Cameron was foolish to disregard the Lib Dems

The PM put his party before the coalition and the Lib Dems will punish him for it.

So, now it’s war.

As the reshuffle unfolded, my timeline was full of fellow Lib Dems asking "Is Cameron actively trying to piss us off?" And frequently it did feel like that. But of course the truth is, Cameron wasn’t really bothered what we thought. That wasn’t what this reshuffle was about. Neither was it really about a strategy to win the next general election - a lurch to the right seems unlikely to hoover up enough votes from UKIP to compensate for the seats the Tories would have won if the boundary changes had gone through.

No, this reshuffle was all about Cameron making sure he was still leading the party at the next election. He can’t afford to think much further than that, so weak is his position currently. He had to appease his backbenchers. And it may have worked for now – although how his stomach must have churned when he heard Nadine saying how much she liked the reshuffle.

But it is a very short term strategy. Yes, promoting the Patersons, Graylings and Hunts of this world may have secured Cameron’s position for a while longer. But just how angry will those same backbenchers be when they still can’t get their favourite policies through. Because it wasn’t Cameron stopping them having their way before. It was the Lib Dems.

There’ll be no third runway at Heathrow. There’ll be no tearing up of the Greenbelt. Even with no Ministers in the MoD (odd move that, Nick) there’ll be no Trident. I doubt if Norman Lamb will allow Jeremy Hunt to introduce his favourite homeopathy treatments into the NHS. There’s going to be a lot of crossed arms, shaking of heads, and great big "no’s". And however good a Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell may turn out to be, that won’t be much cop if the MPs standing in the way are in a different party. Cameron may have decided not to think about the Lib Dems when he reshuffled merrily away yesterday. But it was a foolish decision.

So while Cameron’s cabinet changes may allow him to empathise with his recalcitrant backbenchers for a while, soon the old frustrations will bubble up again. Because he hasn’t solved his real problem. He didn’t win the last general election. And sooner (if the Lib Dems can help it) or later they’ll punish him for it.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference.

It wasn't Cameron stopping the right from having its way. It was the Lib Dems. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Shaun Botterill/Getty Images
Show Hide image

All the Premiership teams are competing to see who’s got the biggest stadium

It’s not just a financial, but a macho thing – the big clubs want to show off that they have a whopper.

Here in NW5, where we live noisily and fashionably, we are roughly equidistant from Arsenal and Spurs. We bought the house in 1963 for £5,000, which I mention constantly, to make everyone in the street pig sick. Back in 1963, we lived quietly and unfashionably; in fact, we could easily have been living in Loughton, Essex. Now it’s all changed. As have White Hart Lane and Highbury.

Both grounds are a few metres further away from us than they once were, or they will be when White Hart Lane is finished. The new stadium is a few metres to the north, while the Emirates is a few metres to the east.

Why am I saying metres? Like all football fans, I say a near-miss on goal was inches wide, a slow striker is a yard off his pace, and a ball player can turn on a sixpence. That’s more like it.

White Hart Lane, when finished, will hold 61,000 – a thousand more than the Emirates, har har. Meanwhile, Man City is still expanding, and will also hold about 60,000 by the time Pep Guardiola is into his stride. Chelsea will be next, when they get themselves sorted. So will Liverpool.

Man United’s Old Trafford can now hold over 75,000. Fair makes you proud to be alive at this time and enjoying the wonders of the Prem.

Then, of course, we have the New Wembley, architecturally wonderful, striking and stunning, a beacon of beauty for miles around. As they all are, these brave new stadiums. (No one says “stadia” in real life.)

The old stadiums, built between the wars, many of them by the Scottish architect Archibald Leitch (1865-1939), were also seen as wonders of the time, and all of them held far more than their modern counterparts. The record crowd at White Hart Lane was in 1938, when 75,038 came to see Spurs play Sunderland. Arsenal’s record at Highbury was also against Sunderland – in 1935, with 73,295. Wembley, which today can hold 90,000, had an official figure of 126,000 for the first Cup Final in 1923, but the true figure was at least 150,000, because so many broke in.

Back in 1901, when the Cup Final was held at Crystal Palace between Spurs and Sheffield United, there was a crowd of 110,820. Looking at old photos of the Crystal Palace finals, a lot of the ground seems to have been a grassy mound. Hard to believe fans could see.

Between the wars, thanks to Leitch, big clubs did have proper covered stands. Most fans stood on huge open concrete terraces, which remained till the 1990s. There were metal barriers, which were supposed to hold back sudden surges, but rarely did, so if you were caught in a surge, you were swept away or you fell over. Kids were hoisted over the adults’ heads and plonked at the front.

Getting refreshments was almost impossible, unless you caught the eye of a peanut seller who’d lob you a paper bag of Percy Dalton’s. Getting out for a pee was just as hard. You often came home with the back of your trousers soaked.

I used to be an expert on crowds as a lad. Rubbish on identifying a Spitfire from a Hurricane, but shit hot on match gates at Hampden Park and Ibrox. Answer: well over 100,000. Today’s new stadiums will never hold as many, but will cost trillions more. The money is coming from the £8bn that the Prem is getting from TV for three years.

You’d imagine that, with all this money flooding in, the clubs would be kinder to their fans, but no, they’re lashing out, and not just on new stadiums, but players and wages, directors and agents. Hence, so they say, they are having to put up ticket prices, causing protest campaigns at Arsenal and Liverpool. Arsène at Arsenal has admitted that he couldn’t afford to buy while the Emirates was being built. Pochettino is saying much the same at Spurs.

It’s not just a financial, but a macho thing – the big clubs want to show off that they have a whopper. In the end, only rich fans will be able to attend these supergrounds. Chelsea plans to have a private swimming pool under each new box, plus a wine cellar. Just like our street, really . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle