Gordon brown

Tuesday

David Blackburn

Will Chilcot be any different?

The Chilcot inquiry’s precedents don’t auger well. It's unfair to describe the Hutton and Butler inquiries as 'whitewashes', but their colour was certainly off-white. That said, the condemnatory characterisation of Sir John and his panel as ‘establishment figures’ is redolent of a lower-sixth common room circa 1968. Who else could conduct this inquiry? Mohammed al-Fayed? Pete Doherty? The Bishop of Bath and Wells? The Iraq controversy has not abated and a panel of angels would not be pure enough for some. But it’s absurd to suggest that anyone besides officials and foreign policy experts, with an intricate knowledge of the practices and issues concerned, should or can decide such matters.

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Dodgy expenses referred to the CPS

And so the expenses scandal rumbles on.  This morning's Telegraph lead with home-flipping allegations against Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges.  And now it's emerged that the Met have referred the cases of four parliamentarians to the Crown Prosecution Service.  All of which makes Brown's decision not to mention expenses in the Queen's Speech seem even more unwise.

Peter Hoskin

Brown goes for growth – fails

So the dividing line persists.  Today, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron will talk about "going for growth" at the CBI's annual conference.  But it all, more or less, comes down to the same, dreary "investment vs cuts" line that we've heard countless times before.  According to the Times, Brown is going to say that growth is the best way of tackling the deficit, rather than those nasty Tory cuts.  And, what's more, "he hopes investment from China will drive the recovery". Of course, growth will have a role to play in reducing the deficit.  A vibrant economy will have a better chance of tackling record deficits and debt levels than a sinking one.  But to indicate that extensive cuts will not be necessary is disingenuous in the extreme.

Sunday

Martin Bright

I Hope I’m Wrong

I can't help thinking that the Observer's Ipsos/Mori poll this weekend was something of a blip. What exactly has the Labour government done to narrow the gap in the last week or so? I hope I'm wrong, because I think the British people deserves a hung parliament, which would be the best result of the next election. I have been saying for some time that the Conservatives do not have the strength in depth to form a credible government and that the electorate faces the most unappealing choice since 1970. Nothing I have seen recently has made me change my mind.  Andrew Rawnsley has written the best of the political column's in the Sundays. He raises the possibility that the Liberal Democrats would demand the resignation of Gordon Brown as the price of an alliance.

Peter Hoskin

A fine line between love and hatred for Peter Mandelson

So far as Downing Street is concerned, this morning's Sunday Times cover is a presentational nightmare. It reports that Peter Mandelson is calling on Brown to make him Foreign Secretary – a move which would create all kinds of internal difficulties for the PM. Sounds a little bizarre to me: we all know that Mandelson would, in theory, like the role which was once occupied by his grandfather, but would he really want it under such controversial circumstances and for what would likely be only six months? Perhaps not. But, true or no', it still feeds into the idea that the government is divided and self-obsessed. It's also the kind of story which could loosen Mandelson's grip on the government. Over the past year he's enjoyed a remarkable renaissance within the Labour Party.

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

Behind the closed doors of Brussels

Today's Times carries a cracking account of all the wheeling and dealing that went on during the EU jobs fair this week.  Here are some of the most striking points that I've culled from it: i) Brown rejected advice from Mandelson and other ministers that he should try and secure one of the EU's financial roles for a British candidate. ii) There are claims that Brown was "persuaded" into accepting the EU High Representative role for Britain by Europe's Socialist leaders along with José Manuel Barroso. iii) There are also claims that Brown did a deal with the French to get Baroness Ashton appointed, by which a French MEP, Michel Barnier, would be appointed the Commissioner in charge of the internal market and financial services.

Friday

Daniel Korski

The Baroness and the bore: right for the EU jobs

Among a batch of unpopular blogposts, this is the one that will get Coffee Housers to grab their pitchforks and hunt me down. Because I think the appointments of Belgium’s Herman Van Rompuy, as president of the European Council, and Britain’s Catherine Ashton, as EU “high representative” for foreign affairs, are not bad at all. First, I have to eat my words. I thought Gordon Brown would fail to shoehorn a Briton into a top EU job. Credit goes to him and Britain’s diplomats, chiefly Kim Darroch, the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels. Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Brown did what he should have done: he pushed Blair but switched horses when necessary and secured a key job for Britain. So well done.

Peter Hoskin

The problem with Brown’s latest Big Idea

There's some very readable stuff in this week's Economist (including a leader which outlines what Brown's government should – but almost certainly won't – do with its "last months in power").  But if you read only one article from it, make sure it's the Bagehot column and its dissection of Brown's latest Big Idea: public service guarantees.   These are the pledges-turned-legal entitlements which popped up throughout the Queen's Speech – such as the "guarantee" that patients will have hospital treatment within 18 weeks of being referred by a GP.  As Bagehot points out, it's a problematic approach: 'To be worth the manifesto paper they will be printed on, public-service guarantees need to be readily enforceable.

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The day ends on a sour note for Labour

Two Labour figures, two bad news stories.  The first is Tony Blair, and the news that he has given up on the role of EU President – leaving the path more or less clear for the Belgian PM, Herman Van Rompuy.  The second is Harriet Harman, and the news that she faces prosecution for allegedly "driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone." The Blair story is significant enough on its own – but throw in Harman, and it's doubly certain that Brown's legislative programme will be shunted right off the news agenda.  But isn't that a good thing for Labour, you might ask, given the kicking the Queen's Speech was subjected to in this morning's press?  Well, perhaps.

David Blackburn

They think it’s all over | 19 November 2009

It looks like curtains for ‘President’ Blair. Every commentator besides Adam Boulton and James MacIntyre, who is possessed of a ruinous gambling streak, have now virtually written off the former PM. Blair has an uncanny knack of winning through against the odds, so I will not call time on his chances quite yet. But with Merkel and Sarkozy united against him, the fat lady is warming up for the main event with a few scales and arpeggios. Where would failure leave Blair with regard to Labour and the election?

Peter Hoskin

A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses

If you want a measure of how disastrous yesterday's Queen's Speech was for Gordon Brown, you need only pay heed to two things.  First, today's news coverage, which is almost universally negative for the PM.  Even the FT, which is usually quite forgiving of Brown, launches an acerbic attack on the "shameless politicking" in the speech.  And that's before we get onto numerous stories about discontent on the left, as well as unflattering write-ups by political columnists across the political spectrum. The second is David Cameron's interview on the Today programme this morning.

David Blackburn

Hoist by his own petard

The Queen’s Speech contained some worthwhile bills. Parents will face orders when a child breaches antisocial behaviour rules, and the Flood and Water Maintainence Bill, whilst unlikely to rival the 1911 Parliament Act in the annals of Westminster, is welcome, responsible legislation. I can even see that if you’re that way inclined, which I’m not, Harman’s Equality Bill has something to commend it. The remainder of the programme is a political landmine, presenting benevolences that mask incendiary conceits. Clever politics theoretically, but in the rush to prime the fuses, and with little thought for these bills’ practical application, this incomparable government has blown itself up.

Wednesday

Lloyd Evans

A paper-thin Queen’s Speech

Even before the Queen had trundled back to Buckingham Palace, Mandy had let the cat out of the bag. Speaking on BBC News he said of the Gracious Speech, ‘All these laws are relevant … and achievable. It will be for the public to decide whether they want them or not.’  There you have it. The greatest power in the land admits the Queen’s Speech is Labour’s manifesto. The response to the Gracious Speech is an enjoyably ragged parliamentary occasion, full of ancient traditions and even more ancient jokes. Frank Dobson proposed the Humble Address and spoke with pride about his Holborn constituency where the anti-Apartheid movement had been born.

Fraser Nelson

Britain’s AWOL ally

Cameron just made a very good point in his speech – namely, that Brown claimed just days ago that Obama would make an Afghanistan announcement in the “next few days”. Now, we have no idea when the announcement will come. But this isn't Gordon Brown’s fault – it’s Obama’s. The way Washington is treating Britain is deplorable and the subject of an excellent cover piece tomorrow by Con Coghlin (cover image above). As Con says in his piece: 'The Afghan issue has made clear the astonishing disregard with which Mr Obama treats Britain . As he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan – a decision which will fundamentally affect the scope of the mission – Britain is reduced to taking a guess.

Peter Hoskin

Nothing to see here

Blink and you missed it.  After seven minutes, the Queen had rattled through the Government's legislative agenda for the next few months.  It was all pretty much as expected – although it’s worth noting the “council of financial stability,” made up of the Treasury, the Bank of England and FSA, chaired by the Chancellor, and which was first mooted back in July.  The question is whether any of this will connect with the public.  I rather doubt it. We’ll put footage on Coffee House as soon as it’s available.

Daniel Korski

Afghanistan: air fares, not infantry needed

The British government’s policy on Afghanistan has a spasmodic, yet regular kind of rhythm to it. The issue pops up at intervals, hovers menacingly over Brown’s premiership until the PM awakes from a period of inaction. He then goes into hyper-drive, promises all manner of things, and reverts to inactive type a few days later only to repeat the routine a some days/weeks/months [cross out as appropriate] afterwards.  This time is no different. While the government, along with our allies, wait around for the US president to make up his mind on an Afghanistan (and, by extension, how his first term will be remembered), the PM has been overflowing with schemes and speeches.

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

Your chance to grade Gordon

The public's judgement on Gordon Brown will probably come with the general election, but CoffeeHousers may have fun with this webpage in the meantime.  It has been created by the clean-up-politics organisation Power 2010, and will let you grade Gordon Brown in the aftermath of tomorrow's Queen's speech.  Naturally, the grades run from A ("Top of the class") to F ("Brown fail"); you can leave comments; and Gordon will receive a school report in December.  I suppose it's meant to help close the democratic deficit between Downing St and the rest of the country – but it could just help some folk let off a little steam...

Peter Hoskin

Brown misjudges the Afghanistan waiting game

There's something futile about Gordon Brown's and, now, David Miliband's speeches on Afghanistan.  After all, the world is still waiting to hear what Obama's strategy is for the country.  Will he increase troop numbers – and by how much?  What does he actually want to achieve with them?  Until that's known, it's a little premature to talk about a "comprehensive political framework" for handing security responsibilities over to the Afghan army. Worse, though, the PM's statements may actually be damaging.  Sure, it's frustrating that the US President is leaving his allies hanging.

David Blackburn

Cameron fires a broadside at ‘petty’ Brown

David Cameron has written an apoplectic editorial in the Times condemning Gordon Brown’s partisan hijacking of the Queen’s Speech. Here is the key section: ‘We are mired in the deepest and longest recession since the Second World War, with deep social problems and a political system that is held in contempt. The State Opening of Parliament tomorrow ought to be about radical ideas to deal with this triple crisis. Instead, by all accounts, the Queen’s Speech will be little more than a Labour press release on palace parchment. Don’t take my word for it. As The Times reported yesterday, a Cabinet minister has been boasting about the contents of the speech. What was said? That it was the most ambitious since Labour had come to power?