Yvette cooper

After the result, the spin. We got the first drafts of each party’s response to the Oldham by-election in the dark hours of this morning – but the picture is solidifying now that the sun has risen. What’s clear is that both Labour and the Lib Dems are having an easier time putting on a united front than the Tories. The Labour response was typified by Yvette Cooper’s appearance on the Today Programme earlier. She broadcast the message that her party would have broadcast whatever the result: that this is defining proof that the public doesn’t back the coalition and its economic policy. And as for the Lib Dems, they’re

You’ve probably heard about Alan Johnson’s latest slip-up yesterday. But it’s still worth highlighting the response made by a Labour spokesman – as Dizzy has – because it’s simply extraordinary. Here it is: “We have a Shadow Chancellor who lives in the real world. He knows the difference between a progresive and regressive tax. He knows what it takes to get on in the real world. That is more important than taking part in a Westminster quiz game.” Extraordinary that Labour should already have to make excuses on behalf of Johnson. But even more extraordinary that they should be made in this manner. The shadow chancellor errs, in quick succession,

Ok, so Ed Miliband’s one hundred day anniversary actually falls on Tuesday – but what’s a couple of days between bloggers? Besides, even with two days to go, it’s safe to say that his will be a peculiar century. By some scientific measures, Labour are doing alright; sucking up Lib Dem voters to push ahead of the Tories in opinion polls. But that belies what has been an unconvincing start from their new leader. Here’s my quick five-point guide to his bitter honeymoon: 1) What’s the economy, stupid? One of Miliband’s boldest moves to date was his appointment of Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor. Indeed, at the time, I suggested that it could be

Labour’s spin is less dexterous now that Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson have passed into night; but it can still artfully disguise politics as principle. Douglas Alexander is at in the Guardian, fanning the dull embers of George Osborne and IDS’ summer spat. He renews the offer of cross-party dialogue that he made on Andrew Marr last Sunday, before retreating, saying: ‘But beneath the talk of “we’re all in this together” (a phrase specifically recommended for repeated use by Republican pollster Frank Luntz), what the chancellor announced on welfare was largely a laundry list of cuts that penalise the vulnerable and the working poor. And in doing so he undermined

I wonder if Theresa May felt faintly apprehensive this morning. It must bad enough to awake and remember that you’re the Home Secretary, held responsible for every immigrant, every strike and every crime committed in Britain. Northern Ireland is more poisoned ministerial chalice, just. Now, she is being shadowed by Ed Balls, a ravening attack-dog liberated by the opposition. Balls has re-invented himself as a traditional Labour politician, casting himself as the champion of the working class. He says, accurately, that the poor are the victims of crime and the victims of unbridled immigration and social dislocation and his opposition will be ardently authoritarian. May will have to cut police

The real problem for the Labour Party with the election of Ed Miliband is not the man himself, who is easy to like and, by instinct, a centrist politician from the New Labour tradition (however hard he tries to disown it now). No, the difficulty is the oddness of it the whole business. If the brother versus brother leadership contest had not been enough to cause the nation to raise a collective eyebrow, now we have the bizarre spectacle of a husband and wife taking the jobs of shadow home and foreign secretaries. This is just dead weird.  Every professional couple knows how difficult it is to hold together two

The list for the shadow Cabinet elections shows that no David Miliband supporter who was going to stand for the shadow Cabinet has decided not to run following Ed Miliband’s victory. It’ll be intriguing to see what the party balance of the shadow Cabinet is following these elections. There is an expectation that Yvette Cooper will top the poll now that David Miliband is not standing. David Miliband’s decision not to stand was as expected. As one fellow hack pointed out to me the other day, if David had stayed on the public would never have worked out which Miliband was which and the press would have constantly looked for

Far more heat than light generated by this afternoon’s urgent question on welfare spending – but a telling spectacle nonetheless. The question had been put forward by a dissenting Lib Dem voice, Bob Russell, and it was up to George Osborne to answer it. He did so with sweeping observations, and attacks on Labour, rather than specifics. And so we never really got into the small print of those £4 billion extra benefit cuts, but Osborne did wonder why Labour have never apologised for “leaving the country with the worst public finances in its history.” It was knockabout stuff.   This is not to say that Osborne was ineffective. In

One of the challenges facing the next Labour leader will be what to do with Ed Balls. Balls, as he demonstrated in the last few months, has the right mentality for opposition. Labour will need his appetite for the fight in the coming year. But if a new leader makes Balls’ shadow Chancellor, he’ll have a shadow Chancellor whose position on the deficit is simply not going to seem credible to the public; Balls has already said that he thinks the plan Labour went into the election with for the deficit was too ambitious. The Tories are convinced that if Balls is shadow Chancellor, they’ll have the dividing lines they

Yvette Cooper has condemned IDS’ ‘nasty’ rhetoric this morning and claimed that the government’s proposals are about ideological cuts, not welfare reform. It’s simple, but effective. IDS’ reforms are both radical and necessary. The plan is to incentivise movement out of areas of welfare dependency with regional tax breaks and housing guarantees. There is a clear link between this policy and the non-EU migrant cap, which will protect at least some low skilled or unskilled jobs. A policy that encourages fairness, aspiration and a first chance in life for those condemned to worklessness by accident of birth. But the coalition is losing the rhetorical argument. When used in conjunction with

The retirement age must rise, timing is the sole contention. Yvette Cooper asserts that the coalition’s acceleration of the planned rise in the state pension age will force those currently in their late fifties to re-plan their retirement. Certainly, but a rise in the state pension age from 65 to 66 is unlikely to be life-changing. So why not bring it forward? Of more interest, I think, are the government’s other pension proposals. ‘Re-invigorating retirement‘ sounds rather jaunty, being forced to pay into less than lucrative company pension schemes does not – especially as those schemes are far from secure. Also, the abolition of the Default Retirement Age limits the

Considering the fiscal crisis we face, this revelation in Andrew Rawnsley’s column is particularly dispiriting: “[Gordon Brown] has been egged on by Ed Balls [to make more spending promises], partly because the schools secretary is also obsessed with that old dividing line, partly because he wanted to be able to boast that he had won more money for his department. I am reliably told that the wrangling between the schools secretary and the chancellor went on into the early hours of the morning on the day of the PBR itself. The result was that some of the extra spending beaten out of Mr Darling by Mr Balls did not get