Politics Archives

Wednesday

13 Jan 2010

Guilty as charged

Dreadful news, Douglas Alexander has been the victim of a cynical paraphrase. Talking to James MacIntyre, who’s given Paul Waugh a sneak preview, Alexander said that it’s really Peter Watt who’s responsible for that quote. “Listen I have said that was not my view. It seems that Peter Watt himself does not seem certain what he claims I said. I would just ask you to weigh 20 years of working with Gordon against 20 words that were apparently paraphrased. But listen, he’s got a book to sell; there are bigger and more important issues that we are focused on.” Hmm… 20 gruelling years versus 20 cutting words? It’s a no-brainer Douglas.

Peter Hoskin

Getting around Gordon

Ok, ok, I get the message: you CoffeeHousers don’t much care for James Purnell. But this exchange between him and Nick Robinson, to be aired on Radio 4 later, is still worth a read: “I asked James Purnell how you could get radical policies past a reluctant prime minister. Here’s his reply: James Purnell: The other thing that you could do is outflank and No 10, by trying to be more radical…you could just unilaterally go out and commission someone to review the system for you, and then the prime minister would be left with the choice of either firing you or pretending that they were into that idea all

Lloyd Evans

An energetic contest

At last, Cameron’s got it. He finally varied his tactics at PMQs today. Brown had no warning. That made the change doubly effective. First Cameron asked two easy-peasy questions about salt which the PM answered in his favourite strain of complacent pomposity. At one point I think I heard him say the nation’s supplies are so crucial that he may create a ‘salt cell’ in the middle of Britain so we never again run low on this vital condiment. Cameron then tossed aside the salt-pot and declined to ask a further question. Brown was unsettled by this. Realising the worst was yet to come, he waffled nervously through an answer

Peter Hoskin

What a difference 13 years make

Hearing Cameron joke, in PMQs, that Labour would airbrush Gordon Brown out of their election campaign, I couldn’t help but think of Labour’s 1997 manifesto. As you can see to the left, it proudly featured Tony Blair’s face (and not much else) on its cover. So: what chances that Labour use Brown’s face on the front of this year’s manifesto? And, more importantly, how long before someone makes a spoof version of the 1997 cover with an image of the current Labour leader?

James Forsyth

PMQs is a contest again

Well, well another PMQs where Brown holds his own. He struggled for a long time after the election that never was, but in the past couple of months Brown has found some form. For the second week in a row, he had the best line: “He’s getting much redder than he is on his photograph”. Cameron did have one particularly effective moment when he asked Labour backbenchers whether they were putting Brown on their election literature. Only a handful did. In some ways this is all Westminster Village froth, few voters watch PMQs. But Cameron’s failure to win these clashes is bugging him. While Brown’s performances must be boosting his

Peter Hoskin

Memo to Brown: before boldness comes unity

Stop sniggering at the back. I mean, all I asked was whether Gordon Brown can be bold and radical. The way things are looking, he certainly needs to be – and, according to Philip Webster’s insightful account of yesterday’s three-hour Cabinet meeting, the PM has called on his colleagues to think up as many “eye-catching” proposals as possible for Labour’s manifesto. One “senior source” says that the party “should have the most radical manifesto yet put to the electorate.” Which is, of course, much easier said than done – a fact highlighted by another passage in Webster’s report, which reveals: “Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last

David Blackburn

Cuts and strategic dividing lines are indivisible

Daniel Finkelstein suggests an alternative analysis to that which prevails about the cabinet split. Labour’s aristocrats are divided not over style or substance, but the timing and extent of spending cuts. Finkelstein locates his argument in Labour’s repetitive history of poor financial management. Every Labour government runs out money and becomes riven by the prospect of retrenchment, a policy that is instinctively anathema to the left. The current episode dissents from the model in one regard: ‘As Chancellor, Mr Brown spent money as if there would never be a bust — an absurd hypothesis. And now, as Prime Minister, he is blocking the measures necessary to put right this error.

Tuesday

12 Jan 2010

Peter Hoskin

Getting the balance right

So what’s happened to the Tories’ policy-a-day blitz that was meant to fill all of January? Tory announcements and speeches were happening thick ‘n’ fast at the beginning of last week, and, obviously, we had Cameron’s speech yesterday – but it hasn’t been quite as non-stop as we were led to believe. This is intentional. As James has already pointed out, the Tories were all too happy to let Labour scrap underneath the limelight last week. And there’s also a realisation that they may have been overdoing it previously. Some Tories around Westminster are now talking more of one Big Announcement per week. That sounds about right to

Peter Hoskin

In it up to their necks

The Robinsons, Peter and Iris, are already in it deep. But this snippet from Martin Fletcher’s column, highlighted by Iain Martin, raises the level of, erm, ordure: “In 2007-08 the pair received a total of £571,939 from [their political] posts. They also use their parliamentary allowances to employ their two sons, daughter and daughter-in-law as aides.” The problem, of course, is what happens when greater public disillusionment meets with Northern Ireland’s already quite fragile political process. Seems like a pretty toxic combo to me.

James Forsyth

Turnbull savages chancellor Brown

Andrew Turnbull, who was permanent secretary at the Treasury from 1998 to 2002 and Cabinet Secretary from 2003 to 2005, has previous when it comes to criticising Gordon Brown. But his recent piece in the FT — ‘Six steps to salvage the Treasury’ — is one long barely coded attack on the PM. Take this line: “First and perhaps foremost, it [the Treasury] needs a strong ministerial team – a chancellor who wants to be chancellor for the full term rather than coveting the prime minister’s job.” Interestingly, Turnbull comes out in favour of the Tories’ plans to create an Office of Budgetary Responsibility. I know this is derided by

Daniel Korski

The Iraq Inquiry should call Gordon Brown now

Alastair Campbell is before the Iraq Inquiry. As one of Blair’s closest aides, Campbell’s role in the run-up to the Iraq war was key. But I suspect the spinner-in-chief will be doing what he was originally hired to do: namely, protect his master by attracting the incoming fire. In this case, though, he will be helping Gordon Brown, not Tony Blair. Because it is Brown’s role in the Iraq War, not that of Blair, that is the most obscure part of Britain’s modern history. As chancellor, Brown was the second most powerful man in government. He held the purse strings. If he had opposed the Iraq War, it is hard

Peter Hoskin

A sensible Tory rethink on marriage tax breaks

There’s something quite refreshing about David Cameron’s plan to offer a tax break to married couples. It says, simply: this is what I believe. And it does so in spite of polling data and strategic arguments to the contrary. This is one area where you certainly couldn’t accuse the Tory leader of caring too much about what other people think. But refreshing or not, that doesn’t make it good policy. Of course, there’s a tonne of empirical data which demonstrates the benefits of marriage. That’s important and persuasive. But, as I’ve written before, there are reasons to doubt the efficacy of a tax break in particular. And I don’t think

Monday

11 Jan 2010

Martin Bright

Strange and Getting Stranger

It is just plain bizarre that Gordon Brown has announced that he will serve a full term if Labour wins the next election. He should be playing down his role in the forthcoming election (difficult I know, when he is Prime Minister) not reminding people that he will be around for another four years. It is also strange that he has written off the Hewitt-Hoon coup attempt as silly. This is the one thing it is not. It may have been unwise, badly organised and poorly timed. But the idea of giving the Parliamentary Labour Party the opportunity to save Gordon or the party was perfectly sound. Indeed, they were

Peter Hoskin

James Purnell’s third way

Guess who’s back. Yes, James Purnell, the man who tried his best to topple Gordon Brown last year, has emerged from the relative obscurity of the backbenches and Think-Tank World to set out a new prospectus for the Labour party in today’s Guardian. David nodded towards it earlier, but it’s worth looking at in a little more detail. Why? Well, because it’s an indication of how things could go for the post-election Labour party. The first thing that strikes you is how Purnell tries to defuse the controversy of his resignation last year. “What?” you might think, “resigning from Brown’s government is controversial? Sane, more like.” And, yes, I see

Peter Hoskin

Ed Balls says the same stuff, differently

The road to Damascus has nothing on this. Ed Balls – in interview with the FT – has condemned the class war strategy, called for an end to Labour figures briefing against each other, and suggested that the government should be more “upfront” about spending cuts. Hallelujah! What a difference an attempted coup makes! And so on and so on. But wait a minute. What does the Schools Secretary actually say? Worth looking at, that – because Balls hasn’t so much changed his arguments as changed the way he makes them. Take, for instance, what he says about class war: “‘I’m totally against a class war strategy,’ he says. But

Alex Massie

Peter King Watch | 11 January 2010

British readers probably don’t need any reminding that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) spent decades raising money for the IRA and championing their cause at every available opportunity. However my experience is that plenty of Americans remain all too unaware of his terrorism-supporting record. Happily the nice folk at the Daily Beast asked if I’d compile a quick refresher course, detailing some of King’s more egregious soft-on-terrorism moments. So here it is. It’s also worth recalling that though King “broke” with the IRA in 2005 (so long ago!) and called for their disbandment he was still happy to shill for the Republican movement in the aftermath of the murder of Robert

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 11 January 2010

…here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the weekend. Fraser Nelson reveals the full horror of the Brown administration, and analyses David Cameron’s performance on the Andrew Marr show. James Forsyth argues that Darling’s intervention is a very significant moment, and argues that the Cabinet’s lack of love for Brown is a gift to the Tories. Peter Hoskin tells a tale of two interviews, and says that Darling’s honesty is good news for the country but tricky news for Labour. David Blackburn objects to the Tories’ commitment to the sacrosanct NHS, and wonders if Geoff Hoon will strike again. Daniel Korski ponders the forthcoming security and defence

David Blackburn

It is immaterial who fronts Labour’s campaign

Divide and conquer, that is what preoccupies the Prime Minister. Later today, Gordon Brown will address the Parliamentary Labour Party to reassure them of the strength of his leadership and to invigorate the party by setting it on an election footing. How he achieves the former is anyone’s guess but he will realise the latter by investing Labour’s three election supremos: Mandelson, Harman and Douglas Alexander. In typical Brown style, these lieutenants’ roles are deliberately ill-defined. Who has ultimate authority? Who will be the attack dog? What is the difference between day to day running and managing an overall strategy? And which takes precedence? A pastmaster at internal intrigue, Brown

Sunday

10 Jan 2010

David Blackburn

Hoon may strike again

David Miliband lacks the gumption to play Brutus, but does Geoff Hoon? The Sunday Times has obtained correspondence between Hoon, Brown and Blair illustrating that the then Chancellor overturned Treasury assurances that the MoD would receive additional funds for helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brown wrote: “I must disallow immediately any flexibility for the Ministry of Defence to move resources between cash and non-cash.” Once again we see the (supposedly) miserly Chancellor holding Blair to ransom at any opportunity, regardless of the consequences. Whilst Brown is a spectre of a Prime Minister, he was anything but as Chancellor. Blair set the war in motion but Brown is partly responsible for Britain’s

Fraser Nelson

Cameron has the positioning right – but fiscal questions remain<br />

Here, CoffeeHousers, is my take on this morning’s Cameron interview: 1. General demeanor: excellent, articulate, confident. The complete opposite from Brown. It does make you think that he should wipe the floor with Brown in the TV debates. 2. “Last week we saw William Hague and George Osborne going to Afghanistan together. First shadow Chancellor, the man who is going to be in charge of the money, on the frontline seeing what is going on in Afghanistan”. Indeed, but the NHS pledge and deficit cut pledge imply deep cuts to the military. To govern is to choose, and Cameron has made his choice: NHS spending before the military. If I