orders from Ed Miliband's Comms guy!
I do understand what he means - even if, in the long-term, he's doing the Tories a favour. But it's an embarrassingly clumsy way to go about conveying this message to the press. A quiet word with the editors would have worked a lot better. Anyway, if you're interested, here is the letter:
As you may have noticed, we have changed our language in recent weeks to avoid describing the Government as a coalition or a partnership of equals. We believe a more accurate description is that this is a Conservative-led government.
I understand that the phrase a "Tory-led government" is two words too long to be repeated on every occasion. But I also think that you are making a choice whenever you call it "the coalition". When we were in power, no one was left in any doubt that our most unpopular decisions were those of a "Labour government". The word "Coalition" is one that avoids party labels while also suggesting a degree of inter-party harmony and co-operation which is, day-by-day and split-by-split, being shown as false.
Unless Nick Boles gets his way, "the Coalition" will not be standing for election.
Can I suggest you at least vary your description of this Tory-led government. On some occasions, you might call it a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government. On others it might be just "the government".
When you are talking about this government in a political context, I think it would be fairer to refer to it by reference to party labels.
With best wishes, Tom Baldwin,
Director of Strategy and Communications
As exciting as by-elections are, this one didn’t really tell us anything new. Labour has been steadily climbing in the polls from around 30% at the election to around 42% now, and it was always likely that they would perform better than they did in May. That the big 17% leads suggested by opinion polls before the election never materialised was expected, but a win of 10% was exactly the kind of result that Ed Miliband needed in order to calm his Party’s nerves.
Senior figures like Miliband and Yvette Cooper have stressed that while it gives Labour some momentum, the Party has a long way to go before it is in a position to win a general election. They are right to be cautious. The polls suggest that Miliband is not regarded as a great prospect and while people are now less certain that the coalition’s economic policies are the right ones, they still don’t believe Labour would be any better.
It’s also important to note that despite Labour’s claims to the contrary, this wasn’t necessarily a vote against the coalition’s economic agenda: if you add the Conservative and Lib Dem vote share it comes to 44.7%, which is more than Labour’s 42.1%.
The Lib Dems actually gained a larger share of the vote than in May: up from 31.6% to 31.9%. This was probably because of tactical voting by some Conservatives, but their effective and determined local campaign does show that the Party is still alive. Clegg will be relatively satisfied that his Party avoided a bigger defeat, and while he’ll be afraid that May’s local elections will be unpleasant, he’ll also argue that national poll ratings that have them around 10% are likely to mean nothing at the next election.
The Conservative high command will be satisfied. They decided a long time ago that this by-election was not one that they could win and that it served the long-term health of the coalition better if the Lib Dems came through unscathed. They’ve achieved this aim. Their only worry will be that their weak campaign in Oldham will simply encourage those backbenchers who are concerned that the coalition panders to the Liberal Democrats. Baroness Warsi has, perhaps unwisely, told them to shut up and stop whining, but there is little chance of that happening.
Westminster politics got underway again this week and provided us with plenty of action to kick-off 2011. The week’s most amusing story was the news that Tory MP Mark Pritchard, who is Deputy Chairman of the 1922 Committee, got into an altercation with John Bercow and ended up shouting ‘You are not fucking royalty’ at the Speaker before storming off. It’s another indication of just how much the Speaker has fallen out with his former party.
The big news of the week was, of course, the result of the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. Yet as exciting as it was, it didn’t really change anything. Labour, and particularly Ed Miliband, needed a comfortable win: they got it. The Lib Dems needed to show that their support had not totally collapsed and that they could still compete: they did that. The Tory high command just needed the Lib Dems to survive in order to ensure the stability of the coalition: which is exactly what happened. No party will be particularly unhappy with this result.
The story that dominated the first half of the week was bankers’ bonuses. This came to its head on Wednesday with a very competitive PMQs after Chancellor George Osborne had been called to the House for emergency questions on Tuesday. Ed Miliband – who has had a pretty good week for once – embarrassed the PM by pointing out that the Tories’ website still proudly displayed his election pledge to limit bankers’ bonuses to £2,000. Yet despite early hits, Miliband is still a PMQs’ amateur and, unwilling to depart from his prepared script, failed to kill off Cameron and let him back in to steal a draw.
The Government also managed to overcome some backbench resistance to defeat an amendment to its EU Sovereignty Bill, but left itself in an unhappy position by proposing a piece of legislation which is detested by the very people it was designed to appease. We also found out that the decision on Control Orders is to be delayed until next week because of ongoing cabinet disputes.
YouGov also released figures this week that placed The Conservatives on 36%, 7% behind Labour on 43%. While they may be an anomaly, these figures did reinforce recent ComRes figures that showed Labour with an 8% lead. Interestingly, while Labour support has risen since May it is steady around 42%, and these big leads are occurring because of a fall in Conservative support.
The big news for the economy this week came from the MPC, which decided to keep interest rates at 0.5%. It hopes that this will create the right environment for economic growth, and is choosing to focus on this rather than efforts to rein in inflation. There was also some good news from credit rating agency Moody’s, which said that the UK’s AAA rating was safe.
In Europe the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, suggested that the arms embargo to China should be lifted for the good of the European economy. This came after a visit by Chinese Vice-Premier – and probable future PM – Li Keqiang to various European capitals. Given the shock that reverberated around Western defence circles after new stealth fighter technology was unveiled just before US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ trip to China, it is highly unlikely that the US and UK would be keen on such a move.
YouGov Polling 13-01-11
Conservative 41%
Labour 41%
Liberal Democrat 8%
Government Approval -17%
Proof, if any were actually needed, that the left-wing of the blogosphere is boring and incapable of criticising Labour came this week in a piece in the New Statesman. In it, Dan Hodges makes it clear that left-wing blogs take their cue from Ed Miliband's team. I've written before (here and here) about the curious inability of left-wing blogs to criticise Labour, and argued that in the long term it does them and the Labour Party no good, because they are throwing away their credibility.
It's a real shame that this state of affairs exists, because blogs like Political Scrapbook have so much potential. But instead of being independent left-wing blogs have chosen to take their lines from Labour HQ: and the contrast with the Conservative side of the blogosphere could not be more apparent. Attempts to 'spin' the blogosphere are so transparent and really counter-productive. I genuinely hope that these blogs stop essentially working for Miliband and start arguing independently for their left-wing opinions, because that's a whole lot more interesting than just being Miliband's mouthpiece.
As I predicted, bankers' bonuses dominated PMQs today. What I didn't expect was that Ed Miliband would actually manage to make some of his attacks stick. His first question was his best, pointing out that the Conservatives still had their election pledge to cap bonuses at £2,000 on their website and that Cameron had spectacularly failed to implement it. (Someone at CCHQ should get an earful for this, given that it was raised during the emergency questions to Osborne yesterday.)
Cameron's reply was weak on substance but high on flair, setting the tone for a very personal PMQs. Miliband probably could have pushed on with this line of questioning but he is still too unsure of himself to deviate from what was pretty defined series of questions. Even so, his next question was good, asking Cameron about the amount of money that his Bankers' Levy would raise, and comparing that figure to Labour’s Bankers' Bonus tax.
The PM gave a very long, technical answer to this question which seemed to flummox Miliband. This was a real shame, because Cameron was being a little creative with the facts. He argued that his Levy would raise £2.5bn this year, more than the £2.3bn Labour's tax generated. Miliband argued that Cameron's Levy would raise £1.3bn, and said Labour's Bonus Tax raised 3.5bn.
It was Miliband who had his facts straight. The crafty maths that the Treasury used to get the £3.5bn down to £2.5bn – by making guesses about how much NI and income tax they'd lost in lieu – and the fudged statistic that the Levy would raise £2.5bn – it will in 2012, but not in 2011 – were frankly embarrassing. But fortunately for the PM, it was here that Miliband really let himself down. He stuck to his script again and failed to make it clear just how wrong Cameron was. This was a huge opportunity missed.
He ended up asking a lengthy question demanding more transparency, which gave Cameron the opportunity to turn to Labour's record in Government, and there was little substance to the rest of the session. Cameron scored an easy hit by reminding the House that Miliband had been at the Treasury during Labour's period in power and, in particular, when they had awarded Sir Fred Goodwin a knighthood.
Throughout PMQs it was Cameron who landed the better jokes. The best was an excellent quip that Labour had 'a shadow chancellor who can’t count and a Labour leader who doesn’t count'. He also made frequent references to Johnson’s mathematical shortcomings and claimed 'there’s no point Wallace [Miliband] asking Gromit [Johnson] about that one'. He also suggested that Ed Miliband should switch with his brother: that he should go on TV and let David run the Party.
Yet at times the whole thing threatened to get a bit too personal Cameron said of Miliband that: 'He was the nothing man when he was at the Treasury and he is the nothing man now he's trying to run the Labour Party.' For his part, Miliband commented that Osborne was a 'poisonous fungus'. Cameron tends to get personal when he's in a tight spot, and Miliband was just responding in kind – but it didn't look great for either man.
Bankers' bonuses worked for Miliband today not because he got the best of Cameron but because he pushed an argument that will resonate with the electorate. Miliband had a big opportunity to really punish the PM but he still lacks the confidence to deviate from his script and so Cameron was able to fudge his response, make a few jokes and stop Ed Miliband from winning it, but he was never on strong ground. A good defence by Cameron and a promising start to the year by Ed Miliband.
So, at long long last, PMQs is back. And with it comes the very first PMQs Preview here at Woodman’s World. So after a relatively busy festive period, what issues are likely to dominate the first session of the new year?
This morning I was pretty sure that bankers’ bonuses would be Ed Miliband’s main focus. But watching today’s emergency questions to the Chancellor and seeing Alan Johnson and a host of other MPs fail to land a solid blow on George Osborne I’m not convinced it’d be a good idea for the Labour leader.
If Miliband does use this line, he better have a long list of retorts for Cameron when the PM – as he undoubtedly will – reminds the House of the scale of bonuses under the previous Labour government. A few choice quotes from Mandelson – 'haven’t the rich suffered enough' or 'We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich' spring to mind – or maybe a quick mention of Sir (with emphasis on Labour’s knighthood) Fred Goodwin’s £14million bonus...
Today we found out that the decision on retaining control orders, which expire in March and was due this Thursday, has been delayed by another week or two. It’s clear that the Government is struggling to come to a decision. Given that Labour created them and took a strong line on law and order, this is a topic Miliband should focus on. Not only can Labour point to a strong, or at least unambiguous, record, but it can also make political capital from the confusion in Government – both within the coalition and in the individual parties.
Some of the detail has leaked to the BBC this evening, and Ed Balls has been quoted already as saying that the process has 'descended into a shambles', and that it is designed to 'keep the coalition together rather than exclusively about what is in the national interest'. A Labour attack on this would also tie neatly with a dig at Ken Clarke’s prison reforms and the plan to allow inmates the vote, which are making lots of Tories very unhappy.
One other option for Miliband is the EU Bill, which is being debated tonight and is likely to pass despite unease on the Conservative backbenches. The big problem with the Bill is this: it was designed to appease eurosceptic Tory backbenchers and it has failed. Indeed, this is the group which has been most vocally opposed. Labour is on risky ground with Europe after the shambles of the Lisbon Treaty but they could still make the Tories uncomfortable with a couple of well-targeted questions.
Anyway, that’s what I’d do – although previous experience suggests that it might well not be what Miliband does. The main thing is that he avoids bankers’ bonuses, because it’s worse for Labour than the Conservatives. Besides, any debate even touching on economics is likely to encourage Cameron to bring up Alan Johnson’s National Insurance gaffe earlier this week.
Other things to watch out for include the sluggish Q4 growth at the end of last year and the 50p tax rate, as well as comments on the 'nuclear option' outlined by Vince Cable before Christmas. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on Eric Illsley or David Chaytor from either party.
A new ComRes poll has given Labour an 8% lead over the Conservatives, and is sure to dominate the early news tomorrow. While it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt it does reflect a general shift in the headline polls towards Labour. The Tories have been around 40% or so for a few months now (see UKPR average taken on 6th Jan - right) and they’ve just started to drop away in a few polls but given the margin of error this can’t yet be seen as a definite trend. Labour, on the other hand, has climbed steadily, from their 30% figure back in June to around 40% now.
Yet I think there needs to be a note of caution in the way Labour reacts to these figures. Most polls over the past month have had Labour and the Conservatives essentially level pegging around 40%, with Labour maybe slightly in front. Their figure of 42% fits the trend, but as yet the drop in Tory support to 34% does not. This is especially true because recent polling has indicated that Cameron is still widely regarded as a better PM than Ed Miliband, and that the Tories are trusted more on the economy.
It’s also dangerous for Labour to get its hopes up too much before the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. I believe polls suggesting that Labour has a 17% lead over the Liberal Democrats will prove to be inaccurate. Labour will win, but it won’t be by that margin. And don’t forget: these figures all suggest Labour should win handsomely, and expectations have increased to match. Ed Miliband will now be in real danger of losing what little confidence his backbenchers have in him if he fails to pull off a convincing victory.
It's been a year of change for PMQs. What began with a straight fight between Brown and Cameron – occasionally deputised by Hague and Harman – was changed in May by the General Election. The coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives meant that Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg wasn’t asking questions at PMQs but sitting on the Government benches – and indeed occasionally deputising himself. Labour’s defeat saw Brown resign, leading to the mother of all leadership contests. During this period, Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman was charged with facing Cameron over the dispatch box. This also gave Jack Straw the chance to step up as her deputy on occasion before, at long last, Labour held its vote and decided to give Ed Miliband the honour of leading the Party.
Phew. There can’t be many years when seven different people take to the dispatch box for PMQs. Yet in spite of the high turnover, there has been a degree of continuity. David Cameron quickly established himself as an able debater back in 2005 and the transition from Blair to Brown in 2007 meant he became more and more dominant against a Labour leader who didn’t really want to be there.
Cameron’s strong performances against Brown were the main theme of the year to May. He was in command of his brief, his jokes were better, and his party’s high poll ratings meant that he had the broad support of his backbenchers. The fallout from the recession made Brown an easy target, as it undermined his economic record. In the run-up to the election polling suggested that the public strongly favoured a reduction in state spending, which meant that Brown’s efforts to paint Cameron as ideologically committed to cuts were blunted by his own inevitable need to outline spending reductions.
Given his poor eyesight and the fact that his personality was unsuited to the quick cut-and-thrust of PMQs, Brown actually did better than I had expected. But it was only rarely enough to win PMQs.
If we needed a reminder of the limitations of PMQs it came in May, when the General Election did not produce an overall majority for any party. In the end, it seems the fact that Cameron was regularly besting Brown in the Commons only served to increase the Conservatives’ confidence, and not their share of the vote.
The forming of the coalition meant that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was now a member of the Government, and that he was no longer entitled to ask two questions at PMQs. This shifted the focus more heavily onto the battle between and Government and the opposition. It also meant that there was an even more obvious change from the leaders’ questions to those from backbenchers.
The resignation of Gordon Brown meant that Labour began its lengthy procedures to select a new leader. The result of this was that Cameron spent the first five months of his leadership facing Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman. I must say that I found Harman impressively combative. Cameron was moving his Government towards the CSR and the SDSR and was regularly put on the spot by the Labour stand-in.
Harman is my 2010 PMQs overachiever for this and one other reason: her annihilation of Nick Clegg in November. Deputising for Ed Miliband, she relentlessly pressed the Deputy PM on his party’s hostage to fortune: its election pledge to scrap tuition fees. It was truly masterful.
But apparently all good things have to come to an end. And so, on September 25, Ed Miliband was elected as the new leader of the Labour Party. His first performance at PMQs was awful.
Being successful at PMQs isn’t just about actually winning an argument or making a good point, it’s also about managing expectations. I truly believe watching Ed Miliband’s first outing against Cameron must have been one of the most worrying and demoralising moments of the year for Labour MPs (and it wasn’t a great year). He was predictable, slow, unoriginal, wooden, and appeared out of his depth. It was a huge let-down, and makes him the worst-performing PMQs competitor of 2010.
His performances have since improved. He is better than Brown. But he should be a lot better than Brown. He is now competing with Cameron, but he only wins when Cameron himself performs badly. Thankfully he has the potential to be better, but he will have to totally re-evaluate his approach in 2011 if he is to make the most political capital possible from what should be a very hard year for the Government. Miliband’s also still facing a Conservative leader who isn’t quite sure how to play him.
In contrast, David Cameron has had a relatively successful year at the dispatch box. His strengths are obvious: he’s quick-witted, smart, in command of his brief, and has a human demeanour. He was naturally more gifted than Brown and had learnt how to defeat him. He is better than Harman and despite her plucky performances he still regularly delivered coherent political and economic arguments.
It’s against Miliband that he’s been least impressive. Ed is not yet performing well and yet Cameron has almost let him get the better of him on a couple of occasions. He’s my top performer of 2010 but he will need to pick things up this year.
Top Performer: David Cameron Overachiever: Harriet Harman Underachiever: Ed Miliband Biggest Victory: Harman absolutely destroying Clegg on tuition fees, 10 Nov. Best Quote: Harriet Harman, 10 Nov: "We all know what it’s like: you are at freshers’ week, you meet up with a dodgy bloke and you do things that you regret. Isn’t it true he has been led astray by the Tories?"
The Christmas break has been punctuated by a couple of big stories. At the end of last year we had the Telegraph’s sting of a number of Lib Dem MPs, including Vince Cable. We also saw a big political battle over the hike in VAT to 20% on 1 January.
Other stories have rumbled on over the holidays, with Conservative MPs increasingly uneasy with their leader’s approach to the Lib Dems and the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. Angus Reid conducted an interesting poll showing that the Coalition would struggle if if fought as one in 2015 because Lib Dem voters would desert it. Ed Miliband has changed up his press team and looks to be making more of an impact, although there is a long way for him to go.
The NotW hacking scandal came back again to ruin Andy Coulson’s New Year, and the Coalition has got itself in a bit of a mess trying to decide what to do with Control Orders. Half of Westminster decamped this week to Oldham for the by-election, which is expected to return the Labour candidate, Debbie Abrahams, and David Chaytor became the first MP to be sentenced for his expenses claims. He was given 18 months in prison.
YouGov Polling 06-01-11:
Conservative 39%
Labour 43%
Lib Dem 7%
Government Approval: -20%
In a bid to take this blog to the next level, Woodman's World is introducing a few changes. Going live next week will be the new PMQs Review section of the site, which aims to be your first port of call for everything to do with PMQs. It'l feature a review of each session and a look forward to next week's issues, as well as articles looking at long term trends. I'll also be introducing a Weekly Round-up that will summarise the week's main stories and keep a tab on the latest polling. And I'll be using Wordle and other tools to make the blog more visually arresting. I hope you're excited, because I'm positively tingling with anticipation...
Guido Fawkes has written today about the widespread failure of left-wing blogs to be critical of the Labour Party. He contrasts them with Conservative blogs, which he claims are generally all unafraid of being critical of the Tories.
Fawkes is absolutely right and it’s a point I’ve made in a blog post before. Their silence is deafening: it couldn’t be more obvious that they aren’t commenting on controversial issues within their own party. It also couldn’t be more pathetic. But why can't they do it? Do they lack the courage or the willpower to criticise Labour? Do they not think there is anything to criticise?! Whatever the answer, the result is that they come across as intellectually weak.
The real kicker is that they are undermining themselves. Because readers know that whatever the truth of a situation, these blogs will always write the same story. And in the end that means that people won't listen to what they have to say about the Government. Which means that they won't enhance the Labour Party's message because no-one who isn't a fully paid-up Labour member will be interested in what they are saying.
So for their own sakes, for Labour's sake, and for the sake of a better political blogosphere, I hope these sites start to look critically at Labour instead of just attacking the Government.
p.s. Another interesting part of the expenses saga is that no politician of any hue has sought to make political capital from David Chaytor’s imprisonment. It’s not even being used by Elwyn Watkins in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. It's pretty clear that Westminster would like the story to go away as quickly as possible.
Sometimes you read something and just find yourself excitedly shouting 'yes, yes, YES!!' in your head. That's what happened today when I read this post by City AM Editor Allister Heath on the need for a proper re-evaluation of the relationship between state and the individual. So here it is in full:
It was Frederic Bastiat, the French nineteenth century economist, who famously described the state as “that great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else”. It is a shame that Bastiat’s work, cult reading in some circles, has yet to penetrate the public consciousness in Britain. Those who campaign obsessively against “cuts” should take note – what they are really arguing is for others – their contemporaries, as well as future generations saddled with the national debt – to pay for their pet projects.
It is high time for a proper debate about the relationship between the individual and the state. In a classically liberal society, people’s incomes are seen as theirs, to be spent, invested or donated as they see fit, with taxation kept to the minimum necessary to provide certain services and help the poor (the size of these activities are, of course, subject to debate). The present, collectivist mood in the UK sees it differently: earnings are implicitly treated as public property, to be divided up according to what politicians see fit; tax cuts are even seen as a “cost” to the Exchequer, as if it were automatically entitled to everybody’s wealth.
There is a fundamental philosophical distinction between these two positions. This is not merely an abstract debate: shifting views on what we mean by “justice” have economic consequences. The UK’s relative prosperity – during its industrial heyday and then again during the 1980s and 1990s – was based on policies that assumed that individuals had a natural right to their earnings and property. By contrast, the post-war period, when envy and confiscatory taxation were rationalised on moral grounds, culminating with a 98 per cent tax rate in the 1970s, was a disaster.
The situation is obviously no way as bad today as it was in those days. But Britain is now a very high tax society by international standards. So it was great to see Boris Johnson call for the 50p tax to be scrapped yesterday. The real top rate of tax is even higher when national insurance is included; earnings are taxed again when consumed (VAT, petrol tax); and anything left is taxed again at death. Crippling rates of double and triple taxation are the order of the day.
Such a state of affairs would have outraged Bastiat. To him, high rates of taxation were unacceptable, morally as well as in terms of the damage inflicted on the incentive to work, save and invest. “No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic,” he argued in his inimitable style.
There are plenty of voices around today fighting for free speech, civil liberties and “social” freedoms. It is a shame there is no equal enthusiasm when it comes to defending individuals’ economic freedom.
There has been a definite change in tone since Ed Miliband brought Bob Roberts (L) and Tom Baldwin (R) onto his staff. One of the most visible changes has been the decision to switch from using the word 'coalition' and replace it with the new phrase 'Tory-led government'. This is designed to shift the focus from the coalition's 'alliance in the national interest' and onto the fact that this Government has a Tory majority and that they are responsible for its policies.
Ironically, this is also the new policy of many Tory backbenchers. As I have mentioned before, they are concerned that any popular policy the coalition proposes is credited to the Lib Dems, in order to improve their image, prop up their poll ratings and in turn reinforce the coalition. So it seems that despite the dawning of an age of 'new politics' and coalition, our democracy is still based on two main parties looking to marginalise the Liberal Democrats. How reassuring.
Ed Miliband wrote an article in the Times today that demonstrates perfectly why Labour do not yet scare the coalition. He started by saying that "In their politically motivated desire to propagate a myth about the last Labour Government, they [the Tories] are ignoring the real lessons of the global financial crisis."
Miliband goes on to say that the Conservatives' "deceit is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues."
Ah! I see. So chronic overspending wasn't an issue or didn't exist. Obviously the answer to the current situation is not to cut spending but to stimulate the economy in order to get tax income back to pre-crash levels, right?
Erm, no. "The real debate is not about whether or not to cut the deficit: Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high." Oh, so there is a problem with the amount of money that the Government spends? Now I'm confused.
Ed Miliband is trying to have it both ways. He wants to say that the cuts are bad. But he also knows what this graph (above) from the Spectator shows: that Labour spent more than it received every year after 2002. And so he wants to show that he understands the need for cuts to be made, because apparently voters like that. So he ends up in the middle, opposing Conservative cuts while arguing that cuts need to be made.
This is cowardice. It's understandable, but it's still cowardice. It also makes his allegations that the Tories are being politically motivated in their policies totally hollow and hypocritical.
One of the things I admire about this coalition is that it has an aggressive policy to fix the economy that it believes in and that it is seeing through to completion. It is leading public opinion. That takes guts and confidence. Labour is hedging its bets, waiting to see what the public thinks. So Miliband calls the coalition strategy a gamble, and says he "hopes it pays off" but believes it's "an extreme approach.... Mr Osborne is going too far and too fast on the deficit."
He can't have it both ways. And, frankly, he shouldn't be trying to. He'll get no credit in 2015 if he once said that the coalition strategy might work. He should go with his gut and genuinely promote an alternative strategy. What would he do if he was in power? If he wouldn't cut then he should say so. Because if he does believe Osborne's got it wrong then by having a clear and 'less painful' alternative he'll be giving himself a chance to be the leader who has it right in 2015.
Labour members should be concerned by articles like these. These nuanced policies reflect a short-termism that belies a lack of faith in their own economic arguments: If they're not certain that the Tories will get it wrong then they're not certain that their policies will get it right.
As a final point, I can't help but feel that having someone like Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper in the Shadow Treasury role would give Labour's economic policies a lot more purchase. The media would certainly listen more attentively than it does to Johnson.
We are four days into 2011 and already I've heard the words 'progressive' and 'regressive' so many times my head is spinning and I'm starting to feel nauseous. Sadly, I can see this being a trend that continues throughout 2011 as Labour seeks to label everything the Coalition does as 'regressive'.
What's even more upsetting is that the real issue here is being missed. Retailers are going to put up prices by as much as 5% or even 8%. This isn't to make profit, it's to readjust their costs to factor in inflation. These price rises were coming VAT rise or no VAT rise.
So the real story here is not the tired old tale about the profligate Labour Government and the austere Coalition reducing its deficit, but about the huge risk the UK faces in 2011 from inflation which some economists at the Bank of England fear could see the CPI top 4%.
4%! And that's just the CPI. The RPI was already at 4.7% in November. So despite recent support for their economic measures from a group of leading economists - who believe that the UK is in for a slow period of growth in 2011 rather than a double-dip recession - the threat of inflation still looms large. It is the most pressing economic problem facing the country, and the Government must start concentrating on finding some way to reduce inflation.
p.s. If you want to look at whether the VAT rise is progressive or regressive then look no further than this well-researched article by the BBC's Business Reporter Laurence Knight.
I'm not sure why the NUT is so against free schools. They claim that they are divisive and unaccountable, but don't really have any evidence to support this. What is divisive about a group of parents and teachers setting up a school to benefit their local community? And if by unaccountable it means outside LEA control, then the significant minority of failing state schools under LEA control should make the NUT think that perhaps being accountable to these bodies isn't always the best thing.
To prove just how unpopular these plans are, the NUT has commissioned a study, published today, that it claims proves that people don't want or need them. Except that it doesn't. What the figures show is that 26% of parents do want free schools, and that a further 43% are as yet undecided. Free schools are meant to be an option for parents. They are not being rolled out as the norm, though they may become more common if they are successful. Indeed, each free school proposal has to demonstrate that there is local demand, so if there really isn't any support as the NUT claims then there won't be any free schools.
The study also begs the question that if 25% of parents would consider setting one up then why would the NUT oppose their wishes? The answer is probably because the NUT perceives them as a threat to itself. These schools will have greater freedoms to fire poor teachers, will not have to follow the national curriculum, and could hire teachers who are not qualified. They will have the independence to innovate and develop new methods, just like the many successful private schools in the UK which have similar powers.
All of these things could really benefit children who are not getting the education they deserve under the current system. But because they also point to a smaller role for the country's largest teaching union, the NUT continues to oppose them. It's an incredibly sad state of affairs, because these plans will go ahead and if they work could be fantastic news for children. By being so thoughtlessly critical the NUT is really missing out on a huge opportunity to get involved in free schools and help shape their development.
The coalition's localism bill is designed to shift power from central government to local government, and to remove local government regulation to make those institutions more flexible and responsive to local people's needs. This will allow them to 'genuinely lead their communities'.
The DCLG business plan, published in November, makes it clear that this seismic shift in the structure of British government will only be successful if local government is compelled to change: it needs to become more accountable, transparent, and democratic. One of the simplest and most necessary changes is that all local government bodies be forced to publish all spending information. If this is not done local citizens cannot make informed decisions.
Publishing data needs to become the norm for councils. Currently, councils' default setting is to look to see what data they have to publish. They need to completely change their perspective and publish everything unless they are legally required not to. The figures out today showing that over half of Britain's councils have not published their data with only a month to go before the deadline are worrying.
Eric Pickles has criticised councils who have not yet published their data and asked what they are hiding, but he has not acted to legally compel them to publish their data. If localism is to work we cannot wait for the culture of secrecy to change over time. We need a rapid change and that can only be brought about by the creation of a legal imperative to publish all local spending data. Localism hasn't even begun and already there is a serious threat to one of the most important measures needed to make it a success.
The Ipsos MORI poll that claims Ed Miliband is the least popular Leader of the Opposition since Iain Duncan Smith is not great news for the Labour leader, but it's hardly terminal either.
What the graph (right) shows is that recent party leaders - with the exception of Tony Blair - have all faced difficult periods in the polls. I think Miliband will feel that he has a chance to reform his party in the same way that Cameron has changed the Conservative Party during his leadership. Miliband should be confident that he will follow Cameron's trajectory, and see Labour into the next election in 2015 with a reinvigorated Labour Party behind him.
He'll also - if he actually believes in his key economic message about cuts and it isn't just political expediency - be certain that come 2015 he'll be facing a Conservative Party in government as unpopular as the Labour Party under Gordon Brown. So I don't think Miliband will be too unhappy with these figures. He will be wary, however, of falling below -20, because when that happened to IDS, Hague and Howard they never recovered.
He will also be buoyed by the figures that show 53% of Labour members are satisfied with his leadership. He should be confident of converting some of the 25% of Labour members who 'don't know' (how you can have no opinion is beyond me) into 'satisfied' supporters of his leadership over the coming year.
The overall figures, which show that opinion is split on his leadership, are an opportunity for Miliband rather than a death knell. Electoral politics is all about convincing people that you're right and he still has the time to do it.
Yet if I was Ed Miliband I would still have some serious concerns. I'd be less worried about how I appeared to the country, and more concerned how I appeared to my backbenchers and shadow cabinet colleagues. I'd also be afraid that the absence of concrete Labour policies in many areas would blunt my political attacks. So, in the spirit of Christmas, in anticipation of an exciting 2011 and in the hope that the opposition will force the government to raise its game, here are five suggestions to get Miliband's leadership moving in the right direction:
1. Ed Miliband must improve his PMQs performances in the New Year. Whatever he is doing now isn't working. If he does this he will begin to convince his backbenchers that he can actually compete nationally with David Cameron.
2. He needs to bring Balls and Cooper closer to his leadership, because at the moment they are not in his inner circle and are just itching to prove themselves better potential leaders. Plus they are in portfolios where, frankly, their talents are completely wasted. One of them at least has to replace Johnson in the shadow Treasury role if they ever want to get close to Osborne.
3. Stop picking on the Liberal Democrats. He claims to want to woo disaffected Lib Dems but he always goes for the easy line in the media or at PMQs and picks on them for some perceived 'U-turn'. Miliband should never forget that the coalition has a Conservative majority, and that they must be his primary target.
4. Choose a few policy areas and ruthlessly demonstrate to the public how the government has taken the wrong options. Eric Pickles' reforms to local government are the most radical changes to the structure of government in the UK in years, and the government has no idea how its localism agenda will turn out. The restructuring of the NHS is potentially disastrous and the changes to education are being very poorly executed. Lansley and Gove should be easy targets for their Labour shadow ministers.
5. Get real distance from the unions. If they are actually serious when they talk of huge coordinated strike action in 2011 then it would be toxic for the Labour leader to get too close. Cameron will be looking to paint Ed Miliband as a union man helping undermine the economic recovery with reckless strikes. He must avoid this.
Posts
