I wouldn’t be surprised if this Gordon Brown snippet gets deployed ad nauseam between now and the next election: “[Brown] described Labour as the party of ‘prosperity not austerity'” If so, it’s worth noting that it’s a phrase that Ed Miliband used in several speeches last year (e.g. here, here and here). But, whoever its author, it’s hard to imagine it working for a governing party which has presided over one of the most spectacular busts in our history.
The party that nearly bankrupted Britain has bankrupt itself. The Times reports that, once again, Labour’s coffers are bare and that the party is technically insolvent. David Blunkett, chairman of Labour’s election development board, is unequivocal that Labour cannot withstand an interminable election campaign, which is precisely why the stinking rich Tories have opened one. The money men have backed the Tories, which in itself is significant as money invariably gravitates to the coming power and vice versa. Historians of New Labour’s spectacular demise will argue that it was not the recession but the cash for peerages scandal that demolished the party’s electoral supremacy, forcing it back into the arms
Yesterday was all Labour, Tories, Labour, Tories. So, today, enter the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg has an article in this morning’s Times which, to be fair, is actually quite noteworthy. His main point? That the Lib Dems are a party in their own right, and will not be engaging in “under-the-counter deals” with the Big Two: “This year’s general election is likely to be the most open and unpredictable in a generation. So you have a right to know where we stand. I can promise voters wondering whether to put an “X” against the Liberal Democrats that there are no backroom deals or under-the-counter “understandings” with either of the other
During an election campaign, the press like to obsess about who won the day. Up until 3pm, the consensus was that the Tories had. The media was pointing out just how absurd it was for Labour to criticise another party for having black holes in its fiscal plans. But then came David Cameron’s marriage gaffe which has evened up the coverage on the evening news broadcasts with the Six o’clock news going particularly hard on the issue. Cameron’s credibility is central to the Tory campaign so anything that depletes that is bad news for them. But in the long term, I think the most significant development today is one that
Say what you like about the Cameron project, but at least they are strongly committed to marriage. Aren’t they? Well, it seems, not now. I always suspected that the wonderful strength of Cameron’s rhetoric on marriage was not really matched by his policy – a rather paltry tax break. Now, it seems not even that is certain. “It’s something within a parliament I would definitely hope to do,” he said today. “We’re not able to give people absolute certainty on everything.” Well not on everything – but what about on the few hard pledges that have actually been made? Or is Cameron really cowering in the face of Labour attacks
The Toryies are busy rebutting Labour’s claim that there is a £34bn black hole in their tax and spending plans. The most striking thing is how strong the language Conservative sources are using is, Labour’s document was described to me as ‘a “dodgy dossier” full of lies’. It is quite remarkable that Labour has the gall to criticise the other side for unfunded spending pledges and the headline Tory objections are fair enough. The document says the Tories would let married couples transfer their tax allowances, when they haven’t committed to that. It also claims that the Tories are pledged to abolishing the 50p rate before the end of the
Today is a taste of how politics is going to be until the election: competing Labour and Tory events, claim and counter claim. Alistair Darling kicked off proceedings with an event setting out the supposed £34 billion black hole in the Tory’s plans for the public finances. This took some chutzpah considering how vague Labour’s own spending plans are, there are currently no departmental budgets, and how big the balck hole in Labour’s plans is, remember how Brown implied on Marr yesterday that tax rises on the rich, the National Insurance hike and lower than expected unemployment would be able to take most of the strain of halving the £178bn
Labour’s rapid rebuttal service will respond to the Tories’ policy blitz by questioning George Osborne’s spending pledges, of which more later. No objection can be raised against this action except that the government enlisted the Treasury to deliver very detailed costings under the Freedom of Information Act. The Times reports that the Tories are understandably livid: impartiality has been compromised. A spokesman said: “We are concerned at any collusion and abuse of the FOI system which has involved ministers requesting costings of what are complete misrepresentations of Conservative policies, which were subsequently released. We will be asking questions in Parliament about the cost and use of resources involved, not least
Self-delusion is an important skill in politics. If you can’t convince yourself that what you’re saying is true then good luck with convincing the electorate. Among Gordon Brown’s difficulties is the unfortunate truth that he’s not an accomplished liar. So, for instance, when he tells Andrew Marr this morning that “Everything I have ever won in my life I have had to fight for.” voters can be excused finding this preposterous. True, Brown’s eye-troubles and his battles to help modernise the Labour party have been struggles, but within the context of his own upbringing and political history, Brown’s as much an establishment figure as, in his own very different way
First she loved him. Then she hated him. Then she seemed lukewarm towards him. And, today, she’s gone back to hating him more than ever. Yes, Polly Toynbee’s latest column is another marker stone in her oscillating relationship with Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t contain any minced words: “Cancel new year, put back the clocks and forget the fireworks. There is nothing to celebrate in the dismal year ahead. The Labour party is sledging down a black run, eyes tight shut, the only certainty the electoral wall at the bottom of the hill. In five months David Cameron will be prime minister and Gordon Brown will be toast. Remember him?
The Dark Lord’s grip is weakening. Lord Mandelson’s waning status dominated headlines in the prelude to Christmas, and today the Telegraph reports that Harriet Harman, and not Mandelson, will lead Labour’s election battle. Mandelson’s marginalisation is understandable. He has been the government’s fire-fighter, deployed to defend the indefensible and bamboozle voters with a fantasia of figures and the demeanour of the Widow Twankee. As the narrative of recession cedes to that of recovery and the election nears, Labour requires a different style of communicator. Labour considers Harman to be that person, and hope that she will connect with women and middle England. Also, the days when peers fronted general election
Woah, hang on there. A Labour and Conservative coalition in the event of a hung Parliament? Crazy talk, surely? But that’s what Martin Kettle devotes his column to in today’s Guardian. It’s only unthinkable, he writes, “until you start thinking about it.” Hm. So rather than dismissing the prospect out of hand, I thought I’d register one particular complaint against it. While many of Kettle’s arguments about the fracturing of the party system and the blurring lines between the main parties make sense, the idea that they might coalesce in the aftermath of this year’s election ignores one crucial factor: the Labour leadership. Let’s just say, for the sake of Kettle’s argument, that Gordon Brown achieves
As we’re still in that period of the year for looking back as well as forward, I thought I’d share with CoffeeHousers a political timeline I put together. It’s not everything which happened in the political year, mind – but rather the important events in the debate over spending cuts. This debate has, at very least, been in the background to almost every political discussion in 2009, and it will dominate the years ahead – so this kind of exercise probably has some posterity value. But, aside from that, you can also draw a couple of conclusions from the timeline (and I do so below). Anyway, here it is, starting a bit before
Bob Ainsworth’s response to the Nimrod inquiry features one extraordinary omission: ministers do not appear to be directly accountable in the event of another tragedy. The reforms establish the MAA, the military aviation authority, which is independent from the MoD, but will not have responsibility for releasing aircraft to service – assistant chiefs of staff have that responsibility – however there the buck apparently stops. Here is the relevant section in Hansard: ‘The single service chiefs of staff must retain responsibility for determining that our aircraft can be safely released into service. The MAA will provide full assurance, but it will not carry out this release-to-service role directly. For
“Did he know who you were? I mean, not to be disrespectful, but he has been away for two and a half years…” So Five Live’s Phil Wiliams asked David Miliband who was talking about his conversation with Peter Moore who has just been released from Iraqi captivity. Brilliant image. The guy gets out of prison, then there’s a call from this nerdy Blairite bag carrier claiming to be foreign secretary. Yegawds, he’d say, what’s happened? Worse, Gordon Brown had become Prime Minister and irreparably trashed the British economy in the space of 24 months. Britain has now joined Zimbabwe in printing money to fund state spending. At the end
Clear your diary, invite the relatives over, and huddle around a computer: Gordon Brown will be delivering his New Year’s message – via podcast, on the Downing St website – this evening. Just in case you’ve got other things to be doing, this article in the Telegraph gives you a good taste of what to expect. In summary: dividing lines and optimism. There’s plenty on how the Tories are planning for “a decade of austerity and unfairness” – in contrast to our glorious PM, who predicts falling unemployment, more new businesses and prosperity for all. Indeed, the snippets that the Telegraph carries indicate just how eager Brown is to deploy a green shoots
The next time your four year old nephew smears chocolate over your trousers you are to congratulate him. According to government guidance, soon to be issued to nurseries by Dawn Primarolo, the glibly smirking illiterate would have been writing. Yesterday’s Independent reported that in response to evidence that the gender gap between children under the age of five has widened in writing, problem-solving and personal development, the government believe that boys should work harder. This seemingly impossible task will be eased by ‘making learning fun’: boys will be allowed to graffiti any given surface with chocolate and coloured sand. What a way to begin the new decade: by creating
Oh, Darling, what hast thou done? There are few more pertinent, or more damning, examples of what the government’s soak-the-rich policies could mean for the country than the news that JP Morgan is having second thoughts about developing a £1.5 billion European HQ in Canary Wharf. Of course, the bank may still go ahead with it. But just imagine if they don’t: the work lost for construction workers and a thousand other contractors; the tax revenues lost for the public finances. The damage won’t just – or even mostly – be to the financial sector. Thing is, I imagine that Number Ten will be fairly happy with the story. As
In the spirit of goodwill, Ed Balls has called-off the class war. As ever with Balls that is but half the story. Class war has not so much ceased as been re-branded. A Brown aide, quoted in the Independent, says that Labour’s strategy is concerned with “economic class, not social class”. So there we are; the impoverished squirearchy can sleep sound tonight: the Labour party is only interested if you’re nouveau riche – how gloriously snobby. Whilst Balls’ spite for those born nibbling a silver spoon has allegedly lessened, his leadership machinations continue apace. Ever industrious, Balls passed Christmas by flirting with traditional Christian Socialists, offering them a morsel of encouragement about the importance of family and marriage to society, disregarding how his policies have compounded those institutions’ decline. Today he makes a pass
Make a note, CoffeeHousers: Labour won’t be fighting a class war against the Tories, after all. That’s what Ed Balls tells us in this morning’s Times – so it must be true, mustn’t it? Erm, well, perhaps not. This is how the Schools Secretary continues: “‘David Cameron’s and George Osborne’s vulnerability is not their schools or their background but that they are prioritising tax cuts for the richest estates ahead of spending on the key public services,’ he said. ‘They have designed an inheritance tax policy which costs billions but which won’t benefit a single lower or middle-income family in Britain but will benefit themselves and a tiny percentage of