Gordon brown

“He got it entirely wrong.” That is Rupert Murdoch's response to Gordon Brown’s singular account of his relationship with the Murdoch press. "The Browns were always friends of ours,” Murdoch added in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, in which he promised to set the record straight on the “lies uttered in parliament” when he appears before a select committee next Tuesday. It is going to be a moment of the most gripping political theatre. Murdoch also uses the interview to defend News Corp’s handling of the phone hacking crisis. He concedes that ‘minor mistakes’ have been made, but, fundamentally, all is well with the Kingdom.

Gordon Brown’s speech in the House of Commons just now was remarkable. It was completely deluded, one of the most one-sided versions of history you’re ever likely to hear. Abetted by the Speaker, Brown spoke for what must have been at least half an hour trying to justify his record in office and depict himself as someone who was prepared to take on the Murdoch empire, which he certainly was not while News International was supporting Labour. Rather than acknowledging—as Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have—, that Labour got far too close to News International and was too scared of it, he presented an entirely self-serving version of history. To the fury of the Tory benches, he ignored that he and Sarah Brown assiduously courted Rebekah Brooks.

Gordon may have come carrying dynamite, but News International has some explosives of its own. In a pair of statements this afternoon, the Sun and the Sunday Times have set about undermining, or just plain denying, our former Prime Minister's testimony. By the Sun's account, not only did they get the story about his son's medical condition from a "member of the public [who] came to The Sun with this information voluntarily because he wanted to highlight the cause of those afflicted by [cystic fibrosis]," but Brown's colleagues also "provided quotes" to be used in the final article. By the Sunday Times's, their investigation into Brown's property transactions was pursued "in the public interest," and "followed the PCC Code on using subterfuge.

The clunking fist is descending on Rupert Murdoch. After rumours all afternoon about Gordon Brown giving a statement on phone hacking to the Commons, the Guardian has come up with specifics: News International, they allege, used private investigators to target our Prime Minister's phone, his bank account and his family's medical records. You should be able to watch it all go down in the Commons, very soon. As Guido has said, there is more than a hint of cold, cold revenge about this. For all his overtures to the Murdoch press, Brown never wound his way into their affections as Tony Blair did. The Sun's decision to shift over to the Tories, in 2010, sparked Brownite anger at the time. That anger still rankles.

Say what you like about Jose Manuel Barroso, he's a wily old card. The European Commission president makes public demands for Britain to surrender its rebate in European Union membership fees. The government refuses. Then, hey presto! Headlines suggesting that Brussels has been seen off. "Brussels bribe to buy off UK rebate," says the Daily Mail. "Britain's rebate is fully justified and we are not going to give way on it," a Treasury spokesman tells the media. The quotation is true, Barroso did indeed offer £23 billion to tweak the UK funding formula, and a short-termist like Gordon Brown might have accepted. But the battle for Britain's EU spending was lost under Blair. In 2001-02, Britain was a net beneficiary of EU to the tune of £900 million.

According to the Observer, and a slew of other papers, "senior Labour figures are believed to have put their leader on a timer to 'up his game' in the next few months if he is to avoid a full-blown leadership crisis later this year." Which reminded me of all this: 20 April, 2008 "The Prime Minister, who is battling a growing rebellion over his abolition of the 10p tax rate, has been given until the end of the summer to turn things round by backbenchers angry at a string of image and policy failures." (here) 24 May, 2008 "It is that Mr Brown be given until the end of July to prove himself and restore morale.

Less soap opera, and more policy grit, in today's batch of Ed Balls files. There is, for instance, a lot on Gordon Brown's proposed Bill of Rights (here, here, here and here), which is as ambrosia for future political historians, but is fairly turgid reading even for today's political anoraks. Likewise the charts and doodlings related to the structure of Brown's Downing Street. Yet some things do stand out. Here are a few of them: i) What the Treasury says, Brown didn't do. You've got to admire the Treasury's attempt to inject some realism into the fiscal calculus back in 2006. "Flat real" spending — i.e. public spending that rises only in line with inflation, and not more — will be the "rule rather the exception" in the years to come, they say.

The Telegraph's publication of all those documents today has got everyone talking about that feud again. Here is what The Spectator's former editor Matthew d'Ancona had to say about the Blair-Brown wars when things were hotting up in the autumn of 2006: The great New Labour civil war, Matthew d'Ancona, 6 September 2006 Two days before David Cameron was elected Conservative leader, I asked one of his closest allies what the founding principle of Cameronism would be. He pondered the question. Would it, I wondered, be something to do with quality of life, the public services, the environment, social justice, nationhood? ‘Our starting point,’ he finally replied, ‘is that the Tory party can never beat Tony Blair.