Labour party

Balls pitches for the leadership

The Ed Balls leadership cart is revving up a gear. He wants to position himself as the main mover behind the election campaign, now that Gordon Brown is dead in the water. It was his plan to stop Darling jacking up VAT to 20 percent, so he can accuse the Tories of wanting to do that (it’ll be more like 22.5 percent IMHO – but that’s another story). And now Balls has told tomorrow’s Sunday Times that Labour’s election focus will be on the family. “In the past I think our family policy was all about children,” says Father Balls. “I think our family policy now is actually about the

Identifying Brown’s culpability in Iraq

The Tories have missed a trick in responding to the predictable news that Gordon Brown won’t be giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry until after the election. William Hague has just said that it stinks. He should have followed up by listing the questions Brown should be asked – highlighting the extent of his personal culpability in our defeat in Basra and treatment of the troops: 1) Did you ever ask yourself why Britain came to be fighting two wars on a peacetime budget? 2) During the 2007 Tory Patrty conference you went to Iraq and said that 500 troops would be home by Christmas. This decision stunned the Ministry

Those split stories just won’t go away…

A hefty one-two punch in the continuing “Have Gordon and Peter fallen out?” story, this morning.  The Telegraph has quotes suggesting that Mandelson is “upset” and feels “disposed of” by Brown.  And Sue Cameron of the FT details a specific rift between the pair, ending with the observation: “I hear Lord M is not happy, telling friends that he does not have the influence he was promised.”  For his part, Mandelson has since dismissed the reports as “complete tosh”. Problem is, for Downing Street, the truth of the stories is almost immaterial.  After a relatively stable few months, Brown is once again mired in rumour and speculation concerning his own

Call yourself a PR man?

The latest Comres poll for the Independent indicates, as if we needed telling, that the Tories are yet to seal the deal. It’s far from panic stations – the lead remains at 9 points – but there are two figures that prove where the Tories are going wrong. The majority of respondents feel that a Conservative government would exclusively represent the interests of the rich, and the contention that the Tories represent an appealing alternative to Labour was rejected. If Cameron is merely a PR man I hope he’s cheap. Aside from Alex Salmond I can’t envisage anything worse than five more years of Gordon, and this suggests to me

The politics of self-defence

The spin machines are gearing up as we amble towards an election, and strategists’ latest hobby-horse is self-defence. Following the sentencing of Munir Hussain, Alan Johnson admitted feeling “uncomfortable” about Judge Reddihough’s decision. Never one to miss the bus, Chris Grayling went further and faster, suggesting that householders should be immune from prosecution unless they had responded in a “grossly disproportionate” fashion.   It’s rather unfair, but deliciously cutting, of cartoonists to portray Grayling as a plump second hand car salesman posing as James Bond, but Grayling deserves criticism because “grossly disproportionate” is as ill-defined as the “reasonable force” that current legislation describes. Conservative proposals would still leave decisions entirely

Will this be the game-changer that Brown needs?

So there we have it.  There will be televised election debates between the three main party leaders during the next election campaign, after all.  The first will be on ITV, then there’ll be one each on Sky and the BBC.  Talk about good TV for political anoraks. Like Tim Montgomerie and Mike Smithson, I suspect that Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be happiest with the news.  Both of them, particularly Brown, need potential game-changing events like this to make some progress in the polls.   As for Cameron, he’d probably be better off not giving his opponents a chance to make inroads into the Tories’ poll lead.  But he

Simple but effective?

It’s the most straightforward dividing line the Tories could draw: “Tories good, Labour bad”.  But it’s still striking to see it deployed quite so bluntly as in George Osborne’s Telegraph article this morning.  His point is that four more years of Labour will lead us to ruin, whereas a Conservative government would pull us out of the mire.  Here are some snippets: “Down the path of least resistance lie economic decline, higher interest rates, high unemployment, and more social breakdown. This is the path down which a cynical and exhausted Labour Government tempts us. But there is another path that leads to lasting recovery, rising prosperity, social responsibility and a

Labour calls cease-fire on binge drinking

The government has sued for peace. The Observer reports that in the face of lobbying from the drinks industry, the government has dropped its mandatory code on the sale of alcohol, which Gordon Brown first brewed-up during the local election campaign. Labour excuses the u-turn on the grounds that vulnerable pubs and drinks retail industry must remain viable during this fragile economic situation. On the face of it, that is sensible; delve deeper and that excuse does not hold. Of course, there’s no sense in endangering businesses by punishing all drinks deals and ‘happy hour’ promotions. However, aspects of the code would have outlawed promotions such as ‘all you can

Fraser Nelson

Mayor Mandelson?

When Mandelson said in his Spectator interview that he plans another 15 to 20 years in politics, what could he have meant? Now that his European career is over, there is only one decent post coming up for a Labour figure in the first half of the next decade – and I float the latest theory in my News of the World column today: that Mandy might stand as Mayor of London in 2012. A bizarre notion, I grant you, but no less bizarre than his CV to date – and Ken Livingstone is certainly taking the prospect seriously. Whoever the Labour candidate, they have a pretty good chance given

The pessimism of the left

Like David, I’m a fan of Polly Toynbee. Every compass needle needs a butt end, after all. She is 180 degrees wrong on most things: but splendidly, eloquently, passionately wrong. I’d like to pick up on one aspect of her column. “Social democrats are the world’s optimists, knowing human destiny is in our own hands if we have the will to change. Leave pessimism to the world’s conservatives, ever fearful of the future and yearning for a better yesterday.” Now, I have also seen this as a fundamental difference between left and right but (needless to say) the other way around. And it all comes down to your views of

Slightly surprising stat of the day

According to a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s People (reported by the paper’s political editor, Nigel Nelson, on Twitter): “1% more people would rather have G.Brown than D.Cameron round for Christmas dinner.” There’s better news elsewhere in the poll for the Tories: the gap between them and Labour is back in double digits.  It’s the Tories on 40 percent, Labour on 28, and the Lib Dems on 18.

The case for John Hutton as a New Labour hero

Ok, so identifying the heroes of the New Labour era may not sit well with CoffeeHousers – but I’d still recommend you read through the latest Bagehot column in the Economist, which does just that.  It identifies five figures from the past 12 years who have “done the state and country some serious and lasting service,” and whose “virtues [are] not be clouded or cancelled by grave mistakes or misdemeanours”.  They are: Lord Adonis, Donald Dewar, Lord Mandelson, Sir William Macpherson and Robin Cook.  James Purnell, Alistair Darling and, strikingly, Bill Clinton finish in the runners-up list. You can debate the merits and demerits of those names all day long,

Alex Massie

Sion Simon’s Totalitarian Mazurka

I’m glad Pete mentioned Sion Simon’s expenses embarrassment, not least because it allows one to return to one of the funniest, strangest pieces of punditry one has seen in years. Sadly I was in Washington and missed it at the time, so thanks too to Guido for drawing it to my attention. The scene is the Labour conference in 2007 and our friends at the New Statesman give Mr Simon the chance to share his impressions of conference… Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so

Festive cheer

Well, Nick Clegg’s reponse to the Labour chief whip’s Christmas card made me smile: “Both myself and Nick Brown have good reason to be embarrassed. I posed for pictures in ridiculous fancy dress 20 years ago – and he is an MP for the Labour Party.” Hat-tip for the picture: the FT’s Jim Pickard

And so it rumbles on…

Expenses, expenses, expenses.  This morning’s Telegraph splashes with the news that the junior culture minister Sion Simon paid over £40,000 in taxpayers’ cash to his sister.  How so?  Well, he rented a London flat from her between 2004 and 2008, and claimed against it as his “second home”.  Problem is, the practice of renting a property from a family member at taxpayers’ expense was banned in 2006.  Simon has since said he’ll pay back the money that he “inadvertently” claimed. Aside from the fact that it’s yet another example of, at best, gross error on a politician’s part, two other details stand out.  First, as the Telegraph puts it, “Mr

What happens when quantitative easing stops?

Where the Gilt market goes in coming months is going to be very important for the UK economy and politics. There is little history of countries being able to sustain deficits of the UK’s magnitude, for very long, without serious market problems. At the moment, we’re getting by thanks the sticking plaster approach of quantitative easing. The Bank of England has purchased £186bn of gilts so far this year, almost perfectly matching the £179bn the Debt Management Office has needed to sell so far. As long as the Bank is willing to support the market with a fast-rolling printing press, government funding at attractive rates is assured. However, the end

Brown’s class war could doom Labour for years

A lot of pixels have been expended on Labour’s new class war and soak-the-rich strategies, so it’s worth highlighting the in-a-nutshell argument which Tom Harris deploys against them on his blog: “Rather than using opinion polls as a basis on which to judge the wisdom of class politics, let’s take a rather different measure: general election results. In 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, Labour promised tax increases (but only for the wealthy) and got hammered. In 1997, 2001 and 2005, we pledged not to increase the basic or higher rates of tax. And golly! Look what happened!” Ok, correlation and cause aren’t necessarily the same thing.  But there’s a strong

The spectre at the climate change feast

Today the TaxPayers’ Alliance is releasing a new report which sets out the huge and excessive burden that green taxes impose on families and business across the UK. At the moment, 14 percent of domestic bill costs are the result of climate change policies.  Increasing the price of energy hits the poor and elderly hardest – which, in turn, increases poverty and benefit dependency.  At the same time, 21 percent of industrial electricity bills are the result of climate change policies.  If we want to make our economy less dependent on financial services, driving up a major part of many manufacturing firms’ costs isn’t the way to do it. Despite

What will today mean for the expenses saga?

So MPs have until the end of today to declare whether they’re appealing against Sir Thomas Legg’s request that they repay certain expenses claims.  Three have already done just that, one from each of the main parties: Jeremy Browne, Frank Cook and Bernard Jenkin.  You imagine that more may follow throughout the day, especially given the rumblings that the Legg review contained a fair few errors. Now, it’s only fair that MPs have a right of appeal – but you still wonder what it will mean for the expenses saga more generally.  From the public’s perspective, a swathe of appeals could look like MPs resisting reform.  From Parliament’s perspective, it