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. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

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