Gordon brown

We've been rather starved of opinion polls over the past week, which is probably no bad thing.  But this PoliticsHome poll on the economy has come along to give us at least something to mull over.  And its findings aren't good news for Labour. First, only thirty-four percent of repondents think that the economy has turned a corner into recovery.  And, crucially, only 36 percent are willing to give Labour "a lot" or "some" credit for their handling of the recession (down from 40 percent last August).  That's against 29 percent saying "not very much," and 34 percent saying "none at all". As we saw on Wednesday, Labour is eager to seize on any potential "green shoots," and sell them as successes for government policy.

Seriousness comes naturally to Gordon Brown and yesterday he gave a speech detailing how Britain is defending itself by striking at the heart of the ‘crucible of terror’. What Brown has in seriousness of delivery, he lacks in realism. Britain has not fought for such a sustained period since the high-water mark of empire; but the ambitions of two prime ministers, and to be fair the severity of the threat that Britain faces, have outstripped resources; Britain is now completely over-extended. Hours after Brown’s speech, Baroness Kinnock divulged that anti-terror measures run by the Foreign Office have been cut – anti-narcotics campaigns in Afghanistan and de-radicalisation programmes in Pakistan.

Labour’s tax on banks that pay big bonuses was budgeted to yield £550 million. But because the tax has failed to change behaviour it is going to bring in far more than that, at least 2 billion according to recent reports. This raises the question of what will Labour do with the extra 1.5 billion? The responsible thing to do would be to use it for deficit reduction. We can expect, Darling who has said that his “number one priority is to get the borrowing down”, to take this position. But we can expect the more party politically minded members of the government to want to use this money for extra public spending. For example, one can easily imagine them wanting to use the money to help meet their target of ‘eradicating’ child poverty by 2020.

So Gordon is selling himself as a champion of the middle classes.  There is, as various commentators have pointed out, more than a little bit of hyposcrisy about that.  But the thing that strikes me most about our PM's change of tack is how similar it is to Darling's honesty over cuts last weekend.   Like Darling's admission, it represents some sort of progress for Labour: on paper, the politics of aspiration should play better – and have wider appeal – than the crude class war that they've engaged in recently.  But, also like Darling's admission, it highlights just how inconsistent the government have been over the last few months.

Why did it take Peter Mandelson so long to support Brown on the afternoon of the snow plot? Well, his lordship was taking luncheon. His interview with the Telegraph contains the disclosure: ‘As the scheming by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt unfolded, the Business Secretary ate haddock with an old friend. “We had a good talk which did not focus on events back at Westminster. When I got back, I put out a statement suggesting that it was a very minor storm in an even smaller teacup. I called it right. By teatime it had become a two-hour wonder.”’ Mandelson must eat at a Gladstonean pace.