Gordon brown

David Laws’ eagerly awaited account of the coalition negotiations contains some great lines. Peter Mandelson’s declaration on being told of the Lib Dem’s desire for a mansions that ‘surely the rich have suffered enough already’ is classic. While William Hague’s description of the Conservative party as an 'an absolute monarchy, moderated by regicide’ is a candidate for the dictionary of quotations. But politically the thing that struck me about it most was what it tells us about Ed Balls. Balls had worked with Gordon Brown for years and had been one of the most ardent Brownite. Yet it was Balls who effectively pulled the plug on the idea of a Lib Lab pact when Brown was still desperate to try and make it work.

This Phil Woolas business is fast becoming a rather large problem for Ed Miliband. Those Labour MPs who are organising a fighting fund for Woolas are effectively defying the party leadership. Remarkably, he is on course to raise £50,000 by Friday. There is a whole slew of explanations for why Labour MPs are, to borrow a phrase, standing by Phil. First of all, the idea of judges overturning election results isn’t popular. Second, he’s a well-liked and sociable colleague, and no one who has fought a Lib Dem has much sympathy with their complaints about dirty tactics. But after these explanations, we move into more murky territory.

Courtesy of Andrew Sparrow's ever-superb live blog of the political day, from Brown's appearance before the Commons development committee: "Let's not get into this in any detail because it's a diversion from what we're doing, and I think it's unfortunate that this is the sort of question that is the first question to this committee from a member. Let's put it this way, most former prime ministers have rarely spoken in the house at all. I have decided obviously to concentrate on my constituency work and on some of the work that I've been doing internationally. But, at the same time, I have taken a very big interest in some of the questions that the government I led was involved in ...

Is David Cameron just too nice? There are worse accusations to levy at a politician, but it's one I have heard suggested quite a lot recently - and I have written about it in my News of the World column today. He seems to have adopted the politics of wishful thinking. There is a "zip-a-dee-do-dah strategy" and precious little contingency if things go wrong. He makes defence cuts, because he doesn't intend to go on a massive deployment (neither did Woodrow Wilson). He will make prison cuts, because he thinks - bless him - that it won't increase crime. He signs a deal with French for military co-operation, thinking they will dump the habit of 500-years and actually agree with Britain on the next major foreign policy dispute.

Yesterday, Nick Robinson set out why the past week may count as David Cameron's worst in office so far. It's not a great news day for the Prime Minister today, either. First up is a new report from the Commons public accounts committee. Its headline finding relates to the last government, but has stark implications for this one: only £15 billion of the £35 billion of savings identified in the 2007 Spending Review have been implemented, and only 38 percent of those have come from "definitely legitimate value-for-money savings". In other words, all those efficiency savings may not be as straightforward as you were led to believe - even if there are efficiencies to be made. Osborne & Co.

"Remember, our government paid down the debt before the crisis hit." That's what Ed Miliband said in a speech last Friday, and I took exception to it at the time. My point was, admittedly, quite blunt: how could the Labour leader make such a claim when debt was around £500 billion in 2006, and rising? So I'm glad that the excellent Full Fact blog has since looked into the matter, and come down broadly on my side – giving Miliband a 2-out-of-5 rating on their truth scale. But some of their wider points are worth developing, which is why I'm returning to the topic now. First, though, the observation that I made on Friday. Here's a graph which shows our national debt throughout the Labour years.

Oh look, the Old Crowd are moving in on the New Generation's patch. Not only has David Miliband broken his post-defeat silence with an engaging little article in the Mail on Sunday, but we also have news that Gordon Brown is to make his first Commons speech since the general election. That's right, after 174 paid days of, erm, indiscernible activity, Gordon will tomorrow insist that maintenance on Britain's two new aircraft carriers should be carried out on a Scottish shipyard, rather than in France. Everyone else is surprised that he didn't get that written into the contracts already. The return of the Gord throws up some questions for Ed Miliband. It's not just the speech tomorrow, but rather the release of our former Prime Minister's book on 7 December.

Ed Miliband's speech in Scotland this afternoon was a strange beast. So much of it was typical of the new Labour leader: for instance, the incessant stream of words like "optimism," "new" and "change". Some of it was rather surprising, such as the lengthy and warm tribute he paid to Gordon Brown at the start. One passage on the flaws of the Big Society (from a Labour perspective, natch) set out a philosophically intriguing dividing line. And his challenge over housing benefit was quite swashbuckling, in a Westminster-ish kind of way. But there's one line I'd like to focus on, because I'm sure it will come up again and again. Namely, this one: "Remember, our government paid down the debt before the crisis hit." Really?

A luminous streak of self-aggrandisement in Vince Cable's speech to the CBI this afternoon, which began thus: "I should acknowledge that that the CBI has been remarkably far sighted; Digby Jones first invited me to speak to you eight years ago, the first Lib Dem asked to do so. I recall some members wondering 'Vince Who?'" And continued, as Paul Waugh notes in a typically insightful post, with a passage that will wind up the Business Secretary's detractors in the Tory party: "Just a few years ago, most people in politics, not only Gordon Brown, thought the growth problem had been solved.

A quiet but important change to Britain’s political landscape took place in Brussels on Wednesday. The European Parliament passed a motion to increase the EU Budget by 5.9 percent, dashing, for the moment, government hopes that the EU might share in its citizens’ austerity. Labour’s MEPs were central to the motion’s success – 10 (one of whom glories in the name Michael Cashman) out of 13 voted against the Conservative-backed amendment to freeze the EU Budget.      As Alan Johnson took his feet and, like a gamey slim-line Falstaff, began to condemn public sector cuts, Labour MEPs saddled the over-stretched taxpayer with £900m in extra contributions – more than the odd nurse could have been saved with that tidy little sum.

Courtesy of John Rentoul, Tim Bale, professor of politics at the University of Sussex, offers this appraisal of the 2010 election: 'For all the talk in opposition of decontaminating the Tory brand, of making the party more tolerant and inclusive and less ‘nasty’, the key task facing Cameron when he took over in late 2005 was reassuring voters that the Conservatives could be trusted on welfare and public services.  All the market research suggested that this was the sine qua non — a necessary if not a sufficient condition — of a return to office. When the global financial crisis hit and Britain’s budget deficit ballooned, however, this task remained unfinished and work on it practically ceased.

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 careers and a family life.