When two tribes go to war....

At the beginning of this year, I wrote that if the Coalition government survived 2011, it would in all likelihood achieve its original objective of serving out a full five-year Parliamentary term.

What I was trying to say was not so much that it will all be plain sailing from 1 January 2012 onwards, but that if there was a point of maximum danger for the Cameron-Clegg government, it will come this year rather than any other.

The past few weeks seem to have proved the point, as tensions have erupted between the Coalition partners over a series of issues ranging from the NHS to immigration.

A year on from the opening TV debate between the party leaders which shaped the 2010 election campaign, serious commentators have started to pose the question whether another election might not be so very far off.

Last week I focused on the health reforms, and the ongoing Lib Dem-inspired backlash against health secretary Andrew Lansley's plan to hand control of the NHS budget to GPs.

Although they refrained from saying as much, the Lib Dems will doubtless have been privately rubbing their hands with glee at Mr Lansley's humiliation at the hands of Royal College of Nursing conference on Wednesday.

The yellows showed no such restraint however when Chancellor George Osborne suddenly enlivened what has thus far been a sleep-inducing campaign on whether to change the voting system.

Mr Osborne criticised the role of the Electoral Reform Society in simultaneously receiving taxpayers' money to run some of the referendum ballots and helping to fund the Yes campaign, saying: "That stinks frankly."

The comments earned the Chancellor a rebuke from his own Lib Dem deputy, chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, who accused his departmental boss of "pretty desperate scaremongering."

It showed that, although the two sides have agreed to disagree on the subject of voting reform, it is very hard to have a civilised disagreement when the whole future of how we conduct our politics is at stake.

Predictably, however, the week's biggest Cob-Lib bust-up arose over Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to make a speech highlighting the impact of immigration on local communities.

Lib Dem Cabinet colleague Vince Cable said his words were "very unwise" and that the PM risked inflaming extremism.

Partly this was down to the timing of the speech, three weeks before some local elections in which the British National Party will once more attempt to make inroads.

But it also exposed real disagreements over the issue at the heart of the Coalition, with business secretary Dr Cable consistently arguing that putting a cap on immigration will limit firms' abilities to recruit key workers.

The Lib Dems have pointed out that Mr Cameron's wish to take net migration back to the levels of tens of thousands a year rather than hundreds of thousands is Conservative, as opposed to government policy.

The Coalition Agreement speaks merely of an "annual limit" on people coming to the UK from outside the European Union for economic reasons, making no reference to specific numbers.

One of the commentators who openly speculated this week that the Coalition might not see out its five-year term was the constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor.

He pointed out that while the leaderships of both parties will almost certainly want to hug together until the end, the fate of coalitions is determined by restless, committed party members whom leaders cannot always control.

Mr Bogdanor is right to point out that it is the wildly differing nature of the two parties' memberships that gives the Coalition its inherent instability, while the good relations between their respective leaderships have hitherto been its biggest strength.

If this week's events are anything to go by, however, that may not always be the case.

A listening government - or a government in retreat?

Of all the changes introduced by the Coalition government since it took office last May, it is fair to say that its proposed reforms to the National Health Service have been the most politically controversial.

What about the cuts, I hear you say? Haven't they caused much more widespread public anger and made a much deeper impact on local communities?

Well, yes. But there was a broad political consensus dating back to well before the general election that spending cutbacks needed to be made – the only real disagreement being about the extent of them.

More importantly, the Coalition had a mandate for them. Labour lost the election primarily because, rightly or wrongly, the party was seen to be in denial about the size of the deficit and the remedial action needed to address it.

By contrast, the NHS reforms were not even spelled out in the Coalition Agreement, which infamously promised that there would be "no more top down reorganisation of the NHS."

Indeed, the agreement implicitly accepted that Primary Care Trusts would remain, promising a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local PCT."

However when the legislation was published, it turned out that health secretary Andrew Lansley was proposing the abolition of PCTs and the transfer of their entire commissioning role to GPs.

Much of the anger felt by Liberal Democrats over the reforms can be traced back to this piece of perceived duplicity on Mr Lansley's part.

There is said to be anger in Number 10 at the way Mr Lansley has handled the reforms – but to my mind the fault lies more with Downing Street for not paying sufficient attention to their likely political impact.

As with the Forestry Commission sell-off debacle, No 10 seems to have been so focused on deficit reduction in the government's early days that it took its eye off the ball in other, seemingly less contentious areas.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg must bear some of the blame too, for not realising the strength of feeling in his own grassroots against the proposals.

It is only since his party's Spring conference delivered a huge thumbs-down to the reforms that Mr Clegg has started to argue for changes to the legislation.

So it was no great surprise that, this week, the government was forced to announce it was taking a raincheck on the implementation of the reforms while it conducted a further "listening exercise" with the public and health professionals.

It amounted to an admission that the reforms had been introduced without the necessary buy-in from either the public or, more importantly, those people who will be charged with making them work.

Should we see it as the prelude to a dramatic U-turn? Or is it simply a belated effort by Prime Minister and ex-PR man David Cameron to 'sell' the proposed changes?

Time will tell….but Mr Cameron's apparent openness to changes in the legislation suggests this is more than mere window-dressing.

The backbench health committee of MPs, for instance, wants to see the new fund-holding commissioning bodies drawn from a much wider membership, including councillors and hospital doctors.

Although this is more in tune with the spirit of what was in the original Coalition agreement, any weakening of the central proposal to hand power to GPs will be seen as a major political reverse for Mr Cameron.

The political commentator Benedict Brogan said of this week's events: "The underlying impression was one of an administration in retreat, forced to trim on policy because it got the politics wrong."

Mr Cameron is finding that the line between being a "listening government" and a "weak government" is sometimes a very fine one.

Is Ed Miliband the man to inject some passion back into our politics?

One of the most frequent criticisms made of politicians these days is that they spend too much time agreeing with eachother.

For many, politics has become too risk-averse, a game fought over a narrow strip of ideological terrain in which the most important rule is to avoid saying or doing anything that might offend the fabled 'floating voter.'

In truth, it's an analysis that is only half-right. If you're lucky enough to be in government, or if the tide of public opinion is shifting in your direction, there is still a fair degree of scope for radical thought.

But that's not, by and large, true for opposition politicians. Here, the watchword is "don't frighten the horses," and oppositions which have tried to challenge the political consensus, such as Labour in 1983 and the Tories in 2001, have tended to come unstuck.

So in one sense, it was refreshing to see Labour leader Ed – or is it Edward? - Miliband address last weekend's protest rally in central London against the Coalition's spending cuts.

It was absolutely inevitable that he would be crucified in the right-wing press for doing so, particularly once the protests got hijacked by criminal elements which were nothing to do with either the Labour Party or the organisers.

Some in his own party even joined in, with disgruntled Blairites muttering that "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown never went on protest rallies."

If this comparison was somehow supposed to diminish Ed Miliband in the eyes of the voters, I suspect that it will actually have had the opposite effect.

Like many in the upper reaches of the Labour Party, Mr Miliband has in the past come across as something of a machine politician – a man whose career progressed seamlessly from university to researcher to special adviser to MP to Cabinet minister and finally to the party leadership without the intervention of anything resembling real life.

So the fact that he sounded, for the first time last weekend, like a leader of genuine passion and conviction is, for me, a point in his favour.

Sure, it's a gamble, particularly if the passions and convictions he is articulating turn out not to be shared by a majority of voters.

But there is just a chance that the country, bored by years of 'Blatcherite' policy clones fighting over the 'centre ground,' could warm to a leader who seems prepared to inject some genuine political idealism into our national life.

Two substantive charges have been made against Mr Miliband over his Hyde Park speech last Saturday.

The first was that he claimed to be speaking for the 'mainstream' when he wasn't – but David Cameron and George Osborne are perhaps a little too eager to dismiss people's concerns about the cuts – and the possibility that the Labour leader might be genuinely reflecting them.

The second, more serious charge is that Mr Miliband told us "there is an alternative" without actually saying what it is.

But this, too, is slightly disingenuous. As I wrote last week, Labour has fairly consistently said throughout the last election and beyond that it would aim to halve the deficit in four years – a difference of about £40bn in spending terms from what the Coalition is doing.

What the Tories really mean by the latter criticism is that Mr Miliband should tell us which cuts he agrees with rather than allowing voters to be given the impression he opposes all of them.

Here they are on slightly stronger ground. Although Mr Miliband specifically denies he is against all the cuts, he can be seen to be guilty of trying to have it both ways in this regard.

Sooner rather than later, the Labour leader will have to answer this point if he is to become a genuinely credible contender for power at the next general election.

But for now, the fact that he is starting to discover his own distinctive voice will surely stand him in good stead.

Steady as she goes Budget leaves dividing lines unchanged

A little late due to stuff I won't bore you with...but here's my take on the Budget as published in Saturday's Journal.

---

Over the past 18 months, throughout the 2010 general election campaign and beyond, the main point at issue in British politics has been the question of how far and how fast to the cut the country's budget deficit.

To begin with, the Tories had the better of that argument, which is essentially why they ended up as the largest single party last May and why we now have a Conservative-led Coalition government.

Because the public blamed Gordon Brown for the scale of the problem, and perceived him as having been in denial over it, the Tories were able to win backing for a much deeper package of cuts than Labour had proposed.

But latterly, doubts have crept in. We may not have ended up in the dreaded double-dip recession, but as anyone running a small or medium-sized business will know, the fabled green shoots of recovery have thus far been very slow to appear.

For all the differences of emphasis between the former Chancellor Alistair Darling and the current Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, Labour's position on the deficit remains essentially unchanged.

It is that cutting too far, too fast, will damage growth – a view that is now starting to be borne out by the actual growth figures as well as in the everyday experiences of people up and down the country.

So the political imperative for Chancellor George Osborne as he delivered his second Budget on Wednesday was clear: to demonstrate that the coalition is not just about cuts, but has a growth strategy too.

In this he was only partially successful, his task being made all the more difficult by the need to announce – less than five minutes into his statement - a downgrading of the economic growth forecasts for 2011 from 2.1pc to 1.7pc.

Labour leader Ed Miliband's obvious glee at this announcement – "every time he comes to this House growth is downgraded" he told MPs - is scarcely misplaced, given the thrust of his party's economic message over the past year.

It is also fair to say that as a 'Budget for Growth,' Wednesday's package was somewhat underwhelming.

Sure, the 1p cut in fuel duty, coupled with the cancellation of the planned 4p rise later this year, will provide a fillip for hard-pressed businesses which have seen their profit-margins eroded by ever-escalating fuel costs, as will the additional 1p cut in Corporation Tax.

And the creation of 21 new Enterprise Zones, including the Tees Valley and Tyneside, represents a welcome recognition that some part of the country are being hit far harder by the cuts than others - even it looks suspiciously like a re-run of what Margaret Thatcher's government tried in the 1980s.

But those measures apart, this was actually rather a dull Budget – much more a case of "steady as she goes" than the kind of political game-changer which Chancellors usually like to spring on us.

Perhaps the most significant paragraph in Mr Osborne's statement was the one in which he signalled the eventual scrapping of the 50p top rate of tax, drawing a line under the Brown era and pointing to his longer-term ambitions as a tax-cutter in the Nigel Lawson mould.

Meanwhile the key political dividing lines remain unchanged – the Coalition claiming its radical deficit-reduction strategy will ultimately deliver stronger growth, Labour maintaining that it has merely delayed any prospect of real recovery.

At the moment, the economic evidence is favouring Labour. But with another four years for the green shoots to flower before it has to face the electorate again, the Coalition has time on its side.

Dare the government take on the boys in blue?

There was once an old political saying – variously attributed to both Stanley Baldwin and Harold Macmillan – that neatly defined the limits of state power in the middle part of the 20th century.

"There are three bodies no sensible man directly challenges: the Roman Catholic Church, the Brigade of Guards, and the National Union of Mineworkers," it went.

Times change, of course, and a modern rendition would undoubtedly have different bogeymen in the guise of those with whom no government dare fall out.

Media baron Rupert Murdoch, as we saw in last week's column, would certainly be one. The all-powerful motoring lobby might be another. But if you had to pick a third, it would probably be the Police Federation.

Attempts to reform the police over recent decades have invariably foundered as soon as the Federation – as influential a trade union as the NUM once was – started flexing its muscles.

Three years ago, the then Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith tried to shelve a police pay increase that had been awarded by an independent assessor – and was swiftly forced to back down.

Fifteen years earlier, Ken Clarke – no softie he – had launched a much more wholesale attempt at reform.

When Clarke moved from the Home Office to the Treasury it landed in his successor Michael Howard's inbox - but even that legendary political hardman decided a scrap with the boys in blue was not worth the candle.

So it is not without political significance that this week has seen the publication of a brace of reports which taken together amount to something of a double whammy for police pay and conditions.

On Tuesday, former rail regulator Tom Winsor published the results of a review calling for the abolition of overtime payments worth up to £4,000 a year to officers.

The following day, Lord Hutton – that's former Barrow MP John Hutton rather than Tony Blair's favourite retired judge – published a much more wide-ranging review into public sector pensions.

Among other things, it recommended not only the end of final salary pension schemes in the public sector, but an increase in the retirement age which would see police, members of the armed forces and firemen working till they were 60.

Already, the public sector unions – including the Federation - have made clear that the government has a big fight on its hands if it tries to implement this week's proposals.

As Unison's Dave Prentice put it: "This will be just one more attack on innocent public sector workers who are being expected to pay the price of the deficit, while the bankers who caused it continue to enjoy bumper pay and bonuses."

There are certain to be demonstrations, possibly even strikes, which will put the Police Federation in an interesting position to say the least.

For of course its members will be expected to control the protests called by those campaigning against the very proposals which they and their colleagues are being threatened with.

In one sense, this is a reform whose time has come. Final salary pension schemes are a thing of the past across most of the private sector, and in that context the retirement benefits enjoyed by public sector staff have started to look more and more anachronistic.

Yet the country's six million public sector workers remain a big and powerful constituency for any government to take on, especially in the aftermath of a recession.

Ultimately it may come down to a rather crude consideration, namely how many votes there are in public sector pension reform.

The answer is: probably not many. But there are a great many more potentially lost ones.

Dave's useful idiots

Of all the many insults hurled at Gordon Brown during his troubled premiership, perhaps the most wounding was the one delivered by the then Lib Dem acting leader Vince Cable during Prime Minister's Questions in November 2007.

"The House has noticed the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean," he told guffawing MPs.

But three years on, the now former Prime Minister may well have permitted himself a wry smile or two at the transformation in Mr Cable's own political fortunes.

In the space of less than 12 months, he has gone from Saint Vince, the most trusted politician in Britain, to a man now widely regarded as little more than a useful idiot for the Tory-led coalition.

Some of it is purely by virtue of his having swapped the luxuries of opposition for the harsh realities of power, at a time when the government was bound to be unpopular whoever was in it.

Yet even within that context, Mr Cable has demonstrated an unusual ability to shoot himself in the head.

His 'declaration of war' on media baron Rupert Murdoch, after being honeytrapped by a pair of female undercover reporters into speaking too frankly about his government role, has backfired more spectacularly than a turbo-charged boomerang.

The end result was that Tory culture secretary Jeremy Hunt this week nodded through a deal which will make Murdoch the dominant player in UK print and broadcast media, with even more financial clout than the BBC.

But if Dr Cable's ambitions in the field of media policy have been well and truly thwarted, the same would seem to apply to his conduct of regional policy.

After the election last May, Dr Cable put it about that he was going into bat to ensure that those English regions that wanted to would retain a region-wide political and economic voice.

Such a stance was, after all, in keeping with a Lib Dem election manifesto that promised to "reform" regional development agencies rather than abolish them wholesale as the Tories' did.

At one stage, Dr Cable was privately telling regional political leaders that the RDAs in the North East, North West and Yorkshire would be effectively be preserved, under the new guise of Local Economic Partnerships.

On the face of it, it hardly seemed Dr Cable's fault that this did not end up happening, and that communities secretary Eric Pickles prevailed in his determination to dismantle the entire regional political infrastructure.

Yet a Freedom of Information request by the Newcastle Journal has since revealed that, far from putting up a huge show of resistance, Dr Cable met his Tory counterpart just twice to discuss the issue.

In terms of the bigger picture, the RDA abolition and the Murdoch bid for BskyB point to a wider political reality - the inability of the Lib Dems to influence major policy decisions taken by this government.

And if proof was needed that this is now a widespread perception among the public, the result of Thursday's Barnsley by-election, which saw the party slumping to sixth place, surely provides it.

For some of us, the result brought back memories of those dear, dead days when world-weary Lib Dem activists used to sing a song called 'Losing Deposits' on the last night of their annual conference, to the tune of 'Waltzing Matilda.'

But for Dr Cable and his fellow Lib Dem ministers, there will be no such wallowing in nostalgia for more innocent political times.

Evidence is mounting that membership of this Coalition government is destroying the Lib Dems as a political force – possibly permanently.

How much more of it the party can take before it is obliged to go its own separate way will continue to be the defining question in British politics over the coming months.