David Laws: Cameron's true-blue wingman

The Lib Dem will say things even David Cameron won’t.

David Cameron has continued his efforts to open up some “clear blue water” between his own party and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners. In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, he trails a plan to scrap housing benefit for under-25s. He says:

A couple will say, “We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn’t available to us?”’

‘One is trapped in a welfare system that discourages them from working, the other is doing the right thing and getting no help.
It’s a measure guaranteed to be unpopular with Liberal Democrats, but also seemed tailor-made to discourage anyone under the age of 25 from voting Conservative.

For a glimpse into what this cut could mean for many young people, you can't do better than to read Petra Davis' piece on it from earlier this year.

There are also hints that plans to limit child benefit to a couples first three children are back on the table, although the MoS states that he won’t be doint that “unless he wins public support, and even then it won’t be until after the next election.”

However, David Cameron receives help from an unexpected quarter this morning in his efforts to assert his diehard Tory-ness. David Laws has given an interview to the Sunday Telegraph in which he discusses the need for deeper tax and spending cuts. Only health, education and pension spending should be protected, he argues:

We are going to have to see a shrinking of the state share of the economy until it is back into kilter with the amount of tax people are prepared to be pay… Future UK governments should consider a further substantial rise in the personal tax allowance, along with lower marginal tax rates of tax at all income levels.

Whenever Laws makes an intervention like this (which he has done periodically since leaving the Cabinet in 2010), the likes of Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome call for his return to the top ranks of government, although quite who Laws could practically replace is far from clear.

I’m not so sure Laws is headed back to a ministerial position, though. He seems to be doing an excellent job of being David Cameron’s true-blue wingman, saying the truly Tory things that a Conservative PM fearful of his chances of ever securing a majority shies a way from. Laws blurs the lines between the coalition partners. If he comes back inside the Cabinet room, the differences and disagreements will suddenly look a lot starker.

David Laws during the coalition negotiations in 2010. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.