Gordon brown

And what about Ed Balls?

Two related points, worth repeating. The first from Ben Brogan: "Mr Brown is on surer ground on a narrow point, in that in all likelihood he did not explicitly order his Eighth Circle chums to unleash hell against Mr Darling. Then again, he didn't need to. His reaction to the Chancellor's Guardian interview will have had the required Henry II effect. If Dave wanted some sport [in PMQs], surely, he should have asked whether Ed Balls ordered his friends to undermine Mr Darling. He wanted the job after all, and as has long been realised, there was what amounted to a Balls operation within the Brown operation designed to promote his interests as alternative Chancellor and future Labour leader.

PMQs live blog | 24 February 2010

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1200. 1200: Alistair Darling is sat next to Brown. How cosy. 1201: And we're off.  Brown starts with condolences for fallens soldiers – sadly, seven names to read out. 1202: Labour MP Jamie Reed asks Brown for reassurances that the public will one day see the taxpayers' cash that's been pumped into the banks. He gets in a dig at George Osborne's public shares plan.  Brown responds by banging on about the G20. 1204: Cameron now. He leads off with a question about the deaths at the Stafford Hospital – asking whether a private inquiry is sufficient to tragedy and the public interest. 1206: Brown gives a managerial response – saying that the government is doing all it can.

Darling throws one hell of a spanner into No.10’s election works

So what's Alistair Darling up to?  When I first heard his "forces of Hell" comment last night – his description of those briefing against him from inside No.10 – I half suspected it was all part of Downing Street's grand plan.  You know, trying to defuse the bullying story by being honest – up to a point – about Brown's premiership, and then claiming that everything's alright really.  A bit like Peter Mandelson saying he took his "medicine like a man" – only with greater poetic license. Now, though, I'm convinced that this wasn't part of No.10's script.  The clue is in the hurried, and ridiculous, denials that have been issued since.

Brown comes around to the Mandelson way of thinking

Did I read it wrong, or did Brown really say this in his interview with the Economist? "[Our deficit-reduction plan] is probably the most ambitious of any of the G7 countries. It contains, obviously, public-spending economies, cuts in some departments, efficiency savings in others, but protection of the front-line services in health and education and policing. It contains tax rises ... I wish we hadn't had to do that but ... it is necessary to show that you have got a sensible and credible plan over a number of years..." Putting aside the question of whether it really is the most ambitious deficit plan in the G7 (other countries want to cut more, quicker), it's striking just how closely this cleaves to Peter Mandelson's strategy for presenting cuts – i.e.

Brown the victim

As Pete points out, the longer the bullying story runs the more chance there is that the public sympathise with Brown, as they did over the Jacqui Janes story. Now Ed Balls is playing the sympathy card for his mentor, saying that Brown has been deeply hurt by these false allegations. Whatever next? Damian McBride breaks his retreat in a seminary and says: “Brown’s the loveliest man I’ve met, never hurt a fly guv, honest.” The preposterous and the distasteful hang above this latest twist, but Downing Street’s spin operation remains terrifyingly focussed.

The Row Over Brown’s Temper Just Got Weirder

The sight of two unelected members of the legislature and John Prescott lecturing Andrew Rawnsley about political propriety on Newsnight last night was one of the more surreal moments of the past week.  Lord Steel in particular has very little right to the moral high ground as a longstanding member of the board of General Mediterranean Holidings, the company owned by Nadhmi Auchi a British-based Iraqi billionaire convicted of fraud in the French Elf-Aquitaine scandal in 2003. This business of bullying in Downing Street just gets weirder all the time. Whoever allowed the combined might of Downing Street' spin vultures to swoop down and peck at the bones of the tiny Anti-Bullying Helpline was not doing the Prime Minister any favours.

The bullying story keeps on rolling, but will it affect the polls?

Much confusion on the digital grapevine, last night, about YouGov's latest daily tracker poll.  Turns out, it doesn't have the Tories leading by twelve – but, rather, the positions are unchanged from the poll in the Sunday Times.  So that's the Tories on 39 percent, Labour on 33, and the Lib Dems on 17.  A six point gap between the two main parties. The poll was conducted between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning – so, after the bullying story broke, but, perhaps, too soon for it to have filtered through to the public consciousness.  Even so, Labour will be encouraged by what they see.  A below-headline question has more people rating Brown as "passionate" than a "bully" (by 28 percent to 24).

Not a day to be a Pratt

The unfortunately named Christine Pratt, her husband and the National Bullying Helpline have been completely demolished by one of the most well co-ordinated spin operations I can recall. The charity’s accounts bear no examination. Two Patrons, Cary Cooper and Mary O’Connor, have resigned – disgusted that Pratt broke the charity’s commitment to confidentiality, as indeed was Ann Widdecombe. The Charities Commission have been called in. She’s flip-flopped on her original claims at least twice: initially suggesting that Gordon Brown was a bully, then insisting he wasn’t and then recalling that he possibly might have been. Plainly, her memory of who calls her and what they say is as leaky as a philandering footballer’s.

Some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories

By way of a response to the comments on my post yesterday, here are some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories. The poll lead dropping to six points is indeed a wake-up call, and Cameron probably worked out a while ago that things were going a bit Pete Tong. Indeed (Short the UK), there are signs that he has already started to act. Look at last Monday: three strong election videos, without a politician in sight. The perfect remedy to the Tragedy of Cameron's Head poster. The policy of allowing management buy-outs of government departments is bold, radical and entirely in keeping with Cameron's general policy of empowering the many, not the few.

Cameron’s first response to the bullying question

Cameron just got the question on Brown and bullying. His reply was well pitched, right tone of voice and all that. But it contained the suggestion that Sir Phillip Mawer, who polices the ministerial code, should be asked to investigate. This is the last thing No 10 wants, it just wants this to go away. But I suspect Cameron has just given the story a nudge along.

How should the Tories respond to the Rawnsley allegations?

As James predicted last night, the ‘Bully boy Brown’ story is now at full steam and will speed on as phone-ins discuss bullying in the workplace. The National Bullying Helpline’s intervention, ethically dubious in view of the charity’s supposed confidentiality, has negated Labour’s damage limitation strategy. Both Peter Mandelson’s line that Brown is a passionate and demanding man and the PR campaign to soften Brown’s image have been blown clear out of the water. Brown has made significant progress recently: David Cameron’s personal ratings have halved since September. That brief resurgence will be reversed as this story rolls. The Sun’s hot-headed frontpage says it all.   Now is the time for a Conservative counter-attack.

Time for Cameron’s Lazarus act

Two seriously worrying polls for the Conservatives today. One is a Sunday Times/YouGov poll, showing a Labour recovery reducing the Tory lead to six points  well into hung parliament territory and the lowest since December 2008. The other is a PoliticsHome poll in the News of the World, according to which: Cameron’s approval rate has been steadily falling, and Brown’s similtaneously rising – the difference between them has halved, in recent months, from 90 points to 45 points. If the election is a 39-33 split, then the Tories end up with just ten more seats than Labour and are dependent on coalition with the LibDems.

Brown faces the Rawnsley revelations, while the Tories face the polls

The question tonight is: which piece of bad news will make the biggest impact?  The bad news for the Tories, or the bad news for Labour? Let's take the second one first.  I'm referring, of course, to the first installment in Andrew Rawnsley's revelations about Gordon Brown.  ConHome have already published some snippets – click here – and they give you plenty of juice for your buck.  Not only are there the expected allegations about Brown hitting his staff (much of which seems to have been covered in the Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago), but Rawsley also reveals that the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O'Donnell, investigated and reprimanded the PM for his behaviour.

Cameron for Middle England

David Cameron is a man for all seasons. The Bullingdon Club man told the men’s mag, Shortlist, how he takes a glug of Guinness, steps up to the oche, shoots 180 and then retires to watch the seemingly interminable Lark Rise to Candleford. He also likes pottering around his garden dispensing Miracle Grow with liberal conservative largesse. So it's only fitting that the Leader of the Opposition will appear on housewives’ favourite, gardener and erotic novelist Alan Titchmarsh’s daytime TV show. This is a PR masterstroke. Brown has benefitted from his interviews with Piers Morgan and Tesco magazine, not in the polls but in terms of perceptions.

No surprises – and much Tory-bashing – in Brown’s Big Speech

Move along, now – there's nothing to see here.  Or rather, reading Gordon Brown's Big Speech, there's nothing that you hadn't already seen in the papers, or that you wouldn't have expected to see anyway.  The four election themes got a mention.  Labour's record in government was pushed and promoted to the point of absurdity.  Words like "new", "fair" and "change" were flung around like so much confetti.  And no election date was given.  No alarms, no surprises. More than anything, Brown set about attacking the Tories on every conceivable level.  He caricatured Cameron & Co. as a party of privilege and wealth, who are more concerned about fox-hunting than reform, and who are still peddling the "same old Conservative economics of the 1980s".

Welcome to The Future Fair

So now we know.  Labour's election slogan is A future fair for all.  And – as various folk, including Alex, have pointed out – it's kinda screwy.  As in, "we're all going to The Future Fair" kinda screwy.  So don't expect it to catch on.  Unless, of course, there really are bright lights, big wheels and rollercoasters on offer. The slogan kickstarts a feverish weekend of activity.  Brown is going to set out the main themes of Labour's campaign.  The Tories might try to sabotage it all.  And we may, possibly, perhaps, find out what the election date is.  Stay tuned, so to speak. P.S. I wouldn't be too surprised to see that slogan tweaked slightly – A fairer future for all, perhaps.