Labour party

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

How will Labour try to soak the rich?

Brace yourselves.  According to today’s Daily Express, Alistair Darling is under pressure to introduce a new 70 percent tax rate for high-earners in next week’s Pre-Budget Report.  I repeat: s-e-v-e-n-t-y percent. To be honest, I can’t see the Chancellor doing it.  Leaping from 50p to 70p would be regarded as far too incendiary, not to mention fiscally insane, even for this government.  But I can still see them introducing a fair handful of soak-the-rich measures, if only to strengthen their reinvigorated attack line against the Tories. In which case, I refer you to Polly Toynbee’s column from a few months ago, in which she recommended that the 50p rate start

Mark Bathgate

Risky business | 3 December 2009

With the largest transfer of liabilities in British history – the insurance of the risk of loss on £240 billion of toxic RBS assets by taxpayers – proceeding, there is worryingly little information being given about either what these assets may be or what risks there are to the taxpayer. Rather than the parliamentary enquiry and detailed disclosure Swiss parliamentarians demanded when UBS needed similar assistance, a small press release noting such exotics as “structured credit assets “ has been issued. The spin continues to be that there is nothing to worry about and all this money will come back fine. Bank of England data shows that UK bank exposure

Peter Hoskin

The choice facing the Tories

If you’d like a step-by-step preview of Labour’s next election campaign, then do read Alastair Campbell’s latest blog post.  All of Brown’s attacks from PMQs are in there, and then some: “tax cuts for the rich”; a lack of “policy heavy lifting” on Cameron’s part; the Tories “haven’t really changed”, etc. etc.  The spinmeister has been in closer contact with Downing Street recently, and it shows.  It’s all gone a bit bar-brawling. The Tories now face a choice between, broadly speaking, three different responses: i) Ignore Campbell.  Even though James was right to highlight the differences between now and the Crewe & Nantwich byelection – which I wrongly skipped over

Wednesday

Alex Massie

The New Class War

James argues, quite correctly in my view, that it is now clear that Gordon Brown is preparing to run a campaign arguing that, as Brother Forsyth puts it, “a Cameron government will be a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.” Ben Brogan makes the same point in his column today:  In a fight to the death, there is no longer any point pretending to govern in the national interest. As it was in the beginning for Labour, so shall it be in the end: class war, plain and simple. Soak the rich, crow about it, and damn the consequences. It’s true that this is red meat

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Might there be some fight left in the class war after all?

The Tories are in mild shock following PMQs, they never expected Cameron to get clunked like that. Brown is clearly going to try and use Tory inheritance tax policy to ram home the message that a Cameron government will be a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. But the Tories are taking comfort from their belief that Brown’s ugly class war politics won’t work, pointing to how they failed in Crewe and Nantwich. But the attacks on Edward Timpson backfired, at least in part, because Timpson was a bad target. It is hard to portray someone as an out of touch, uncaring toff when their family

Lawrence Kay

Politicking on the backs of the poorest

This afternoon Jim Knight MP, the minister for welfare reform, proclaimed that the Government wants to turn the Jobcentre Plus network into a careers service for everyone. He said that welfare advisers, who currently try to help get people on benefits back into work, will start to “provide opportunities for progression” for anyone in a job – no matter whether the person is a banker or a bin man. This is a bad idea for a simple reason: it is far more important to help the unemployed back into work than give assistance to people who already have a job. The longer that someone is out of work, the worse

Peter Hoskin

Graph of the day

Here’s a neat little graph from PoliticsHome, which plots the three main parties’ opinion poll ratings alongside their “party morale rating” from the PHI100 tracker.  As PolHome put it, it kind of tells us what we know already: that party morale more or less correlates with poll position.  But, given how so many politicians deny that they’re fussed about polls, it’s still good to see it in black and white:

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

Etonians and Bolsheviks

A terrific PMQs today. This exchange had it all. Noise, laughter, rhetoric, anger, humiliation, jokes, and dramatic swings in the balance of advantage. We even had a sighting of that great Westminster rarity – a fact.  Cameron’s first question elicited simple information. Would our troops start returning from Afghanistan in 2010 or 2011? Brown didn’t quite answer it but said that by 2011 the combined forces, including Afghans, would number 300,000, by which point the military burden ‘will start to change’. Cameron clarified. ‘That sounds more like 2011.’ Brown didn’t demur.   Turning to the economy Cameron asked why Britain is the last G20 country to come out of recession.Brown:

Tuesday

David Blackburn

The case for NHS reform

Britain remains the sick man of Europe. Professor Sir Mike Richards’s report finds that although progress has been made on cancer treatments, diagnosis rates, and therefore the chances of survival, lag behind European standards. A deluge of statistical analysis supports Richards’s findings. The European Journal of Cancer’s recent research into solid cancers, such as breast cancer and melanoma, demonstrated that the speed of diagnosis and survival rates in the UK were “20% below” the European average. Additionally, the table below, which is taken from 2009’s OECD health data, illustrates that the gap between the number of cancer deaths per 100,000 population in Europe and the UK has widened.   1997

Peter Hoskin

Burnham enters the fray

Oh dear.  The Labour leadership speculation is back in full effect, thanks to Paul Waugh’s scoop in the Standard.  According to Paul, Andy Burnham is “prepared to throw his hat into the ring” to succeed Gordon Brown, should it all go wrong for Labour in the next election.  Apparently, he’s even lined up Tessa Jowell as his campaign manager – although, naturally, the Health Minister is downplaying the claims. One thing’s for sure: this story is badly timed for Labour – with their recent progress in the polls – and Brown could well do without another bout of leadership wrangling to undermine his premiership.  But what about Burnham – has

Peter Hoskin

The good and/or bad news for the Tories is that there hasn’t been a Brown Bounce

If you’re still scratching your head over the latest opinion polls, then I’d recommend you read Anthony Wells’ latest post over at UK Polling report.  In it, he outlines four potential reasons for the diminishing gap between the Tories and Labour: Cameron’s “reverse” over the Lisbon Treaty; increased economic optimism; Labour performing better; and the absence of positive feeling towards the Tories.  To my mind, it’s probably a case of “all of the above,” to varying degrees – but, as Anthony concludes, “we can’t tell for sure.” One further point that’s worth making is that the reduced gap between the parties isn’t due to a “Brown bounce”.  After all –

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Why are the Tories so Miserable?

My excellent chum Iain Martin observes that seven of the ten most recent polls have put the Tories below the “magic figure” of 40% support. The latest ComRes survey has them on 37%. Perhaps, he wonders, some of the core vote has been scunnered by the Lisbon Treaty shenanigans or perhaps some floating voters are concerned by a perceived Tory zeal for cutting public spending and, hence, they feel, services. A bit of both, I’d hazard. But, as I’ve argued before, there’s something more than just these elements. Frankly, if you were to take Tory rhetoric at face value the only sensible course, for those with the means to take

Monday

Mark Bathgate

Labour’s free for all

The potentially huge exposure of UK banks in Dubai, depreciating some UK bank share prices again this morning, is a reminder of just how much UK bank lending grew in recent years. The above chart shows the growth in external claims of the UK owned banks around the world over the past decade. The sums lent almost quadrupled to nearly $4 trillion in 8 years.  Anyone interested in discovering which bubbles the UK banks (and now taxpayers) have funded can find the data on the Bank of England website – $1.2 trillion in the United States, $125 billion in Spain, $183 billion in Ireland, $50 billion to the UAE/Dubai. Bank

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

PBR 2008 and PBR 2009: a difference which may not make much difference

Yep, it’s that time of the year again: the run-up to the Pre-Budget Report, when we hear tales of splits between Number 10 and the Treasury on how they should approach the fiscal mess we’re in.  According to today’s Sunday Telegraph, and going off rumblings on Whitehall, Darling is pushing for a more expansive package of cuts.  Whereas Brown – and Ed Balls, natch – would prefer to emphasise all that investment, investment, investment. In which case, I was tempted to just copy-and-paste a post I wrote last year, on a similar subject, and at almost exactly the same time in the political cycle.  Its point was that stories about

Friday

Daniel Korski

Tory government should be manoeuvrist government

The greatest challenge facing a new government may be that Britain’s national security institutions are not fit for purpose. They were built for a different era and focused on a set of now obselete threats. Notwithstanding a few exceptions, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the threats during the Cold War were slow-moving and predictable. Even in the immediate Cold War period, threats were nasty, but rarely novel.   Now, however, Britain faces all manner of fast-moving, asymmetric threats. Terrorists and insurgents can get inside our decision-making loop. In Helmand, the Taliban stage attacks around their media strategy, not the other way around as we do it. Countries like Russia and

David Blackburn

Dodgy doings in the desert

Of all the lunacy engendered by this financial crisis, Dubai’s decision to call a six-month creditor standstill on its chief holding company is the most pronounced. Dubai’s successful but hideous entrepot model depends on the confidence capital markets, and as a rule markets don’t react to nasty shocks with a shake of the head and a song and dance routine. It’s as if plague has descended on every stock exchange in the world; investors are fleeing for safety. Overnight, shares in Asia collapsed between 3 and 5 percent, and the FTSE, Dax and Cac40 have opened around one percent down. Prepare for another black day. Will this blip develop into

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Johnson: the Tories aren’t the “nasty party” when it comes to immigration

There are plenty of noteworthy snippets in Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre’s interview with Alan Johnson today, but it’s this passage which jumped out at me: “Johnson even chooses to defend the Tories on immigration, saying they represent a ‘mainstream, centre-right’ party engaging in a ‘decent, centre-ground debate on immigration’. This, despite the Tories having stuck to the 2005 pledge, under Michael Howard, for an immigration ‘cap’, which – along with campaign posters asking ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ – led to accusations of ‘dog-whistle’ politics.” It’s a truism that in order to have a sensible debate, you’ve got to be willing to actually have a debate – so

Martin Bright

Broken Britain: The Reality

I was hugely impressed by a long article by my former colleague Rob Yates, in this weekend’s Observer magazine. Rob went back to his roots in Walton, Liverpool, one of the most deprived parts of the country on any indicator, to examine the reality of the “broken Britain” rhetoric of the Conservative Party. It was about as far from a liberal whinge as you can imagine, but Rob recognised that not everything New Labour has done to alleviate the lot of the worst off has been disastrous. In particular he points to the popularity of the Sure Start programme for mothers and young children and improvements to school buildings and

Peter Hoskin

Byrne draws a dividing line over decentralisation

Good work by the Guardian, who have got their hands on leaked sections of a government report into downscaling Whitehall.  At first glance, it all looks kinda promising.  There are provisions to reduce the cost of senior civil servants, to cut the numbers of quangos, and to make it more difficult to establish new quangos.  Surely, these are measures which will be necessary to fix our broken public finances. But it’s the headline idea which could give you cause for concern: namely, that the government “wants a review” into relocating around 200,000 civil servants and other public sector workers away from London and the South-East.  It’s meant to strengthen localism

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

The man who hopes to unseat Harman

The papers have been stuffed with articles recently about the current crop of Tory party candidates – but few have been as readable, or as encouraging, as Rachel Williams’ profile of Andy Stranack in today’s Guardian.  Stranack is the Tory PPC in Camberwell and Peckham – Harriet Harman’s seat – and his background is really quite remarkable: “In 2001, Stranack ignored the concerns of his family (‘They thought I was mad’), gave up his £30,000 a year council policy officer job in Croydon, south London, sold his maisonette, and moved to the borough’s deprived Monks Hill estate. He stayed there, living on the poverty line and doing church-backed community work,