Gordon brown

Nothing doing | 21 October 2009

A poor showing by Dave today. All he managed was a spot of outmoded Labour-bashing and a biscuit joke that didn’t exactly take the biscuit. He attacked the PM over the postal strike and quoted a minister of state admitting that union militants had been emboldened by the government’s indecision over part-privatisation. ‘This trade union,’ said Cameron, ‘can sense weakness and they see weakness in this prime minister and this government.’ Brown got huffy – but not very. He accused Cameron of cynically trying to drag the strike ‘into the political arena,’ It’s already there, said Cameron, ‘not least because the communications workers pay half his bills.’ He used all

Brown’s lose-lose position will prevent our broken politics from being fixed

An intriguing item in today’s Telegraph, which suggests Brown is planning to offer MPs a pay-rise to stem backbench anger over both the Legg and Kelly reviews into expenses.  The idea is to boost the standard MP’s salary by about £3,000 and pay for it by cutting ministers’ salaries – so there’d be no further cost to the taxpayer.  But you imagine even that fact won’t rally much public support for this idea. As I’ve written before, proposals to raise MPs’ pay shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.  But it’s dispiriting that these latest plans are all about saving Brown’s hide, and have come about without consulting voters.  It’s also

Brown’s Northern Ireland settlement is to be commended

Gordon Brown has just told the House of Commons that he is offering Stormont a financial settlement to increase funds for policing and judicial administration in Northern Ireland. Crucially, future emergency security costs in future will be met by the Treasury, and elements of the complicated settlement will stand until at least 2014.  Northern Ireland has been badly hit by the recession. Power sharing became increasingly fraught as arguments escalated over budget allocations and the timing of judicial devolution. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the recent escalation of violence might be related to rising unemployment and open political tension. Lasting peace and unified government have to be

A few honest men

Right, wrong, or somewhere in between?  I imagine that a few people who were fervently behind the Legg letters started having second thoughts when Frank Field announced his opposition to them over weekend.  After all, it’s one thing when the usual, venal suspects start whining, but quite another when Field – one of the decent men* of Westminster – starts to murmur.  If you haven’t read his blog post on the subject, then I’d suggest you do so here.   And it’s also worth reading through Bruce Anderson’s related article in the Independent today.  We can go too far in denigrating MPs, he says: an argument which, even when you

Sheerman on the offensive

Just what was in Barry Sheerman’s coffee this morning?  So far today, the schools committee chairman has used a couple of media appearances to a) call Ed Balls a “bully”, and b) criticise all three party leaders – including Brown – for their “cowardly party leadership” over the Legg review.  Punchy stuff, which makes you wonder whether he’ll be the de facto “Get Gordon Out” candidate for PLP chairman, after all.

5 Labour ‘refusenik’ MPs threaten to resign over Legg letters

Paul Waugh reports that 5 ‘refusenik’ Labour MPs are threatening to trigger by-elections over Brown’s reluctance to curb Sir Thomas Legg’s retrospective cap. Clearly, Brown is in an invidious position – it is conceivable that Labour will lose these by-elections in any event, but Brown would be committing very protracted and very painful electoral suicide if he demanded that Sir Thomas retract his demands. Brown is indecisive when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing in his favour, so God knows what agonies the Hamlet of Kirkcaldy is wrestling with at the moment, and I suspect most of us would have died of old age if the refuseniks

Brown the Reformer: er, good luck with that

Brace yourselves. According to the Guardian, Brown is about to sell himself as a Great Reformer: “Brown, the cabinet sources say, decided in the past few weeks to adopt a tougher pro-public sector reform stance, in order that his defence of the state in the face of recent attacks on big government by David Cameron does not become confused with complacency about the current performance of the public sector.” Despite the sensibleness of the reform argument, I can’t imagine that Brown will make much headway with this. For starters, he has that “Roadblock to Reform” label, and Labour’s patchy record on public service reform, hovering over him like the proverbial

Harriet now more dangerous for Gordon

The once-daft (but now rather good) Labour List has a very interesting story about Harriet Harman. Apparently, she will tell Andrew Neil on this weekend’s BBC Straight Talk that she won’t stand for the leadership in any circumstances and has no leadership ambitions.  This is very bad news for Gordon Brown. This may seem like a strange thing to say, but in several conversations with Labour MPs and activists I have heard a version of the following: “We can’t get rid of Gordon because Harriet would win the election to replace him.”  With Harriet gone, the way is now clear for a genuine challenge.  The likelihood is that this won’t happen.

A sombre scene and a shift in power

Poppy day came early to Westminster today.  Brown began proceedings by reciting the names of the 37 men killed in Afghanistan over the summer. This took two minutes. The house was silent, funereal, almost awe-struck with the solemnity of the occasion. Brown looked like a man deeply moved by personal grief as he worked his slow way through the deadly list. Ann Winterton punctured the mood with the first question, suggesting that once the Lsibon treaty is ratified the government’s first duty will be ‘to further the objectives of Europe in preference to those of Britain’. Brown denied this again referenced the Afghan conflict in response. When his trun came,

What do the Legg letters mean for the Kelly Review?

As the Legg controversy continues along its unedifying course, I can’t help but wonder what it all means for Sir Christopher Kelly’s review of the expenses system, due for publication in a few weeks’ time.  The plan is that the government will go through its recommendations, adopt any it likes, and then put them to a vote in the Commons.  But will Brown now back away from the more radical proposals, from fear of aggravating the Parliamentary Labour Party even further?  Will MPs now be more tempted to dismiss Kelly’s ideas out of hand?  This is, after all, yet another independent review, commissioned by Brown, which will contain suggestions you

Brown’s strange position of strength

I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: the email exchanges between Danny Finkelstein and Philip Collins over at Comment Central are one of neatest features in the political blogosphere – always worth a read.  They’ve got a new one up today, discussing how Brown should go about handling the Legg letters.  Does he force Labour MPs to cough up, and risk drawing their anger?  Or does he fold and allow them to fight Legg, to maintain some degree of their support? It all reduces to an important point from Collins; one which could seem counter-intuitive at first, but makes more sense the more you think about it: “I would

Brown told to repay £12,415.10 of expenses

Here’s the statement from the office of the PM, courtesy of Sky’s Cheryl Smith: Mr Brown received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg this afternoon. Sir Thomas Legg has issued his provisional conclusions to MPs, asking for further information where necessary before concluding in December. Mr Brown has always supported this process and will cooperate fully and make the necessary repayment. Mr Brown’s expenses have always been cleared by the House Authorities as entirely consistent with the rules. He has not claimed the maximum level of expenses. The Review says its findings “carry no implication about the conduct or motives of the MPs concerned”. To be absolutely sure, Mr Brown

Is this the death of another anti-Brown plot?

An eagle-eyed spot by Hopi Sen, who has posted on Barry Sheerman’s comments in the Huddersfield Examiner today.  If you remember, Sheerman was mooted as a key component in an anti-Brown plot, whereby he’d stand as chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party on a Get Gordon Out platform. Votes for Sheerman, it was thought, would be votes against Brown – and increase the pressure on the PM to stand down.  But in the Huddersfield Examiner, Sheerman suggests that, while he will stand for the PLP position, he won’t do so as part of a coup: “…Mr Sheerman denied this was part of a move to topple Gordon Brown. He said

Selling assets at rock bottom prices – sound familiar?

So what to make of Gordon Brown’s plan to sell off an expected £16bn-worth of assets?  Like Charlie Elphicke over at CentreRight, I have my qualms. As he puts it, Brown has form when it comes to selling national assets at rock-bottom prices. And, in the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch and a recession, the prices he gets for our stake in Urenco, say, or the Dartford crossing, are likely to be rock bottom.   Besides, there’s an unmistakeable whiff of political opportunism about this plan. You can imagine the posturing now: “We’re selling off assets we can spare to protect jobs and frontline services, unlike those dastardly Tories…”

Fraser Nelson

The politics of growth

One strange side-effect of the car crash that was the Liberal Democrat conference is that no one dares say the word “cuts” anymore. Since Nick Clegg promised “savage cuts” – alarming his base in the process – we’re back to the normal euphemism of “efficiencies”. This, like so much in life, will have Gordon Brown hopping mad. He didn’t want to say “cuts” in the first place, and the whole farrago will prove (in his head) that he should stop taking advice from people outside his coterie.   The next stage in the debate is to focus on growth. As James revealed in his political column for the current edition

John Rentoul Calls it Right on Brown and Cameron

As he says himself in this week’s column in the Independent on Sunday, John Rentoul showed “slavish admiration for a former Prime Minister”. Such is his grief for Tony Blair that he can’t bear to utter his name.  I did wonder whether John would seamlessly shift his admiration from Blair to Cameron, but he has remained loyal to his former idol’s New Labour project. Even when I disagree with him (and possibly especially when I disagree with him) John Rentoul remains one of the most incisive political columnists writing today, even though he has lost his access to the highest levels of power.  At risk of falling into slavish admiration

Brown’s double hit

What is the true price of Gordon Brown’s economic incompetence and inept bank regulation? The soaring national debt is one. And if you own a mortgage, you’ll find that you’re paying another. The gulf between the Bank of England base rate and the average mortgage rate is now at a huge high – as banks rip off their customers, trying to fill the hole in their balance sheets. This is an under-discussed topic. The “action we have taken” (a phrase Brown uses to try to lay claim to the Bank of England’s base rate reduction) would have a far greater effect on the economy if the UK banking system was

Dannatt may be overstating his case, but the government is being disingenuous

General Sir Richard Dannatt issues a vociferous condemnation of the government’s commitment to British efforts in Afghanistan in the print edition of today’s Sun. Dannatt asserts that Gordon Brown vetoed increasing the British deployment by 2,000 troops, against the advice of military chiefs. He told the paper: “The military advice has been for an uplift since the beginning of 2009. If the military says we need more troops and we can supply them, then frankly they should take that advice and deploy up to the level we recommend. “If it means finding more resources and putting more energy in, let’s do it. If you’re going to conduct an operation, you’re

The politics of hope are dead. Cameron has everything to gain by being realistic

Publicly at least, Labour MPs are jubilant that Gordon Brown has agreed to appear, in principle, in a televised election debate. They give the responses to the creed first spun by Blair: that Brown is an arch-realist and heavyweight who will undo the vacuous Tories in debate. Certainly, Mr Brown is blessed with talents. As proud wives like to do, Brown’s listed his the other day – intelligence, hard work, dutifulness, diligence and patriotism. All laudable attributes, but even from environs of the cosy Labour conference, Mrs Brown did not dare suggest that her husband was in any way a realist. Brown’s, and Labour’s, messy divorce from political reality was

Brown agrees in principle to TV election debate

Despite trying to turn Adam Boulton to stone on Tuesday night, Gordon Brown has agreed in principle to appearing on the Sky election debate. It’s long been suspected that he would agree to participate, today merely confirms the rumour. If the debate goes ahead, it would represent a huge change in British electoral procedure. Mr Brown deserves credit for contributing to that change. Why he did not choose to announce this positive move, illustrating that he’s prepared to take the fight to Cameron and Clegg, in his conference speech defies belief and speaks volumes about his political courage and instincts. As ever, Brown’s appearance is subject to certain as yet undefined caveats and conditions and the party leaders will have to agree