That cabinet spat in full

Chris Huhne: “People will draw their own conclusions about your failure to distance yourself from th

Hats off to the Spectator's James Forsyth for getting there first, and for that extra bit of colour: the George Osborne-attributed putdown of Chris Huhne and his "sub-Jeremy Paxman interview" style.

Now, thanks to a panel in today's Times (£), we have, in full, the alleged cabinet exchange between Huhne, Cameron and Osborne:

Chris Huhne [placing No campaign leaflets on the cabinet table] to David Cameron: Will you disassociate yourself from these leaflets? Will you sack any Tory official who produced them?

David Cameron: I'm not responsible for the No campaign, I can only talk for the Conservative No campaign

CH, turning to George Osborne: Will you disassociate yourself from them?

George Osborne: This was always going to be the most difficult time for the coalition

CH: But will you disassociate yourself from the way these leaflets attack Nick Clegg?

GO: This is cabinet, not some sub-Jeremy Paxman interview. This is not an appropriate subject for cabinet

CH: People will draw their own conclusions about your failure to distance yourself from these attacks on the Deputy Prime Minister.

For the Thunderer, "The discipline that has held the coalition together for a year was in tatters last night," while the Guardian talks of "extraordinary scenes in cabinet" and the Daily Telegraph elects to use that tabloid favourite, describing the events as a "bust-up".

Predictably, perhaps, Huhne has replaced Vince Cable as the most likely to exit the cabinet next – his price fell from 5/1 to 4/1 overnight on Smarkets. But, like Cable before him, Huhne will need to consider what influence he can hope to have from the back benches and may conclude that he is better off fighting from within. For now.

I suggested at the weekend that Huhne's attack on Margaret Thatcher in the pages of the Observer were part of a long game for the Energy Secretary, following his willingness to duel with both Sayeeda Warsi and Osborne over the tenor of the AV campaign. But the latest outburst, now that it is in the public domain, is high-risk, especially if the government can portray him as "semi-detached" and a serial troublemaker.

It's worth noting that Osborne's people – it seems – were quite happy for the exchange to get out. And, as Forsyth notes, Osborne "didn't try and defuse the conversation with a joke or anything like that".

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.