Phi Wire Hand Picked Politics - Live

  • Anthony Wells | ComRes show UKIP 13 points ahead in Rochester

    • source icon
    • 22:01
  • Martin Kettle | In Scotland the old politics have crumbled, as they once did in Ireland

    • source icon
    • 20:38
  • Editorial | The Guardian view on Lord Green: an ennoblement too far

    • source icon
    • 20:08
  • Suzanne Moore | Reeva Steenkamp was a victim of male violence. That is the real story

    • source icon
    • 20:00
  • John Harris | Dont dismiss public fears about migration as mere bigotry

    • source icon
    • 18:03
  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers

  • PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers


Paul Waugh reviews Race by David Mamet,Hampstead Theatre




“I Know. There is nothing. A white person. Can say to a black person. About race. Which is not both incorrect and offensive.”

That single line, from a world-weary white lawyer to an idealistic black female colleague, captures perfectly both the tone and the agenda of David Mamet’s new play ‘Race’. The punctuation is pure Mamet, a series of staccato jabs in the ribs of the audience to ram home the argument. And despite its apparent candour, the message from middle-aged Jack to young Susan also inevitably comes back to haunt him, his liberal sensibility undermined by events.

The premise for the play is classic Mamet too: a white businessman is accused of raping a young black woman and seeks help from a firm of lawyers run by Jack and his partner Henry, an African American. Will they be more effective advocates because one of them is black? Was their rookie assistant Susan hired through positive discrimination or fear of a lawsuit?

‘Race’, first produced in 2009 but only now making its British debut at Hampstead, certainly tries to entertain, engage and provoke. Mamet is famously more illiberal the older he gets and with a black President in office, the topic of race relations was clearly irresistible.

He believes that good drama is not about getting at the ‘truth’ but more about exposing the lies we tell each other. And on race his argument is that it’s near impossible to tell the truth.

Some misunderstand this as jaundice and pessimism but there’s no doubt that Mamet’s dialogue can still crackle and fizz. At one point, Henry says to fellow attorney Jack: “You want to tell me about black folks? I'll help you: O.J. - was guilty. Rodney King - was in the wrong place, but the police have the right to use force. Malcolm X - was noble when he renounced violence. Prior to that he was misguided. Dr. King was, of course, a saint. He was killed by a jealous husband, and you had a maid when you were young who was better to you than your own mother…”

Hate speech is never far away, though in the dramatic rather than criminal sense. Henry tells his colleague: “Do all black folks hate white folks? Let me put your mind at rest. We do.” Later, Jack tells Susan that whites will always treat African Americans badly “because we know you hate us”.

Black humour abounds but Mamet relishes more the audience’s sense of unease, picking at it like a scab. It’s often an unedifying sight, yet he seems to take satisfaction in the pain and the release.

Jasper Britton gives an impressively disciplined turn as Jack, while Clarke Peters (famous for his star turn in TV series The Wire) fits neatly as Henry. Nina Toussaint-White (as Susan) and Charles Daish (as the accused rapist Charles) do well with the relatively thin material they’re given. One problem is that Jack turns out to be the most rounded character, while Henry is patronised with wizened one-liners that end up making him looking as much of a saint as MLK.

The real difficulty, however, is the lack of real depth to the narrative. Thanks to director Terry Johnson, the action zips along but before you know it the 80 minutes (with no interval) are over. The denouement has force and surprise but there isn't enough, dare I say it, light and shade. Pace loses force when a play feels slight.

But at least Mamet deserves some credit for tackling territory that still holds too many terrors and risks for politicians, both here and in the US.


Doctor in the House

With prescriptions for healing the economy and solving the Conservative Party’s European debate, perhaps Liam Fox is also ready to rev...






"I still write prescriptions for people here and I can still treat people in an emergency…It’s a very convertible currency.” 

Sitting in his Commons office, Dr Liam Fox has a characteristically impish smile on his face as he reveals that his medical qualifications are still valid. “Technically, I can still prescribe. That lasts for about two more years.”

With the Conservatives narrowing their focus on victory in 2015, the former Defence Secretary’s timetable is perhaps apt when it comes to his own prescriptions for Tory party policy and direction in the run up to the next election. 

Looking relaxed and trim (“the tennis court and the pub are a wonderful combination”), Dr Fox has spent the past year setting out the tough medicine needed for the economy, as well as diagnosing what he sees as the Brussels disease that currently holds Britain back.

Yet despite the laid back demeanour, it often feels as though Fox is as busy as he was in Government. He has founded the GiveUsTime charity to provide holiday homes for servicemen and women, travelled to conferences from Dubai to the US, given setpiece speeches and started writing a new book due out this autumn. Typically expansive, the book takes on everything from terrorism to Islam to commodity prices. In the last two days alone, he’s met Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice to discuss global affairs.

“The book is called Rising Tides,” he explains. “It’s about how we deal with the challenges of the era ahead, everything from global financial imbalances to the threat of transnational terrorism, the risk of failed states, competition for commodities and, as well as my own narrative, I’ve done a number of short interviews with people.

“Tony Blair talks about the strategic consequences of the Iraq war, Condi Rice is talking about how America dealt with its unipolar moment, Donald Rumsfeld talks about transnational terrorism, Bob Gates talks about the future of Nato, the Crown Prince of Bahrain about Islam in the Gulf and quite a few others.”

Like many of his Tory colleagues, Fox is not exactly enamoured of the other ‘coalition of the willing’: the Lib-Con partnership in Government. The doctor suggests an increasingly painful bout of yellow fever is responsible for many a backbencher’s ills.

“The bottom line is that most backbenchers don’t like the fact that we’re in a coalition and a lot of the party are unhappy that we didn’t win an overall majority in 2010,” Fox says. 

However, there isn’t an immediate cure. “As I used to say to my patients, there’s no point complaining about the air when there’s nothing else to breathe. It’s what we’re stuck with and if you don’t like it then get out and work harder so we can win next time.”

Discontent is being expressed on a well-trodden Conservative battleground: Europe. On Wednesday an amendment, tabled by two Tory backbenchers, expressed regret that the Government had not put forward an EU Referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech and prompted the Government into rushing out a bill promising an in/out referendum by 2017.

It left David Cameron looking worryingly like a leader following his party rather than leading it, and drew comparisons with John Major’s euro battles.
“I don’t think the two are comparable, because in John Major it was how many new powers should we give away under the Maastricht Treaty. This is a different process now,” replies Fox, who served under both Tory Prime Ministers.

As for next year’s Euro elections and fears that UKIP will top the poll, Fox is relaxed. “It’s very hard to convince people that how they vote in Parliamentary elections will materially affect their future. I think first of all we don't need to panic about UKIP and I think that we have a sophisticated electorate in this country who are more than capable in using their votes differently in local elections, European elections and general elections and the era when people would vote for the same party in every kind of election with blind loyalty is behind us and I know plenty of Conservatives who would vote UKIP in a European election but never dream of voting anything than Conservative in a general election because the cost in a general election they perceive as being much greater if they get it wrong. 


"And so I think we don't need to panic. However, I do think we need to try and understand why UKIP picked up support and I think one of the main reasons is they were seen as the anti establishment party and a lot of votes that would traditionally have gone to the Liberals or Lib Dems mid term are not going there at all because they are part of that establishment to an extent they have become the repository of protest. I also think it's quite interesting to look where they did well and if Europe was the reason behind their success. l expected them to do well in the South West of England but they didn't, in fact ... we got some of our best results in the country and they got some of their worst. Where they picked up strongly was Essex, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, areas that have been the most effected by economic migration from Europe and I don't it's too difficult to draw a conclusion from that."

So should a promise to limit freedom of movement be part of a Conservative manifesto in 2015?

“That's something we need to consider in terms of our future relationship with Europe and I think immigration policy is a whole other issue that we need to look at in the round I think that we need to be very clear that we will need to import economic skills given the structure of our population, our demographics but I don't think people have a problem with people who are coming to the country to help generate wealth. And I think that if you look at surveys of people generally they see immigration as being a net benefit - if people are contributing to the wealth of the country. So I think we do need to have a thoughtful and mature debate about the whole issue of immigration."

What the UKIP rise clearly shows, he says, is that critics who warn against “banging on about Europe” don’t realise that a debate on Europe includes the economy, immigration, welfare and beyond. “When the BBC and all those other euro apologists tell us that we should not be talking about it [Europe]because that’s not important to people, what they are not doing is aggregating all the other issues that people do think are important but that are inextricably linked to the European Union issue.”

Fox also can’t resist a bit of mischief on the question of whether Nigel Farage should take part in the televised leadership debates in 2015. "That's a decision that's got to be taken much closer... but they have no Members of Parliament, so what do you do? Do have an ICM threshold?” He smiles, pausing for comic effect: “In which case, at the moment you would probably have Labour, Conservative and UKIP."

Fox is as Eurosceptic as any Conservative, but like the Prime Minister he wants to see a proper debate on how to renegotiate Britain’s membership of the EU preceding a promised referendum. 

He praises David Cameron’s “very clever” approach, and describes his party leader as “genuinely Eurosceptic… I don’t think he has any emotional attachment to the European project”. 

And some of this week’s backbench manoeuvres, says Fox, are both unhelpful and damaging.

“We’ve got an opportunity to set out what sort of renegotiation we want,” Fox says. “The debate we should be having at the moment is what sort of renegotiation we want and what sort of looser relationship we want. If we don’t have a proper debate on-going about this issue then I think we create a political vacuum into which is drawn all sorts of procedural wrangling which doesn’t actually help us move towards our manifesto position but does cause a lot of internal strife. Some of this week’s distractions about process at Westminster haven’t done anything to take the content of the debate forward so now what we need is a process, not waiting for the Foreign Office’s assessment, but to talk about what kind of relations…we want to have with Europe and pointing out the unsustainability of the current European model.”

The dig at the Foreign Office is telling. Does Fox share the view of some in his party that William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has “gone native” after three years of international summitry and ambassadorial cocktail parties?   

“No…” he replies, before describing Hague’s department’s “most overwhelming trait” as its “deep affinity to the European Union.”

“I think the Foreign Office is instinctively deeply steeped in the EU – its instincts and everything else that flows from it – and I think that we need to re-establish the idea that the world doesn’t end at the southern border of Greece – it’s where it begins.”

Hague escapes direct criticism, but Michael Gove and Philip Hammond, who have let it be known that they would vote to leave the EU tomorrow, do not.

“I think it’s always better for the Cabinet not to answer hypothetical questions…” Fox states, adding when asked about Wednesday’s vote: “If I were a minister I would abide by collective responsibility – as I always did.”

Fox makes clear that this week’s Queen’s Speech amendment vote was not the real issue for him. At a time when it was unfashionable in Downing Street, he was among the first last year to call for a renegotiation and then a referendum on the outcome. Although often portrayed as an ideologue, Fox has always been keen on the practicalities of politics. Despite being a keen Atlanticist, he nevertheless pushed hard for joint military working with France while at the MoD, for example. And on the EU, the real focus now should be how to change the UK’s relationship with Brussels in the next few years, he says.

“I don’t believe our current relationship is in our national interest and I want a different relationship. I have no fear of life outside the European Union. I can see many ways in which I think it would be beneficial to the country. That’s not to say it would come without costs. Our debate now should be to quantify these things so that we know the real terms of debate,” he says.

But Fox is notably loyal to the PM and says David Cameron himself does not need to talk about life outside the EU. “I think there are plenty of people in the party making that point. And the Prime Minister has also got to convince our European partners that his negotiation is genuine, that he would like it to succeed and that it’s not a ruse to justify leaving. And so I think he does need to remain engaged in the debate.”

As well as the Prime Minister, Fox is keen to praise the Chancellor for emerging intact after a difficult 2012. “I think George has massively consolidated his position as Chancellor and I think that he has done a lot of things within the Coalition that people might have thought weren’t possible,” he argues, pointing to labour market reform and “bearing down on the cost of welfare”.

Not that Fox wouldn’t do things differently if he were in Number 11. “We need to get ourselves into a position where the public finances are even better consolidated than our current plans set out,” he says, repeating his call for a five year plan on public spending. “I think we need to understand still the scale of the problem that we are facing and the fact that we will need to contain expenditure for a long time. Our spending is too high. This is probably the high water mark of public spending and we will need to find ways of living within our means.”

And that means no departmental budgets are safe. “I don’t like the concept of ringfencing. I think it’s helpful for the Chancellor, and the Government in general, to make adjustments to priorities in the light of circumstances.”

Talk of the internal Coalition wrangling leads on to the question which is increasingly vexing Tory MPs: can the Conservatives actually win an outright majority in 2015?

“Yes,” Fox emphatically replies, arguing that there are “four very clear dividing lines, maybe clearer than at any time since the 1992 Election… potentially a bigger gap and clearer choice at this election than there ever was in the Blair years.”

The first, predictably enough, is Europe. “It looks as though we’re going to go into a General Election with both the Lib Dems and the Labour Party refusing to trust the people of Britain on an issue which is absolutely fundamental to their future. If we say ‘we will trust the people’ and they say ‘we will not trust the people’, I know which side of that argument I would rather be on.”

The second is welfare, with Labour “the party of welfare and we’re the party of hard working people”. The third is the Conservative willingness to decentralise, particularly on education.  The fourth, of course, is the economy. “We want to see the Government pay down its debts in the way that families have paid down their debts in recent years and Labour want to borrow and spend more,” comes the familiar mantra.

And, adds Fox with a trademark mischievous smile, there is an added bonus. “We are lucky in having uniquely incapable personnel in the guise of the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor.”

Although keen on an EU referendum Fox is however not convinced about recent calls to give the public a direct say on same sex marriage. “I think it’s very clear from opinion polls that the public tend to favour the concept, especially younger voters, so no I don’t think you can put every issue into a referendum. I think referenda are about constitutional issues.” But that’s not to say he’s happy about the bill heading to the Commons this week and the Lords after Whitsun. When asked how much damage the bill is causing in Conservative Associations, he replies: “There’s no doubt some people are deeply unhappy about it. My objection to the whole thing really revolves around the involvement of the state in telling the churches what to do and the idea that we would pass legislation that would tell the Church of England what it can’t do, opening up a whole can of worms legally, and then differentiating the Church of England from other Christian churches on the basis that quotes they’ve always been opposed to it. I don’t recall the Cardinal Archbishop showing his support at any point.

“I think the House of Lords will probably have a more fruitful debate than we’ve had in the House of Commons on it. They are of course free from the electoral connotations that go with it. So we’ll see where that debate goes, it will be interesting to hear the views of the bishops themselves.”

“I was in favour of civil partnerships because there was a perceived and a real discrimination problem and the remedy only affected those involved. The problem with same sex marriage and which has produced a lot of argument against it is that a change is being made for a small number, who incidentally don’t seem to have been particularly vocal about it anyway, but that affects everybody and I think that’s where the difference lies, that’s where the political difficulty has come.”


Fox also sums up his real objection to the gay marriage idea. "I didn't come into politics to interfere with the Churches or the press.  I came into politics to do exactly the opposite, to get the state the hell out of people's lives."


He also cites principle when asked about the recent controversy over the PM’s meeting with the Dalai Lama and China’s decision to postpone his visits as a result. "I think the Prime Minister is right, he's courageous and should be supported. I don't think that we can be blackmailed into abandoning what we believe to be right.  I think that we must be true to our values. Religious freedom is one of those key values and the Prime minister deserves and should get our support on that.

“And I would ask another question which is what if in the Cold War we said well actually we have to give a bit of ground to the Communist and totalitarian view. Where do you think that would have got us?”

As his new charity for servicemen and women shows, Fox retains an affection for the defence brief he occupied for so long in Opposition and Government. Does he miss it?

“Yes and no. In politics, ministers move departments anyway, so whether it’s a move for one reason or another, you have to be prepared for that,” he says, before explaining that he had achieved much of what he’d wanted before he resigned over the Adam Werrity controversy.

“We had done most of the reshaping and reforming of the MoD itself, dealing with inherited debt, restructuring the department, trying to get costs under control, working out how we achieve procurement. All those things were done and were I suppose the most exciting bit of it. And we still have a number of legacy issues to deal with.”

Fox says that he is in contact with his successor (“Philip and I talk. I think he’s done a very good job”) but he has concerns over further defence cuts.
“You can always find savings, the question is what capabilities do you think you need to have and what capabilities would you be willing to do without? I don’t think there is much room for manoeuvre without losing further capabilities. Now, it might well be decided that the country’s finances are such that we can’t afford those capabilities. But that is a big debate that would have to be had. And I think that the reductions that we have made in the security budgets have been really quite large. You can’t go into a process that says you can constantly go to the same departments for reductions in expenditure and not touch others. I think in particular we need to find more savings from the welfare budget.”

Margaret Thatcher famously made defence of the realm one of the defining characteristics of her politics and tenure. While David Cameron recently refused to call himself a Thatcherite, Fox has no such problem with the label.

“I joined the Conservative Party because for somebody coming from the background I did Margaret Thatcher offered the concept of social mobility and meritocracy, and they for me remain the essentially defining elements of Thatcherism upon which everything else came. The concept of free markets and so on I have no trouble with whatsoever. I regularly when I’m giving speeches refer to myself as an unreconstructed, free market, Thatcherite, Unionist, Eurosceptic, Atlanticist.”

That reference to ‘my background’ is a gentle reminder that Fox was brought up in a council house and attended a comp (the second largest in Europe, he points out). When asked how his roots affected his politics, he replies: “I didn’t know anything else did I? You didn’t join the Tory party where I came from because you were a careerist.

“I think that for me the essence of Conservatism lay in what Mrs Thatcher used to call ‘our people’. It doesn’t matter how you speak, who your parents were, what kind of school you went to, which part of the country you come from, your religion, gender or the colour of your skin, if you believe what we believe then you are ‘our people’. And I think her use of that phrase has been very much misinterpreted over time. I think that’s what she meant by it.”

Fox is also dismissive of the talk of the Right of his party being divided. “I didn’t notice that the Right of the party was in any way disunited during the entire period of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership. This idea that the Right of the party is never united and is unmanageable I just don’t buy. “ Yet is it true that during the 2005 leadership race David Davis’ campaign offered to back him if he came ahead of him in the first ballot, but he did not offer a reciprocal arrangement? “I have neither the intention nor the inclination to go back over history,” Fox replies.


Given his closeness to the Chancellor (the pair share curry nights at Number 11), it’s perhaps not surprising that Fox is not a paid up member of the Boris-for-PM brigade. “He’s a very good Mayor of London.” Would being PM be a step too far? “I don’t know. It’s a different canvas, a very different skill.  He’s been a very good Mayor, he’s done a very good job and we will see what Lynton brings.”


As for Mrs Thatcher’s funeral, Fox says it had an interesting effect on current politics. “What it did was remind a lot of people first of all what a talent the Left have for hating.


“And it also reminded them what Britain looked like before Margaret Thatcher, why we needed her. What it did was to remind people, the Cold War didn’t just end, we won it. The trade unions didn’t reform themselves, we reformed them, big failing expensive loss making state industries they didn’t reshape themselves we did it. Home ownership and share ownership didn’t spring from heaven they were things that we gave them. And Mrs Thatcher’s desire to spread wealth to more people is in stark contrast to the Labour party’s view which is to take wealth from the wealthy and redistribute it. Our view, her view, is to create more wealth and share it more widely, there’s a big difference. I love to get into the ideological battles because it’s about two different types of future that you want to have.”


The new generation of Tory MPs who drove the backbench ‘regret’ motion this week are clearly more Thatcherite than not too. Fox, who often fizzes with the energy of a new intaker, is impressed: “If you look back at the 2010 intake, who comprise the majority of the party, they are very broadly speaking Eurosceptic, free market, Atlanticist, unionist. And that’s very encouraging. I think there are so many impressive members of that intake. We know the ones who’ve already got into Government but there are others who are not there yet.

“There’s still a tremendous reservoir waiting to be tapped. I think people like Stephen Barclay, Andrea Leadsom, you’ve got Iain Stewart, you’ve got Steve Brine, you’ve got young James Wharton. We really have got a real depth which I think the Labour party just don’t have..”

Several of the new intake are being lined up for promotion in the rumoured reshuffles this year. But what about Fox? Soon after he left office, he said he would like one day to get back to the front bench. Does he expect to return? “Not for me to decide,” he says, deadpan. “I’ve got plenty of things to do with my time at the moment. I’m completing and working through the charity that I set up which is really coming to fruition now, it’s a long process but that’s going to be doing very well. And I’m at the final stages of the book that I’m writing.”

Recent speculation has centred on him getting the Chief Whip post. Is he interested? “I read these things as well, I’ve decided that these conversations are conversations which if they occur at all will be conversations that I might have with the Prime Minister.”

Speaking of Chief Whips, Andrew Mitchell is also tipped for a comeback at some point. Does Fox sympathise with Mitchell’s treatment? “I’m sure he feels very sore about it and I can understand why and I sympathise. But you know, you live. As I said at the time when I resigned, no one died.”

The Doctor is still very much in the House. Far from being dead himself, he’s busy prescribing his party’s revival.

Friends in far off places

Will the President get the PM out of his latest scrape? Sam Macrory reports


One of the loneliest jobs around will have felt even more isolating than usual for David Cameron recently.

Grumbling backbenchers, voting against your Government’s legislative agenda. Cabinet colleagues, perhaps with leadership ambitions of their own, developing an unhelpful habit of popping up in television studios to contradict your own approach. And your Liberal Democrat deputy spending his half an hour cameo at PMQs looking a little too pleased with the splits in your own party.

So the Prime Minister did what so many of his predecessors in Number 10 do when they want to feel a bit better about their job: take a plane to Washington and try and catch a bit of that Presidential stardust. For as my colleague Paul Waugh pointed out during Mr Cameron’s trip to the US last summer, while a campaigning Obama received a boost from a well-timed Prime Ministerial visit, “there’s a lot of warmth to be had from basking in the reflected glory of a President who is still more popular with British voters than most Prime Ministers.”

This week David Cameron look thrilled at being described by Barack Obama as a “friend and partner”. And Obama’s observation that “you probably want to see if you can fix what’s broken in a very important relationship before you break it off” might just restore the PM’s morale as the Tory backbench duo of Peter Bone and John Baron tried to dictate his policy on the EU.

Mr Cameron is not the first Prime Minister to attempt to cling to presidential coat tails. Margaret Thatcher made much of her closeness to her “ideological soulmate” Ronald Reagan, Harold Macmillan was delighted to be pictured alongside the more youthful JFK, while Tony Blair engaged in some pre-election cosying up to Bill Clinton ahead of New Labour’s 1997 landslide victory. In the case of all three, their standing was improved at home.

But as Blair can also testify, with George W. Bush and Iraq looming large over his legacy, special relationships shouldn’t be overly relied on.
So Mr Cameron needs to tread with care. For while President Obama may be ideologically on the same page as far as an approach to restructuring the European Union goes, his words will hardly repair relations with Conservative MPs.

What Mr Cameron appears to be lacking at the top of his party are representatives of the Tory right prepared to back his European vision. Both Michael Gove and Philip Hammond have declared that they would vote to leave the EU now if they could, while William Hague, another figurehead of the right, is perceived by many to have gone native during his time at the Foreign Office. David Davis, meanwhile, once Mr Cameron’s leadership rival, is more critical, less friend.

So what of Mr Davis’s old rival from the right for the Tory leadership? Liam Fox, interviewed in this week’s House Magazine, is full of praise for the PM’s approach to Europe, slaps down Messers Gove and Hammond, and has a further warning for any Tory backbencher trying to make mischief over Europe.

“Some of this week’s distractions about process at Westminster haven’t done anything to take the content of the debate forward,” Dr Fox told us.
Given that he can claim authorship of the Prime Minister’s renegotiate –then–vote plan, having set out the idea in a speech last summer, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Fox is keen on the approach. With a name-checking of some of the 2010 Tory intake suggesting that Dr Fox is still maintaining a support base, perhaps Mr Cameron’s old leadership rival could emerge as the figurehead of the right who would back the Prime Minister all the way on Europe.

After a lonely week in which he relied on an ally far from home to boost his spirits, Mr Cameron needs to think carefully who his friends back home could be.

Composition controversy

Following on from Lord Norton’s research on the 1922 Committee, Bill Cash remembers an effective attempt to abolish it


When David Cameron spoke at the 90th anniversary party of the 1922 Committee recently, it reminded me of how near the 1922 Committee came to effective abolition in May 2010. Shortly after the Coalition was formed, there was a vote of the Conservative Party’s backbench MPs in which 168 Conservative MPs voted in favour of a proposal that “The 1922 Committee should change to encompass the whole of the Parliamentary Party” and 118 in favour of a proposal “The 1922 Committee should retain its existing structure”.

This fatally threatened the basis of the 1922 Committee because it would have involved bringing ministers into its proceedings and votes, including, as I pointed out in the meeting in question, breaching the rules of the 1922 Committee itself in respect of the leadership election procedures. In other words, the Committee was to lose its independence and as such, be destroyed.

Imagine where we would be now if Government ministers had been voting in our backbench committee on propositions relating to the Coalition Government on same sex marriage or Fixed Term Parliaments or on the European issue or a host of other issues. The 1922 Committee would have been totally undermined, with profound implications not only for the Conservative Party but for the UK Government and the national interest. It was Disraeli who once said, “The Tory Party, unless it is a national party, is nothing.”

On 19 May 2010, Conservative backbenchers were called to a meeting of the parliamentary party to be addressed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip. They proposed the inclusion of ministers as full members of the 1922 Committee who would be able to vote in 1922 Committee meetings. This would have destroyed the independence of the 1922 Committee and the freedom of Conservative backbenchers.

I was horrified by the announcement and stated my case at the meeting. It was even suggested that this was proposed under Winston Churchill during the Second World War which Philip Goodhart’s excellent book on the history of the 1922 Committee demonstrates was simply not the case. I therefore sought advice from a pre-eminent QC on whether approving a change to the 1922 Committee by an ad-hoc vote of the parliamentary party was lawful, having stated at the meeting that I believed it was not. He totally endorsed my view.

I challenged the lawfulness of the proposals of the leadership at the meeting because, not only was it unlawful under the Conservative Party’s Constitution, but there was no power at all through an ad hoc meeting of the parliamentary party to override the entrenched functions of the 1922 Committee as set out under the Conservative Party constitution itself. The 1922 Committee enables Conservative backbenchers to raise matters, whether in Government or not.

As they tried to proceed and voting took place in Room 6 in the committee corridor, I prepared instructions to leading counsel and then presented the opinion the following Monday with a letter containing an ultimatum – they would face court action if they proceeded with those changes bringing ministers into the 1922 Committee.

The change in composition of the 1922 Committee was an attempt to alter the balance of power within the parliamentary party by replacing the committee as an independent force with votes by Government ministers, whose loyalty is to the Government rather than to the party. This is a fundamental constitutional issue of vital importance not only to the Conservative Party but also to the conduct of Government (whether a Coalition or a Conservative Government itself) with direct impact on the making of policy and the national interest.

Philip Norton’s pamphlet, The Voice of the Backbenchers, is a useful reassessment of the vital role played by the 1922 Committee over the past 90 years and is well worth reading. The committee very nearly lost its independence, but with the wise decision to abandon the proposal to bring ministers into the 1922 Committee, the committee itself and the Conservative Party was saved.

Commons Gallery

As Nick Clegg stands in for the Prime Minister, Sam Macrory enjoys one of Parliament’s most surreal PMQs yet


White House hospitality or House of Commons hostility? It’s an easy choice really. David Cameron may be beginning to resemble the houseguest that never leaves, but hey, it’s a special relationship. No one will mind if he sticks around for lunch on Wednesday. His relationship with his own backbenchers is looking pretty special right now too, but not in a good way. Some of them, you get the feeling, wouldn’t mind of their leader never came home.

That’s usually the preoccupation of Peter Bone, the Conservative MP whose nervous system appears to be continually plagued by nightmares of a stricken Tory Prime Minister being deputised for by a bright-eyed Liberal Democrat.

Today, however, Bone’s morbid streak had turned to the weak pulse of the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Could the Speaker confirm, Bone asked, if “the only party in this House offering an in/out referendum is the Conservative Party?”

Nick Clegg, deputising for the absent Mr Cameron, then began a bizarre afternoon of standing alone in front of hundreds of Conservative MPs and defending a Party they loathe (his), a leader they dislike (him), and a Prime Minister they are beginning to doubt (you know who).

“I know he hates to be reminded of things that he and I have done together,” Clegg began. “We did actually spend 100 days in this House passing legislation, opposed by the party opposite, which for the first time ever gives a guarantee in law of when a referendum on Europe will take place...He and his colleagues...are perfectly free to change the goalposts, but we have this legislation.”

For Nick Clegg, a large part of whom must delight in the Conservative Party’s moth-like attraction to the strobe light of Europe, half an hour of defending the Conservative Prime Minister must have been one of the more surreal experiences of being a Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister.

For Harriet Harman, filling in for Ed Miliband, the occasion seemed equally baffling as she launched her attacks on the man who wasn’t there. David Cameron, she said, had only attended one PMQs out of a possible eight, a criticism hardly likely to worry the man who was filling in. “If the Prime Minister was here today, would he be voting for the Government, against the Government or showing true leadership and abstaining?” Harman continued.

For Clegg, more used to abuse over U-turns, law-breaking colleagues, or shelved principles, fielding questions about the Prime Minister’s trans-Atlantic diary movements must have been a treat. 

For Tory MPs, the occasion was increasingly confusing. They roared their approval as Clegg swatted Harman aside. They then stopped themselves mid-roar as they realised they were cheering on the most pro-European leader of the lot – and the one who stands in the way of the holy grail of a referendum. Their bashful looks were matched in awkwardness by the Liberal Democrat MPs in the building, who watched on in silence as their leader stood at the front of an army of increasingly delirious Conservatives.

Someone needed to restore normal service. Step forward Edward Leigh. A veteran of many European campaigns past, Leigh has signed up for the front again. And this time he arrived armed. “On the front page is a man posing… as one Nick Clegg, who says it’s time for a real referendum on Europe, an in/out referendum… was that man an imposter or just a hypocrite?” asked Leigh, wielding a long-faded Lib Dem leaflet which appeared to feature a picture of a younger, happier, less confused Nick Clegg.

“That man who I believe to be me was stating something then which my party has restated ever since,” the Lib Dem leader replied, confirming that some sort of identity crisis really was taking place.

Watching on from the US, as his party cheered on a Liberal Democrat leader and attacked his Government’s policy, David Cameron must have felt equally unsure of who he was right now too.

Subscribe to The House

Visit the online shop
Phone 020 7593 5617