Gordon brown

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

What Dougie didn’t say

The New Statesman’s interview with Douglas Alexander is making waves for Alexander’s admission that he was briefed against by Brown’s inner circle following the election that never was. The treatment of Alexander, a man who had been a Brown loyalist for his entire political career and was only following instructions, was particularly brutal. But what strikes me about the interview is how Alexander, who is still Labour’s general election coordinator, did not produce a single positive domestic policy argument for re-electing Labour that the New Statesman thought was worth printing. Indeed, when the interview turns to British politics, all we hear from Alexander is negative slogans about the Tories: they

James Forsyth

How close we came to Chancellor Balls

Sue Cameron’s Notebook in the FT is one of the best guides there is to the mood in Whitehall. The main focus of her column today is the discontent among the Mandarins about the fact that huge cuts will have to be made but they are getting no guidance from their current ministers as to where and how this is to be done. But the bit which stood out to me was how advanced Ed Balls plans for moving to the Treasury were. Cameron reports that: “Some in Whitehall have still not recovered from the reshuffle drama when schools secretary Ed Balls had his hopes of becoming chancellor dashed. ‘It

PMQs live blog | 15 July 2009

Stay tuned for live coverage of PMQs from 1200. 1202: And we’re off.  John Maples asks Brown to clarify our objectives in Afghanistan.  Brown says that “since 2001, our main objective has been to stop terrorism”. 1204: In response to a question from Anne Begg, Brown says he is “committed to increasing the diversity of Pariament”. 1205: Cameron now.  He asks whether to maintain support for the Afghanistan mission, we’ve got to “make more visible progress”.  Brown repeats his point about “tackling terrorism,” and that the mission also aims to bring “social and economic development” in the country.  He adds that the Government will review “equipment and resources” after the

James Forsyth

A mutual decision?

There is an interesting little story tucked away in today’s Daily Mirror, the government might only sell off Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley on condition that they are turned into mutually-owned societies. Jason Beattie reports that the idea of turning them back into building societies is being backed by John McFall, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, and 29 other Co-Operative party Labour MPs. I suspect that if Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley are de-nationalised this side of the election, something that I suspect Brown would like to do, the price will be the key determinant. But, politically, I can see the appeal of insisting that they