Labour party

Murphy launches Labour’s defence review

Remember when Jim Murphy spoke about defence cuts last month? It was not only a smart refinement of Labour’s fiscal position, but also a preview for the defence review that they’re conducting as an alternative to the government’s SDSR. Well, that review was officially launched this morning, and I was in the audience on reporting duty. Here’s a quartet of quick observations that I bashed out on my phone: 1) Cuts, cuts, cuts. There was, it is true, a greater emphasis on the ‘constrained fiscal circumstances’ in Murphy’s opening remarks than there is the consultation paper that Labour released today. But that emphasis was still striking in itself. Murphy, for

Osborne accidentally makes the case for more savings

Rhetoric aside, what’s the difference between left and right in British politics? You won’t catch either party quantifying it, because the answer embarrasses both. The ever-cautious George Osborne is cutting just 0.6 percentage points a year more from government departments than Labour planned to (see table, above). The great joke is that the difference between the two parties is actually within the margin of error. Government is a gargantuan machine that just can’t be controlled to that degree of precision: a billion quid is, to Whitehall, a rounding error.   Today’s public finances have demonstrated that. The UK government had actually intended to borrow around £102 billion at this stage

Miliband guarantees a return to Brown’s Big Idea for the NHS

It would be so much easier for Ed Miliband to attract headlines if he could shout in Andrew Lansley’s face. As it is, the Labour leader has had to make do with giving a speech today attacking the NHS reforms. Within the parameters of what he might say, it’s an okay effort. The predictable lines about ‘creeping privatisation’ are leavened by the admission that ‘the question is not reform or no reform. It is what type of reform.’ And he adds, by way of a cross-party sweetener, that he would ‘get round the table’ with David Cameron to discuss ‘the future of the NHS’. But the substance of the speech,

If Cameron doesn’t talk about greater powers for England, Labour will

Action over Scotland is certainly producing a reaction in England. It’s not what you’d call an ‘equal and opposite reaction’ yet, but it’s there — and it’s crystallised by Tim Montgomerie’s article for the Guardian this morning. I’d recommend that you read it in full, but Tim’s basic point is that David Cameron could score a ‘triple crown of political victories’ by moving towards a more federal UK: ‘By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects.

The tax debate at the heart of the Budget

The run-up to last year’s Budget was all about fuel duty. This year it’ll be all about direct taxes. The Lib Dems are determined to put their manifesto pledge of raising the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 front and centre. They already managed to turn this promise into government policy in the Coalition Agreement, and last year’s Budget announced that the threshold would rise to £8,105 in April this year. But Nick Clegg’s made clear that he wants to go ‘further and faster’ on this. The Conservative response at the Treasury – according to today’s Telegraph – is simple: ‘how are they going to pay for it?’ Initially, Nick

Fraser Nelson

Balls the tax-cutter?

‘Balls urges tax cuts’, we’re told. Has he had a Damascene moment? Has the borrowed penny dropped? Nope, this is his longstanding and cynical campaign to cut VAT. Under the Labour years, when Balls was encouraging Brown to adopt a ‘scorched earth’ policy to the public finances, he urged against raising VAT to 20 per cent as Alistair Darling wanted. Not because he didn’t think it was necessary, but because he knew that if Darling didn’t do it, Osborne would. So VAT could be an election campaign tool, and then a stick with which to beat the wicked Tories (and the Lib Dems, who dropped the ‘VAT bombshell’ that they

Miliband’s NHS pledge

Ah, there he is! With the coalition — and David Cameron — dominating the political news on every day of this half-term week, Ed Miliband has finally caused a ripple in the national consciousness. He’s appearing before nurses in Bolton today to make a pledge: ‘Before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron concealed his plans for creeping privatisation of our National Health Service. So people didn’t get a vote on these plans at the last election. But I give you my word that if he goes ahead, they will be a defining issue at the next.’ Put aside the rhetoric about ‘creeping privatisation’ (which would surely make Tony Blair shudder),

The Lib Dems prepare their strategy for future coalitions

Contain your excitement, CoffeeHousers: the Lib Dems are debating whether to change their ‘constitution’ so that their members have a greater say over future coalition negotiations. The amendment has been put forward Tim Farron and Norman Lamb, and proposes that, in the event of coalition talks, the party’s ‘negotiating team’ should have to consult with a ‘reference group consisting of not more than nine people appointed equally by…’ blah, blah, blah. In fact, you can just read the whole thing on page 41 of this document. The Lib Dems will be voting on it at their Spring Conference next month. But while internal Lib Dem governance may not be the

Alex Massie

Alex Salmond, Supply-Sider?

Today’s Chat With Dave is all very well and good but Alex Salmond’s speech to the LSE last night was just as significant. Much of the wrangling about Scottish independence has, for respectable reasons, concentrated on matters of process leaving the substance of what an independent Scotland might actually be like for another day. This too is reasonable since so much is speculative at this stage and, in any case, one should not necessarily presume that the SNP would dominate post-independence politics. Nevertheless, it is useful to have an idea of what Alex Salmond considers important. What he emphasises now is the best available guide to what might be emphasised

Prescott’s pitch for the police commissioner job

How strange — John Prescott is fast becoming the poster boy for elected police commissioners. He appeared on the Today Programme earlier to explain why he’s putting himself forward for that very job in his home of Humberside. But has he acquiesced to Tory thinking? Don’t bet on it. As he told John Humphrys, he doesn’t actually support the legislation, but he does believe that Labour should have a man in the fight: ‘The Labour Party didn’t like this legislation and I voted against it, but once there is an election the party isn’t going to stay out of it and they will want to see it doesn’t go the way they feared it

How to implement a minimum price for alcohol

Pete posted earlier on the Prime Minister’s latest intervention on the issue of problem drinking. The new proposals — like a greater police presence in A&Es, and ‘drunk tanks’, special units where drunks are taken to sober up — are sensible enough, but seem small relative to the scale of the supposed problem, and focus on peripheral (though important) side-effects, rather than the core of the issue. The ‘big idea’ seems to be missing, even though the Conservatives have been flirting with it for some years, is a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol: far more controversial, but potentially far more effective. The last Labour government, in which I was an adviser, looked at this

Post-Moody’s, King backs Osborne

Moody’s doubts might not be making much difference to the actual economy, but they could make a good deal of difference to the political battle being waged over it. George Osborne, of course, is citing this as further proof of the need for fiscal consolidation. Ed Balls, meanwhile, is redoubling his call for a ‘change of course’ — and somewhat misleadingly too. But what does Mervyn King think? Thanks to his comments in a press conference this morning, we don’t have to guess. Here’s how Bloomberg reported them earlier: ‘“It’s a reminder that we are facing a very challenging path to reduce the scale of our deficit so that, at

A warning for Osborne and his economic agenda

Why did Moody’s downgrade Britain to AAA with a negative outlook, but leave other countries on AAA? One crucial factor is the scale of our debt increase: 60 per cent over the parliament. You won’t find it mentioned much today. The Chancellor is talking about austerity, helped by Balls who talks about his harsh deep cuts. Osborne today swears to keep ‘dealing with the debt’ — but his definition of ‘dealing with debt’ would even make an Italian blush: As Balls said on the radio this morning, the plan isn’t working. But Balls’ narrative — that Osborne is cutting harsh and deep — is untrue, as Moody’s knows. Osborne’s real

Labour’s plan would have cost us our AAA rating

For Ed Balls this morning, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the news about our credit rating: ‘A change of course is needed.’ But to what? Balls no doubt means a shallower course of deficit reduction — less far, less fast. But Moody’s are clear that we have been placed on a negative outlook because of doubts that our fiscal consolidation will continue strongly enough. Specifically, they say that, ‘Any further abrupt economic or fiscal deterioration would put into question the government’s ability to place the debt burden on a downward trajectory by fiscal year 2015-16.’ So how would Labour have fared? We already know that they

Moody’s puts UK’s AAA rating on negative outlook

‘It’s now clear that Britain’s economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now … For the first time since these ratings began in 1978, the outlook for British debt has been downgraded from stable to negative.’ So said George Osborne when S&P placed Britain’s AAA credit rating on a negative outlook in May 2009, when Labour were in power. But guess what? Another credit-rating agency — Moody’s — has just done the same to our rating this evening. Given how much Osborne made of Britain being a ‘safe haven’, it’s rather a tricky one for

The battle over Downhills takes another turn

Remember Downhills Primary School? This was the underperforming school in Haringey that became a political battleground towards the end of last year. On one side was Michael Gove and the coalition, proposing that Downhills — and schools like it — become academies, as that’s how to boost academic performance. On the other was the local MP, Labour’s David Lammy, as well as the school hierarchy and various union types, all apoplectic at having academy status ‘imposed’ from above. Harsh words were traded, meetings were convened, and little was resolved by it all. I mention this now because, late yesterday afternoon, something was actually resolved in Haringey: Downhills was put in

Lansley’s battle should’ve never been fought

A small war has broken out over Lansley’s NHS Bill — ConservativeHome has three Cabinet members attacking it. I find that shocking. At least a dozen want the Bill killed, and why ConHome found just three is beyond me. Politically, it’s probably impossible for Cameron to drop it. But if it was torn up, I for one would shed no tears. For what it’s worth, here’s my take. It’s depressing to think that Alan Milburn’s NHS Plan of 2000 was both more radical and more sensible than what Andrew Lansley is serving up now. The whole debacle has shown politics at its most petty, partisan and pointless — a complete

Ken’s gaffe and what it tells us about his campaign

We now have the first major gaffe of the 2012 London Mayor race and to everyone’s surprise it wasn’t Boris. Ken Livingstone granted an extraordinary interview to the New Statesman, where his comments on the incumbent mayor, Margaret Thatcher and his work ethic have caused a decent stir. However, it is the thoughts on homosexuality in the Conservative Party – ‘the Tory party was riddled with it like everywhere else is’ – that have prompted outrage. He was claiming hypocrisy, but instead came off bitter and twisted. The pro-Boris politicos are delighted – Ken’s true colours have been exposed, they say, and Labour should deselect him at once. But they

Scottish Labour Embrace the Logic of Independence

One of the problems with the Scottish parliament is that all gathered there must pretend it is more influential and vital than it really is. In fact, as has been observed often enough, it has few powers that were not previously available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. What the parliament did, then, among other things, was establish a clear and plainly Scottish link between the electorate and the people charged with those responsibilities. Now the parliament is here there is a tendency to argue about, for example, the annual budget as though the Finance Minister at Holyrood is in some way comparable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer