Westminster blog

There’s going to be a short interruption of service on the FT Westminster blog.

The first reason is that Jim is on holiday. He’ll be back next week; if you see a Pickard post before then don’t mention it to his wife.

The second is that I’m bidding farewell Westminster. I will still be writing for the FT but from my new patch in Brussels. See it as a free transfer to the Brussels Blog.

The big money has been spent on hiring my successor Kiran Stacey, who will be blogging here from the moment the Commons authorities give him a pass (or even before). Regulars will remember Kiran from his prolific spell in Westminster last summer. He’ll do a great job.

So there’s been reshuffle. But as with all reshuffles, readers should expect almost everything to stay the same. Indeed I’ll probably be posting here again during the next Cameron brouhaha in Brussels. So goodbye until then.

The coalition is entering a dangerous period and it is probably no surprise that Paddy Ashdown is one of the first to reach for his knife.

In some extraordinary remarks to the Guardian, the Captain accuses Cameron of a breach of faith and warns that there will be “consequences”. He claims the prime minister “panicked in the face of his right-wingers” and helped propagate a “regiment of lies” during the AV campaign.

The remarks appear to have the backing of the Lib Dem command. Here are the Ashdown quotes – given to Patrick Wintour at the Guardian — in full:

“So far the coalition has been lubricrated by a large element of goodwill and trust. It is not any longer. The consequence is that when it comes to the bonhomie of the Downing Street rose garden, that has gone. It will never again be glad confident morning.”

After only partially quoting Robert Browning, he goes on to explain that the coalition is to become more “transactional”. Great news for the lawyers.

If this remarkable poll is correct, Nick Clegg should be the one refusing to share a platform with Ed Miliband.

The Ipsos-Mori research turns conventional wisdom on its head and shows that Clegg is actually more liked than Miliband, scoring 40 per cent against the Labour leader’s 36.

And — amazing as it seems given all the riots of late — Miliband is neck and neck with Clegg in the unpopularity stakes. Around 51 per cent of people do not like both leaders.

Miliband, like Gordon Brown, is less liked than his party, which 45 per cent of respondents expressed a positive view of. By contrast David Cameron is the most liked party leader, even though his party is the most disliked.

Ben Page of Ipsos Mori explained that Miliband’s predicament is one that was shared by many other opposition leaders, including Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and David Cameron, at least in his early period as opposition leader. Tony Blair was the big exception, winning consistently positive ratings after being elected Labour leader.

If history is any guide, Miliband’s standing with the public is only likely to get worse (unless he ends up facing someone as unpopular as Brown across the dispatch box).

The one silver lining is that his satisfaction numbers are better, which is probably a better measure of how people vote. Many people liked Charles Kennedy, but far fewer people thought he’d be a good prime minister.

What does David Cameron stand for on Libya? That’s less clear than it should be. Cameron is facing his first foreign policy crisis and wants to be seen driving a concerted international response. But he is in danger of appearing diplomatically marooned.

1) Isolated over a no fly zone: Cameron was one of the first to signal his support for this option. But the effectiveness of such action is being questioned by most of Nato, Baroness Ashton, the US defence secretary, his own defence chiefs, the list goes on. Meanwhile events on the ground seem to be outpacing the diplomatic response.

2) Outflanked by his ally Sarkozy: Cameron’s plan was to join forces with France in galvanising action against Gaddafi. But the president has dramatically strayed from the Downing St script, floating the option of surgical strikes and unilaterally recognising a Libyan opposition group. Cameron’s team are as puzzled as anyone by the French grandstanding. But a wayward ally has certainly not helped Cameron’s position.

3) Out of step with Washington: The Obama administration has certainly placed pragmatism over idealism during the Libya crisis. Cameron knows that to achieve his goals on Libya than US support will be vital. But he has appeared as if he is forcing the pace with little success.

4) In the dark over the rebels: The Cameron policy is based on the assumption that the opposition forces in Libya are budding democrats. Yet the British government knows next to nothing about the groups in Bengazi. The attempt to find out more ended in farce. Cameron has wisely stopped short of recognising the groups as legitimate. But his rhetorical support for action implies a degree of faith in the opposition that may prove unfounded.

Cameron’s team argue that the priority is to be prepared for all eventualities in Libya, and make sure the West is ready to act to avert a catastrophe. But a policy of “being prepared” has a short lifespan. Cameron is looking a little exposed on the world stage, with his allies pulling in very different directions.