Who's top and bottom of the Yellow B**tards League table?

By Matthew Barrett and Tim Montgomerie 

On Wednesday, we reported that Tory MPs at the 1922 Committee wanted to "get those yellow b**tards", in reference to Liberal Democrats who were criticising Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms, having voted for it before.

In today's Mail on Sunday James Forsyth writes that 10 Downing Street is at the end of its tether in having to deal with the Liberal Democrats. They agree one thing one day and then revisit that agreement the next day. "It is like negotiating with an Italian," reports James, "You think everything has been agreed and shaken on, only for the other side to start demanding concessions before the deal goes ahead."

So, who are the real troublemakers on the Liberal Democrat side of the Coalition? Here's a rough guide...

 

Vince Cable: Cable's time in office, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not been a happy one - for him or his Cabinet colleagues. He threatened to abstain on his own tuition fees policy, admitted he thought about resigning over his BSkyB gaffe, and also implied he might prefer life outside government. He called David Cameron's modest speech on immigration "very unwise" and, as Paul Goodman pointed out last week, business doesn't think much of him.  As Charles Moore pointed out last week in a devastating column the tuition fees policy has become a terrible dog's breakfast: students oppose the debt, the Treasury isn't going to save much money and universities won't get the scale of resources they need to deliver world class courses. Well done Vince.

Chris Huhne: After numerous instances of criticising Conservatives over the AV referendum, Huhne is certainly one of the Premier League's Big Four. He has threatened to sue his Coalition partners and likened the first Muslim member of Britain's Cabinet to Goebbels. His climate change plan, although diluted by the Chancellor, threatens to wreck Britain's economic recovery, as Nigel Lawson warned yesterday. If he survives his formidable intellectual skills will mean his environmental policies could become a massive political problem for Cameron but his immediate future rests in the hands of the Essex police.

Simon Hughes: Hughes, the deputy leader of the Lib Dems, frustrated the Coalition on tuition fees - by not committing to voting for, or against the policy, then criticising the plans, then abstaining on the vote, then agreeing to be a "social mobility tsar", and then criticising the policy some more. Outside of tuition fees, Hughes led rebellions against the rise in VAT and housing benefit cuts, and said Baroness Warsi was "inventing facts" during the AV referendum. Most recently, Hughes has opposed the NHS bill (that he voted for), and said it needed "fundamental" change for him to vote for it again.

Lord Oakeshott: He's not the highest profile Yellow B**tard but certainly, behind-the-scenes, one of the most dangerous. Personally close to Cable and tactically close to Huhne, Oakeshott attacked George Osborne as "incompetent" when he resigned as a Lib Dem Treasury spokesman earlier this year. "He hates Tories," said one ConHome source and is stirring up opposition in the upper house to the Coalition's NHS and police commissioner plans.

Ed Miliband hopes that Clegg-bashing might give him the edge over his brother

By Tim Montgomerie

It appears to be 'Get Clegg Day' in the grid of Ed Miliband's leadership campaign.

With more evidence yesterday that brother David has the edge in the leadership race, the man who wrote the manifesto for Gordon Brown's 2010 campaign has blasted the Liberal Democrat leader in an open letter to LibDem members in The Guardian:

"[The Liberal Democrats] are a party of proud traditions: of Keynes, Lloyd George and Beveridge. But it is increasingly clear that these traditions are being abandoned by Clegg as he goes along with damaging cuts in public spending undermining economic growth, tax rises hitting the poorest hardest, and a clear threat to the universal welfare state. Our society is at risk of being reshaped in ways that will devastate the proud legacy of liberalism. We see a free market philosophy being applied to our schools, wasteful top-down reorganisation of our NHS, and the undermining of our green credentials with cuts to investment. At some point you have to conclude that this is not a mistake here or there, but part of a pattern. The pattern is of a leadership that has sold out and betrayed your traditions, including that of your recent leadership: Steel, Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell."

Ed Miliband argues that his newly-discovered support for a graduate tax, opposition to ID cards and his previously secret conclusion that the Iraq war was a "profound mistake" make him the ideal person to attract even more LibDem supporters away from the Coalition (YouGov again had Clegg's party at 12% overnight).

In The Telegraph Mary Riddell identifies Ed's Clegg-bashing and David Miliband's reluctance to do the same* as the most interesting faultline in the Labour leadership race:

"The Lib Dem question could be a game-changer. For the first time, Ed's attacking instincts and David's gloves-on restraint offer a simple choice both to friends and to the enemies who have caricatured them as Tweedledum and Tweedledumber."

The danger of this Clegg bashing is that, as in Aesop's fable, the huffing and puffing against Nick Clegg may actually push him closer to Cameron. The building of a sunnier alternative within the Labour fold for Liberal Democrats is probably more likely to destabilise the Coalition.

* I'm not sure it's as simple as that. David Miliband has, as Mary Riddell notes, called Clegg "the dumb waiter" and "dead parrot".

See Nick Clegg's flip-flopping on a hung parliament exposed when you spin the Lib Dem Wheel of Misfortune

Tory HQ has put together this website which exposes the utter inconsistency and flip-flopping of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems over whether or not they would back Gordon Brown and Labour in the event of a hung parliament.

This is of course all part of the pushing of the point that you can only be guaranteed real change and be rid of the Brown Government if you vote Conservaitve on Thursday.

Jonathan Isaby

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats, faith and the election

Was the man who asked an anti-Pope question during last week's election debate a civil servant?  I ask because of today's exciting news about Whitehall plans to get Pope Benedict to open an abortion ward during his visit to Britain later this year.

The story set me thinking about Nick Clegg's answer, which impressed me.  He described himself as not being "a man of faith".  In an age in which politicians genuflect to every conceivable interest group, I admire Clegg for his willingness potentially to alienate millions of voters.

Then again, the Liberal Democrat leader may have been knowing as well as straightforward.  Very many religious believers cast their votes for the same reasons as their non-believing fellow citizens.  Furthermore, no faith is identifiable with one Party.

None the less, religious belief plays a part in UK elections.  Look no further than Northern Ireland.  The last London Mayoral election was marked by confessional politics, as Jews turned out for Boris Johnson in North London and Muslims for Ken Livingstone in the East End.

The Roman Catholic Church itself produced a document for this election which a church source described as "very much in line with Tory policy... although it is not intended to be explicitly political in either direction". Most candidates will face a hustings hosted by a local Church.

So although faith isn't a voting determinant for many believing voters, it is for others.  Both Clegg's and his party's views on faith and politics and the relationship between the two are thus of special interest to them. The best analysis I've found to date is produced by the Christian Institute.

It doesn't cover some issues that matter to millions of Christian voters, such as international aid or homelessness. It concentrates exclusively on what are often called "moral" issues (which invites debate on what an immoral issue might be).

Liberal Anglicans who read it will draw different conclusions from, say, conservative evangelicals.  But the story it tells about the Lib Dems is revealing, and I summarise the main points below in a "for and against" format:

• Religion as protected characteristic in public equality duties: AGAINST
• More narrow employment protection for faith group member in Equality BIll: FOR
• Religious harassment offence: AGAINST
• Criminalising religious hatred.  AGAINST
• Abolishing blasphemy laws: FOR
• Medically assisted dying: FOR, but MPs should have a free vote
• Abortion: Free votes (Clegg voted against reducing the present limits)
• Availability of morning-after pill in schools: FOR
• Animal-Human embryos: Free vote (Clegg voted for)
• Saviour siblings: Free vote (Clegg voted for)
• "Need for a father" requirement for IVF children: Free vote (Clegg voted against)
• Tax breaks for married couples and civil partners: AGAINST
• School freedom to employ Christian staff: AGAINST
• School freedom to seek pupils who share school's ethos: AGAINST
• Freedom of faith schools to teach sex education according to religious beliefs: AGAINST
• Compulsory national sex education curriculum: FOR
• Right to withdraw children from sex education classes: FOR - but should be curtailed "long before [children] are 15"
• Labour plans to regulate home education: AGAINST
• Present ban on religious bodies holding TV and radio licences: FOR
• Civil Partnerships: FOR
• Gay marriage: No policy, but Clegg is FOR
• Adoption by gay couples: FOR
• Sexual orientation regulations: FOR
• Incitement to homophobic hatred: FOR, but free vote in Lords
• Prison for drugs' possession: AGAINST
• Downgrading ecstasy's classification: FOR
• Downgrading cannabis' classification: FOR
• 24 hour drinking: AGAINST
• Licensing brothels: FOR
• Lowering age at which alcohol can be bought to 16: FOR
• Pornography now available to 18-year-olds to be available to 16-year-olds: Conference voted FOR
• 16-years-olds to be able to visit sex shops: Conference voted FOR
• Scrapping super casinos: FOR

Paul Goodman

Rebuttal of some of Brown and Clegg's claims during the TV debate

Here are some of the claims made by Brown and Clegg, along with their rebuttal:

Gordon Brown claims he has promised to increase police spending every year:

"I'm afraid the Conservatives are not prepared to guarantee, as we are prepared to do, that we will continue to fund the police force and the spending on police will continue to rise so that we have enough police there on the beat for you."

 But Labour's pledge is actually that police numbers will be maintained, not that police funding will rise:

“Budget 2010 confirms that spending on frontline schools and NHS, 16 to 19 education and Sure Start will be protected in the years to 2012-13, with sufficient funding provided to maintain police officer numbers.” (Budget 2010, p. 7)

“sufficient funding will be available to enable Police Authorities to maintain the current number of warranted Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers and other staff exercising police powers; “(Budget 2010, p. 89)

 On policing, Brown said:

“Police have to spend 80 per cent of their time now on the streets.”

The Advertising Standards Agency ruled illegal the Home Office advertisement that claimed: “You can now expect your neighbourhood police to spend at least 80 per cent of their time on the beat in your area” (The Guardian, 26 March 2010).

He added:

“The one thing I'm absolutely sure of, we have to maintain the number of police we have in this country.”

Police officer numbers are already being cut by Labour.  Thirteen police forces have cut police officer numbers in the last five years (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, Fifth report of Session 2009-10, 19 January 2010).  A leaked report for the Home Office, co-written by Mark Rowley, the Chief Constable of Surrey, has raised the prospect of 28,000 police officers being replaced by civilian workers to save money (The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2010).  And just four out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales say they plan to maintain current staffing levels (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, January 2010, Appendix A).

On prisons, Brown said:

“There are 20,000 more people in prison, as a result of the tougher sentences we have been passing.”

Under Gordon Brown, over 80,000 prisoners have been released early, including over 16,000 violent prisoners (Ministry of Justice, End of Custody Licence Releases and Recalls, February 2010, table 1)

On care, Brown said:

“To help people live at home, to give them the urgent care needs that they have and see them met, for example by home helps and health visitors so that people who want to stay at home don't have to go into institutional care.”

The number of health visitors has been cut by 18 per cent since 2004 – which means almost 2,500 fewer staff (NHS workforce statistics, 25 March 2010). 29 per cent of health visitors report that caseloads are so large that they are losing track of vulnerable families (Amicus, Survey of Health Visitors, 2007).

Nick Clegg said the Lib Dems have found £15 billion of savings.

Actually their manifesto only identifies £10.7 billion of net savings. And because their numbers don't add up their plans would actually increase borrowing by £900 million.

Clegg said:

‘But let's not get object successed about mythical savings in waste which is the oldest trick in the book, or get object successed about when we deliver these cuts.  The crucial thing is are we going to be open with people, with you about how we're going to save money in the long term’.

Fact: The Lib Dems’ manifesto made big promises about cutting waste in the NHS: ‘So our first priority is to increase spending in some parts of the NHS by cutting waste in others. We have identified specific savings that can be made in  management costs, bureaucracy and quangos, and we will reinvest that money back into the health care you need’ (p.40).