Labour party

The Tories’ dirty tactics are dispiriting but effective

This death tax levy is gutter politics at its most visceral and it’s thrilling drama. Brown’s and Cameron’s loathing for each other is pure soap opera, and they’re having a right old slanging match. I agree with Pete, it is dispiriting to see the Tories stoop to misrepresenting policies, the show-stopper in Brown’s repertoire. Together with Cameron’s personal attacks, the Tories have surrendered the high ground, but as Iain Martin notes is anyone really surprised? The Tories have been expecting, righty, Labour to fight a grubby election campaign and have decided to fight Brown’s mob with fire. Personal attacks appeal largely to those whose minds are settled, so I see

Has that Tory poster made Brown’s job easier in PMQs?

Yesterday’s Guardian story about a potential death tax would have been perfect material for Cameron in PMQs. Even after Andy Burnham’s denials, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about it. For instance, would the government say that they will never propose the tax? And, if not, how will they pay for their social care guarantees otherwise? Fired across the dispatch box, these enquiries could have put Brown on the back foot. But now that the Tories have jumped the gun, and released that poster attacking a Labour policy which isn’t actually a Labour policy, they’ve rather limited that line of questioning. If the death tax comes up, all

Cameron attacks tax-happy Brown

A strident interview from David Cameron in today’s Express, in which he touches on everything from inheritance tax to not, never, ever joining the Euro. It’s this passage that jumped out at me, though: “Middle Britain has had a wretched time under Labour. This Government has taxed mortgages, marriages, pensions, petrol and travel and raised national insurance and the top rate of income tax. We cannot keep squeezing hard-working families.” Why so noteworthy? Well, off the top of my head, this is the first time that Cameron has referred to the current system as a “tax on marriage”. In which case, you wonder if the Tories are planning to place

The problem with that David Cameron ad

Labour’s new ad with David Cameron facing both ways highlights what was wrong with the Tories’ opening ad of the year, that one dominated by Cameron’s face. The Tory strategy for the election campaign has to be to try and make it into a referendum on this failed government. But that ad, which emphasised Cameron so strongly, gave Labour an opening to try and turn the election not just into a choice between two parties but into a referendum on David Cameron and Tory policy. Labour’s success in doing this is largely responsible for the Tory wobble. The contrast between Cameron and Brown does work to the Tories’ advantage. But

Blair on Chilcot…

…well, sorta.  5:25 into his interview with Mike Huckabee, our former PM gives his take on the constant stream of Iraq inquiries: You can certainly see his point. Although I doubt the government will be too impressed with Blair trawling through all the Iraq stuff on American television, only weeks before he hits the campaign trail for Labour. Hat-tip for the video: Comment Central

Alex Massie

The Dividing Lines Obsession

This is one of those things that I don’t quite understand. Gordon Brown is obsessed with dividing lines and this is supposed to be upsetting us? Sure, this need to draw a contrast (often a false one, but never mind) between his Virtuous Labour party and the Callous Toffs & Cads at Tory head office is frequently petty, prickly and pointless. But what of it? Pete’s the latest Spectator gentleman to complain about the Dividing Lines Obsession: So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British

How should the Tories respond to those Labour guarantees?

If you’re going to take anything away from Andy Burnham’s press conference this morning – apart from his denials about a £20,000 “death duty” – it’s how heavily those Labour “guarantees” are going to feature in the election campaign.  Here we had social care guarantees, cancer treatment guarantees, waiting line guarantees, and even a new website and poster (see above) attacking the Tories for not signing up to the same guarantees.  So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British politics.  “Caring” versus “cruel”, as far

Plenty to encourage the Tories in the Populus poll

Well, the Populus poll isn’t all good news for the Tories. As James pointed out last night, they have shed another point and Labour have regained some ground. But, as both Peter Riddell and Mike Smithson note, the Tories can still secure an outright majority on the basis of these figures. The numbers which lead the Times’s frontpage coverage are more encouraging for Cameron & Co. They show that the public are attuned to the Tories’ broad narrative. 73 percent think society is broken; 82 percent think that now is the time for change; and 64 percent believe Britain is heading in the wrong direction. After 13 years in power,

A day to damage Brown?

Contain yourselves, CoffeeHousers.  I know that we’re all really excited about today’s Parliamentary vote on an alternative vote referendum (it is, after all, something our Prime Minister has described as “a rallying call for a new progressive politics”), but it isn’t a done deal just yet.  That “new politics” might still be put on hold. Indeed, things could get messy for Brown in just a few hours time.  You’d expect him to win the vote, what with Labour’s majority and the creeping sense that Downing St very much wants this to happen.  But even the slightest hint of a Labour rebellion, or of Lib Dem disquiet, and the story could

If this is a suspension, what is an expulsion?

Sky’s Jon Craig’s asks one of those questions you wished you had posed: wasn’t Elliot Morley suspended already? Yes, he was, on the 14 May 2009 and with immediate effect. However, showing a fine disregard for the manner in which repeat offenders are usually treated, Labour suspended Morley again for good measure. Seeking a clarification about the initial suspension, Craig was told that Morley had been denied the ‘privileges of the PLP’. What might they be? Subsidised beer and sandwiches perchance? The rumour is that Morley was either re-instated on the quiet or had escaped in the first instance, lending more weight to the sense that Labour’s response to the

What happens if Labour wins?

Bruce Anderson’s column in the Independent is a must read today and it concludes with this telling anecdote: ‘The other day, a Cabinet minister had lunch with a journalist. “What happens if you win?” enquired the hack. The minister looked astonished. It was clear that this possibility had not occurred to him. Having regained the power of speech, he replied: “There’d be an immediate leadership challenge”.’ Really? Brown was immovable when trailing by twenty points; a mandate will make him impervious to everything except death and possibly blindness. A narrow Conservative victory followed by a second election this autumn is a more likely scenario than a Labour win. Would Brown

James Forsyth

A note of caution over Cameron’s welcome attack on lobbyists

The Tories will be happy with their start to the week. David Cameron’s speech this morning has succeeded in highlighting how Labour had not suspended the whip from the three MPs charged by the CPS and drawn one of the Tories’ favourite contrasts, decisive Cameron versus dithering Brown. It was also refreshing to hear Cameron take a tough line on lobbying, proposing to double the waiting period before ministers leaving office and taking private sector jobs to two years. Lobbyists already have far too much influence on our politics. But there are risks to Cameron in this Obama-style play. As one Tory insider said to me just before party conference,

Brown’s personality defines the character of his government

David Cameron will re-launch his election campaign with a personal attack on Gordon Brown. Cameron will embark on the straightforward task of proving that the Road Block is not a moderniser – the Prime Minister’s sudden avowed passion for PR is merely a marriage of electoral convenience. Cameron has led the expenses reform debate and will use Brown’s dithering over the latest furore to condemn him as a ‘shameless defender of the old elite’. According to Francis Elliot, Cameron will say: “There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is

Clegg must resist Brown’s sweet nothings

Gordon Brown is usually at his most patronising when confronting Nick Clegg. Last week, however, hectoring gave way to affection. Brown was almost tender. Of course, this sudden change has an obvious explanation. Brown and Clegg are brothers in arms: devotees of electoral reform, or so the Road Block would have us believe. Robert McIlveen laid counter-arguments against Brown’s opportunism and Boris Johnson repeats them in his Telegraph column today, concluding: ‘There is one final and overwhelming reason why Britain should not and will not adopt PR – that it always tends to erode the sovereign right of the people to kick the b––––––s out.’ The Lib Dems have been

Brown wants to discuss nothing besides the middle class

Aspiration is Gordon’s middle name. The Observer has an extensive interview with Brown and though the classification has changed class remains his obsession: Brown wants to fight the election on the middle classes. He spoke of little else. Education and family policy will be defined by Sure Start, child tax credits and the school leaving age; the NHS will offer yet more choice and unaffordable luxuries, such as one to one care. It may seem peculiar for a man who is synonymous with stealth taxes, and whose time in government will be remembered for the polarisation of society, to frame his arguments in such terms; but his reason is clear:

Fraser Nelson

The cuts consensus

John Rentoul today puts Trevor Kavanagh and myself in the dock for demanding “massive spending cuts” and concludes that if we “had any power” we would be “about as helpful to Cameron as Sarah Palin was to John McCain” but believes Cameron “will hold to his strategic course”. I mean: massive cuts. How crazy is that? Surely only swivel-eyed maniacs would be planning cuts – real, hard-core ideologues – would plan that when the deficit is a mere 13 percent of GDP. Surely? It struck me, reading this, that John is unaware of the massive cuts which Labour is planning (understandable, as they were in the small print and have still not

Beyond doubt

For a moment, Andrew Marr had Alastair Campbell by the short and curlies. Marr attacked (that verb is not an exaggeration) Campbell over his clarification to the Chilcot Inquiry, the phrase ‘beyond doubt’ and the possibility that Blair knowingly misled parliament over the strength of WMD intelligence.   Marr was at his incisive and dramatic best. It was the first time I’ve seen Campbell under pressure and he wobbled, his lower lip did so markedly. Perhaps I do him a disservice, but I didn’t buy Campbell’s blubbing act; it was just theatre. His defence of Blair and himself rested on the tried and tested refrain that Tony’s a pretty straight

Alex Massie

Jim Devine

It would be easy to highlight this Channel Four News interview with disgraced Livingston MP Jim Devine and observe that it highlights so much of what is so wrong with the Scottish Labour party. Easy and true. But while it’s obvious that the Jimmies are pretty grim, the broader point is that there are clueless fools (and worse!) in all political parties and it’s incumbent upon voters to choose the best man or woman for the job, regardless of their party affiliation. That means there are plenty of sitting Tory and Lib Dem MPs you shouldn’t vote for either. [Hat-tip: Mr Eugenides]