Gordon brown

The language of political debate

A great spot by Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome, who highlights this Wall Street Journal graphic on the words that both sides of the US healthcare debate should be using to score a rhetorical advantage.  For instance, it suggests that the pro-Obama team should say “rules” rather than “regulations”, while the President’s opponents should attack the system for being “too profit-driven” and “too bureaucratic”: As Tim says, words have power.  Indeed, over the past decade, the fiscal debate was partially

A very risky strategy

Labour’s attempt to create a new dividing line on cuts is intriguing because it suggests that the government reckons we are pulling out of recession – a message Alistair Darling has been stressing recently. Central to Labour’s argument is that their initial interventions, opposed by the Tories, preserved public services through the recession. By claiming that now is the time to make extensive cuts, beyond mere efficiency savings, suggests that they think the economy is robust enough to survive sweeping public spending cuts. If an economic boom couldn’t save John Major, I doubt a modest recovery will save Brown from defeat. But, if the economy does recover and Brown initiates

Twilight Zone Tuesday: Brown to announce spending cuts

Now this is a turn up.  According to the Independent, Gordon Brown is going to “issue a list of specific [spending] cuts” as part of his Autumn “fightback”.  Here’s how the strategy goes: “Initially, Mr Brown will seek to establish in voters’ minds the key differences between Labour and the Tories – on policy, government intervention to limit the impact of the recession and preserving frontline services. Then he will acknowledge that the Government needs to go beyond the £35bn of efficiency savings it has already promised. The aim will be to show Labour is serious about reducing the deficit, which is set to rocket to £175bn in the current

There’s no one like Macavity

Paul Waugh’s spot on: Brown has been reluctant to congratulate England for their Ashes victory because he is so desperate to avoid being dragged into the international furore surrounding al-Megrahi’s release. A Number.10 spokesman described Kenny MacAskill’s release order as a “uniquely sensitive and difficult decision” and one that (surprise, surprise) was taken completely independently of the British government. But, as yet, Macavity’s not here. I suppose I could be doing the PM a disservice. Braying about our Ashes victory would, of course, be uniquely insensitive to our Australian brothers. And besides, giving congratulations is probably someone else’s job.

Confidence returns

One of the most significant news stories of the day comes courtesy of the Institute of Chartered Accountants: “Confidence among business professionals has surged, suggesting the recession is at an end, a survey has said. The Institute of Chartered Accountants’ index of business confidence rose to 4.8 at the end of June, from -28.2 in March, the biggest rise for two years.” Economically speaking, this is encouraging stuff – it’s the view from the frontline of the real economy, after all.  And these types of surveys always tend to have a self-fulfilling quality, as more confident companies adopt the measures – spending, hiring etc. – which are likely to drive

The stench of realpolitik

Suggesting that al-Megrahi’s release was the result of a deal being struck to protect commercial interests should be offensive, but there are a number of questions the government need to answer. First, was al-Megrahi’s transfer a condition of the Blair-Gadaffi Deal in the Desert? On Friday, Saif al-Islam said: “In all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain, Megrahi was always on the negotiating table”. The Foreign Office deny this and yesterday Lord Mandelson said: “The issue of the prisoner’s release is quite separate from the general matter of our relations and indeed the prisoner’s release has not been influenced in any way by the British government.” In addition

Another Sunday, another set of damaging rumours for Brown

Brace yourselves, it’s leadership speculation time again.  A story in the Mail on Sunday alleges that Alistair Darling has been attacking Brown in private – “I am trying to talk sense into that man…” – before adding this: “Last night there were claims that backers of Home Secretary Alan Johnson – widely seen as the stop-gap leader if Mr Brown quits before the General Election – were secretly canvassing ‘non-aligned’ Labour MPs not closely linked to any potential successor. Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe, who ran Mr Johnson’s unsuccessful Labour deputy leadership bid in 2007, was accused of quietly taking names.” Whether true or no’, these rumblings tell you everything you

The ‘Dear Leader’s Children’

A major political headache is how to ensure the recession doesn’t claim another lost generation. Official figures suggest that nearly 1 million people under the age of 25 are already on the dole, with a further 1.5 million being economically inactive. These figures will only get worse. Polly Toynbee thinks that Germany is pulling out of recession because they have the answer: ‘Labour’s efforts are directed towards getting people into work. But Germany focuses on stopping people falling out of work, by contributing to wages. A study this week says a ¤6bn scheme prevented a major rise in unemployment, and helps explain why Germany is already pulling out of recession.

Finally, a stroke of good luck for Gordon Brown

This UK-US spat over the NHS has spilled over into a snowballing twitter campaign, with comments flooding in from Brits. Nigel Lawson said the NHS was like a religion to Britain, and many have come to defend the faith. Brown has lent his support to the campaign, and it’s perfect for him. It allows him to play the patriotic card, telling those yanks (especially – boo – the conservative ones who watch Fox news, and their neocon supporters like Class Enemy Hannan) where to shove it. He also gives President Obama – he of Obama Beach fame – some political support. Finally, it allows him to claim that the NHS

Mandy: Brown would “relish” televised debates with Cameron

So Mandy’s brought up the idea of a public debate between Brown and Cameron again, claiming – in interview with Sky (see footage above) – that the PM would “relish” the opportunity to “take the fight to the Conservatives”.  If you remember, the last time Mandy mentioned it, Downing St quickly moved to dampen all the speculation – the rumour was that Brown was going to challenge* Cameron to a series of debates in his conference speech, and was irritated at the PoD for giving the game away so early.  But now that Mandy has made the same point again – indeed, even more forcefully this time – I reckon

The race to recovery is looking bad for Brown

Oh dear.  Another blow to Brown’s economic credibility this morning, as France and Germany announce that they’ve come out of recession already.  Both economies grew by 0.3 percent in the second quarter of the year – in contrast to the UK economy, which shrank by 0.8 percent. Whatever the factors behind it, this spells trouble for Brown.  A poor performance in the race to recovery not only calls his management of the economy into question, but it also undermines his anticipated “green shoots strategy”.  The PM will find it hard to brag about our “green shoots” when other countries already have full-grown plants. You can expect the Tories to pounce

The truth behind Mandy’s “half-a-million jobs” claim

Anyone listening to Lord Mandelson’s claim this morning that the Brown stimulus saved “at least” half a million jobs would have smelt a large, whiskered rat. The Treasury has tonight told The Telegraph that the 500,000 figure was a maximum estimate, not a minimum as Mandy claimed. Your baristas here at Coffee House have asked the Treasury to show us their study – not available, it seems. So we have submitted a Freedom of Information request for it. While we all hold our breath, it’s worth looking at this claim in more detail because it is a Brownie we are highly likely to hear again. First, here’s Mandy’s comments to

Osborne should avoid Brown-style rhetoric on cuts

Right, I know I keep banging on about Osborne’s speech, but – Alan Duncan’s loose lips aside – it’s certainly the topic du jour in Westminster.  Yesterday evening, I noted a couple of qualms I had with what I thought was – on the whole – an important and effective address.  Today, I’ve got another concern to add to the pile; one prompted by Osborne’s article in the Times. The headline to that article reads thus: “The new dividing line: radical reform or cuts”.  And the sub-head runs: “Sceptics argue that reform is a luxury we cannot afford.  Without it, money for schools and health will inevitably be slashed.”  Now,

Fraser Nelson

Brown’s children

Why is this recession so cruel to the young? The unemployment figures – now up to 2.44 million – are bad enough. It’s the largest single quarterly drop since data began in 1971. But look deeper and there’s a striking disparity amongst the age groups. The under-18s – school leavers – are hit the most, with their employment numbers down 17% year-on-year. The 18-24 year olds are next worst hit. But there is actually a rise in pension-aged people returning to work. The bottom line: unemployment amongst the under-25s is a third higher than when Labour came to power. CoffeeHousers may remember how full of pious anger Gordon Brown was

When Mandelson can’t launch a convincing counterattack, you know things are bad for Labour

Whatever you might think of George Osborne’s speech on progressive politics yesterday – and I have some doubts of my own – it’s hard to take Peter Mandelson’s Guardian article about it particularly seriously.  As Tim Montgomerie says over at ConservativeHome, there’s little in there beyond personal attacks on Osborne and a caricature of the Tory position, all underpinned by the insistent claim that progressive ends can only be delivered by Labour means.  For someone who lambasted the media for not “not talking about policy” in his interview with the Guardian on Monday, it’s a rather poor show. But, worst of all for Labour, is that Mandy’s position is confused

Supplementary notes on Osborne’s progressive speech

Earlier, I wrote that Osborne’s speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron.  Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that’s the case.  Sure, there wasn’t anything particularly new in it – and the delivery didn’t quite zing – but its central point that Brown’s approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message.  Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the “nasty Tories” and their “cuts in frontline services”, so it’s important for Cameron & Co.

Now the Tories foresee a “zero percent rise” of a different sort

When Brown comes to weigh up his prime ministerial legacy, maybe he’ll be satisfied that – if nothing else – he seems to have enshrined the idea of a “zero percent rise” in political discourse.  Here’s a passage from the Times article today on how the Tories plan to freeze the pay of local government workers:       “Conservative town hall employers told The Times that ‘a zero rise’ for workers next year would be the ‘maximum’ that Tory councils would support.” More seriously, the Times article indicates a toughening of the Tories’ stance towards the unions, and perhaps even over public spending cuts more generally (although Andrew Lansley does rather

Is Brown starting to accept defeat?

The FT report on how Labour MPs aren’t putting themselves forward to be parliamentary private secretaries – or “ministerial bag-carriers”, as they’re known around Westminster – says a lot about the party’s confidence in Gordon Brown.  After all, as one source tells the newspaper: “Why would you bother if you know that there is no chance of becoming a minister in the next government?” But it’s this snippet from the FT’s analysis which could be more noteworthy: “One Downing Street insider said the prime minister was more relaxed because he now realised that he was certain to lose the next election and was powerless to defy political gravity.” Sure, another

Why Mandelson isn’t deputy PM

As the country prepares for Peter Mandelson’s week in charge, The Mail on Sunday reports that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, put the kybosh on him acquiring the title of Deputy Prime Minister. O’Donnell may well have said that it was inappropriate for a peer to be deputy PM but I would have thought that Harriet Harman would also have objected. As the elected deputy leader of the Labour party, I can’t imagine she would have taken kindly to somebody else grabbing the title of deputy PM which Brown had conspicuously failed to offer her. Given all of Brown’s women trouble at the time of the mid-plot reshuffle, I

Confusion reigns

On Wednesday, the Downing Street press office confirmed with us that there was a timetable for ministers to stand-in for Gordon Brown. They said that Harriet Harman was in the job this week and last and that Lord Mandelson would begin “next week”. Today it’s emerged that Harman’s stint has ended prematurely, and that she’s been replaced by Mandelson – though he’s yet to return from Corfu. The Dark Lord is influential, but can even he run the government from the Med? We thought we’d check what was going and put in another call to Downing Street. This time they had a different story: we were told that there was