I wouldn’t be surprised if this Gordon Brown snippet gets deployed ad nauseam between now and the next election: “[Brown] described Labour as the party of ‘prosperity not austerity'” If so, it’s worth noting that it’s a phrase that Ed Miliband used in several speeches last year (e.g. here, here and here). But, whoever its author, it’s hard to imagine it working for a governing party which has presided over one of the most spectacular busts in our history.
The knicker-bomber must love this. Twice Gordon Brown has jumped on the bandwagon and bounced straight off on both occasions. Sky News reports that the UK did not pass vital information to the US, despite the claims of a Downing Street spokesman. Here’s the key section: ‘During a briefing to journalists today, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “There is no suggestion the UK passed intelligence to the US that they did not act on.” But Sky’s political correspondent Joey Jones said it had been an “awful” briefing. “He tried to clear things up but only succeeded in muddying the waters still further,” Jones said. “After he read Downing Street’s statement,
Say what you like about the Cameron project, but at least they are strongly committed to marriage. Aren’t they? Well, it seems, not now. I always suspected that the wonderful strength of Cameron’s rhetoric on marriage was not really matched by his policy – a rather paltry tax break. Now, it seems not even that is certain. “It’s something within a parliament I would definitely hope to do,” he said today. “We’re not able to give people absolute certainty on everything.” Well not on everything – but what about on the few hard pledges that have actually been made? Or is Cameron really cowering in the face of Labour attacks
First she loved him. Then she hated him. Then she seemed lukewarm towards him. And, today, she’s gone back to hating him more than ever. Yes, Polly Toynbee’s latest column is another marker stone in her oscillating relationship with Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t contain any minced words: “Cancel new year, put back the clocks and forget the fireworks. There is nothing to celebrate in the dismal year ahead. The Labour party is sledging down a black run, eyes tight shut, the only certainty the electoral wall at the bottom of the hill. In five months David Cameron will be prime minister and Gordon Brown will be toast. Remember him?
Woah, hang on there. A Labour and Conservative coalition in the event of a hung Parliament? Crazy talk, surely? But that’s what Martin Kettle devotes his column to in today’s Guardian. It’s only unthinkable, he writes, “until you start thinking about it.” Hm. So rather than dismissing the prospect out of hand, I thought I’d register one particular complaint against it. While many of Kettle’s arguments about the fracturing of the party system and the blurring lines between the main parties make sense, the idea that they might coalesce in the aftermath of this year’s election ignores one crucial factor: the Labour leadership. Let’s just say, for the sake of Kettle’s argument, that Gordon Brown achieves
As we’re still in that period of the year for looking back as well as forward, I thought I’d share with CoffeeHousers a political timeline I put together. It’s not everything which happened in the political year, mind – but rather the important events in the debate over spending cuts. This debate has, at very least, been in the background to almost every political discussion in 2009, and it will dominate the years ahead – so this kind of exercise probably has some posterity value. But, aside from that, you can also draw a couple of conclusions from the timeline (and I do so below). Anyway, here it is, starting a bit before
“Did he know who you were? I mean, not to be disrespectful, but he has been away for two and a half years…” So Five Live’s Phil Wiliams asked David Miliband who was talking about his conversation with Peter Moore who has just been released from Iraqi captivity. Brilliant image. The guy gets out of prison, then there’s a call from this nerdy Blairite bag carrier claiming to be foreign secretary. Yegawds, he’d say, what’s happened? Worse, Gordon Brown had become Prime Minister and irreparably trashed the British economy in the space of 24 months. Britain has now joined Zimbabwe in printing money to fund state spending. At the end
Clear your diary, invite the relatives over, and huddle around a computer: Gordon Brown will be delivering his New Year’s message – via podcast, on the Downing St website – this evening. Just in case you’ve got other things to be doing, this article in the Telegraph gives you a good taste of what to expect. In summary: dividing lines and optimism. There’s plenty on how the Tories are planning for “a decade of austerity and unfairness” – in contrast to our glorious PM, who predicts falling unemployment, more new businesses and prosperity for all. Indeed, the snippets that the Telegraph carries indicate just how eager Brown is to deploy a green shoots
Oh, Darling, what hast thou done? There are few more pertinent, or more damning, examples of what the government’s soak-the-rich policies could mean for the country than the news that JP Morgan is having second thoughts about developing a £1.5 billion European HQ in Canary Wharf. Of course, the bank may still go ahead with it. But just imagine if they don’t: the work lost for construction workers and a thousand other contractors; the tax revenues lost for the public finances. The damage won’t just – or even mostly – be to the financial sector. Thing is, I imagine that Number Ten will be fairly happy with the story. As
The Tories have missed a trick in responding to the predictable news that Gordon Brown won’t be giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry until after the election. William Hague has just said that it stinks. He should have followed up by listing the questions Brown should be asked – highlighting the extent of his personal culpability in our defeat in Basra and treatment of the troops: 1) Did you ever ask yourself why Britain came to be fighting two wars on a peacetime budget? 2) During the 2007 Tory Patrty conference you went to Iraq and said that 500 troops would be home by Christmas. This decision stunned the Ministry
One of the surprises of the Tory leadership campaign in 2005 was how David Davis bested David Cameron in the TV debate between the two men. Those involved in Cameron’s preparations for that debate blame Cameron’s poor performance on how Michael Gove knocked Cameron’s confidence in the run up to it. Gove was Davis in debate prep and played Davis as a ferociously clever, Oxford Union-style debater and kept leaving Cameron tied in knots. So it is interesting that the Cameron camp have again chosen Gove to play the role of Cameron’s opponent in the run up to a TV debate. This time Gove will, of course, be playing the
A hefty one-two punch in the continuing “Have Gordon and Peter fallen out?” story, this morning. The Telegraph has quotes suggesting that Mandelson is “upset” and feels “disposed of” by Brown. And Sue Cameron of the FT details a specific rift between the pair, ending with the observation: “I hear Lord M is not happy, telling friends that he does not have the influence he was promised.” For his part, Mandelson has since dismissed the reports as “complete tosh”. Problem is, for Downing Street, the truth of the stories is almost immaterial. After a relatively stable few months, Brown is once again mired in rumour and speculation concerning his own
So there we have it. There will be televised election debates between the three main party leaders during the next election campaign, after all. The first will be on ITV, then there’ll be one each on Sky and the BBC. Talk about good TV for political anoraks. Like Tim Montgomerie and Mike Smithson, I suspect that Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be happiest with the news. Both of them, particularly Brown, need potential game-changing events like this to make some progress in the polls. As for Cameron, he’d probably be better off not giving his opponents a chance to make inroads into the Tories’ poll lead. But he
So who or what is to blame for the failure of the Copenhagen gathering to achieve what most people hoped for? Polly Toynbee says that the nature of politics is to blame. Personally I blame U2’s Bono. I don’t blame him for the failure of world leaders to agree a legally-binding agreement, of course. But I do blame him for the unrealistic expectations that were raised in the run-up to the meeting. Issue-based campaigning, of which the climate change movement is the latest example, came into its own with the debt-relief campaign of Jubilee 2000, which the Irish singer spearheaded. Since then, every global issue has been approached in much
According to a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s People (reported by the paper’s political editor, Nigel Nelson, on Twitter): “1% more people would rather have G.Brown than D.Cameron round for Christmas dinner.” There’s better news elsewhere in the poll for the Tories: the gap between them and Labour is back in double digits. It’s the Tories on 40 percent, Labour on 28, and the Lib Dems on 18.
Would cutting spending “risk the recovery?” This claim is, literally, Gordon Brown’s re-election manifesto. He is hoping that the Tories haven’t learned to use numbers as weapons – so any economic message he has will not be effectively countered. In fact, his claim is very easily exposed as being bogus by a simple look at recent British economic history. Bloomberg’s Chart of the Day shows that economic growth in the past two recessions (white line) was not at all threatened by fiscal tightening (green graph). Even Goldman Sachs – which is acquiring a reputation as the Labour Party’s house broker – is conceding the central point. I hope Bloomberg won’t
I need a new radio for Christmas. Whilst listening to Dr. Sir Liam Donaldson tell the Today programme that parents should not offer their fifteen year old offspring alcohol, my pocket-radio had an altercation with a wall. The soon to be retiring chief medical officer said: “The more they get a taste for it, the more likely they are to be heavy drinking adults or binge drinkers later in childhood.” This latest soothsaying counts among Sir Liam’s other alcohol-related triumphs; he also gave us the inscrutable phenomenon of “passive drinking” – I don’t know about you but this guy makes me drink actively. Continental Europe has its fair share of
The inflation surge is now upon us. The CPI rate again “surprised” to the upside – Britain is the only major economy in the world to have inflation doing this. But given that the Bank of England’s printing presses have been working overtime to fund a fiscally irresponsible government then little wonder things are different here. To understand just how unusual the UK situation is, consider the below graph: despite suffering the longest recession in G20, we have one of highest rates of inflation in the developed world. The next few months will see this push higher, potentially reaching 4 percent in March and busting the 2 percent target. Without
Rabble-rouser and bruiser-in-chief Charles Clarke has taken a hatchet to the government’s highly political Pre-Budget Report. Writing on his blog, Clarke argues: ‘He (Brown) felt that the main purpose of this pre-election Pre-Budget Report was to recycle his old political dividing lines. This weakness can only come from fear of discussion of our past failures and fear that it is too dangerous to set out our future plans. The real danger for Labour is that this weakness will pave the way to political defeat in 2010.’ The Labour leadership crisis has retreated from the limelight recently, but the spectre of internecine war after a whipping at the polls
It has started. The Labour attack unit is out today talking about a “Tory VAT rise” – as per Paddy Hennessy’s scoop. Osborne stated his (to me, relatively paltry) position on the deficit: that he’d reduce it faster than Labour but can’t say how much. The Labour attack unit keeps partying like its 1999 with the “Tory cuts” line, now augmented with a “Tory tax rise.” Here are the words which the attack unit has crafted for Stephen Timms, chief secretary to the Treasury: “George Osborne refuses to say what services he would cut or what taxes he would increase in order to cut the deficit ‘further and faster’ than
