Gordon brown

If you'd like a step-by-step preview of Labour's next election campaign, then do read Alastair Campbell's latest blog post.  All of Brown's attacks from PMQs are in there, and then some: "tax cuts for the rich"; a lack of "policy heavy lifting" on Cameron's part; the Tories "haven't really changed", etc. etc.  The spinmeister has been in closer contact with Downing Street recently, and it shows.  It's all gone a bit bar-brawling. The Tories now face a choice between, broadly speaking, three different responses: i) Ignore Campbell.

The Tories are in mild shock following PMQs, they never expected Cameron to get clunked like that. Brown is clearly going to try and use Tory inheritance tax policy to ram home the message that a Cameron government will be a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. But the Tories are taking comfort from their belief that Brown’s ugly class war politics won’t work, pointing to how they failed in Crewe and Nantwich. But the attacks on Edward Timpson backfired, at least in part, because Timpson was a bad target. It is hard to portray someone as an out of touch, uncaring toff when their family have fostered 80 odd children and have a long history of local philanthropy.

Oh dear.  The Labour leadership speculation is back in full effect, thanks to Paul Waugh's scoop in the Standard.  According to Paul, Andy Burnham is "prepared to throw his hat into the ring" to succeed Gordon Brown, should it all go wrong for Labour in the next election.  Apparently, he's even lined up Tessa Jowell as his campaign manager – although, naturally, the Health Minister is downplaying the claims. One thing's for sure: this story is badly timed for Labour – with their recent progress in the polls – and Brown could well do without another bout of leadership wrangling to undermine his premiership.  But what about Burnham – has he got what he takes to become Labour leader?

So there we have it.  Gordon Brown has confirmed what we all expected: that 500 more British troops will be sent to Afghanistan, bringing the total UK presence up to around 10,000.  The "surge" will be rounded off when Obama announces something like 35,000 extra US troops tomorrow. Although greater manpower is A Good Thing for the mission in Afghanistan – and the mission in Afghanistan is certainly an important one – I can't help but have some qualms about the twin UK and US announcements.   For starters, there's the simple issue of numbers.  500 more UK troops and 35,000 more US troops falls short of the bar of 2,000 and 40,000, respectively, that some military figures had set.  It may not make much difference.

Yep, it's that time of the year again: the run-up to the Pre-Budget Report, when we hear tales of splits between Number 10 and the Treasury on how they should approach the fiscal mess we're in.  According to today's Sunday Telegraph, and going off rumblings on Whitehall, Darling is pushing for a more expansive package of cuts.  Whereas Brown – and Ed Balls, natch – would prefer to emphasise all that investment, investment, investment. In which case, I was tempted to just copy-and-paste a post I wrote last year, on a similar subject, and at almost exactly the same time in the political cycle.  Its point was that stories about tension between Brown and Darling could work to undermine Labour's overall economic message.  As it happens, that's still the case.

Another good quote for the Brown 'n' Blair scrapbook, courtesy of Ben Brogan's column in the Telegraph: "Only once in the 20th century has a government that won the games survived to deliver them. A change of administration in the run-up to the Olympics might be expected to herald political trouble. Thankfully, David Cameron does not share Gordon Brown's loathing of what he refers to as 'Tony's f------ Olympics'. He is committed to ensuring stability by protecting London 2012's status as the Switzerland of politics, immune from partisan attacks." Brogan's wider argument is worth noting: that the Cameroons think 2012 could be the tonic the country – and their potential mid-term government – needs.  Myself, I still think there's a strong case for an Austerity Olympics.