Gordon brown

An eagle-eyed spot by Hopi Sen, who has posted on Barry Sheerman's comments in the Huddersfield Examiner today.  If you remember, Sheerman was mooted as a key component in an anti-Brown plot, whereby he'd stand as chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party on a Get Gordon Out platform. Votes for Sheerman, it was thought, would be votes against Brown - and increase the pressure on the PM to stand down.  But in the Huddersfield Examiner, Sheerman suggests that, while he will stand for the PLP position, he won't do so as part of a coup: "...Mr Sheerman denied this was part of a move to topple Gordon Brown. He said “If colleagues ask me to stand I will consider it.

So what to make of Gordon Brown's plan to sell off an expected £16bn-worth of assets?  Like Charlie Elphicke over at CentreRight, I have my qualms. As he puts it, Brown has form when it comes to selling national assets at rock-bottom prices. And, in the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch and a recession, the prices he gets for our stake in Urenco, say, or the Dartford crossing, are likely to be rock bottom.   Besides, there's an unmistakeable whiff of political opportunism about this plan. You can imagine the posturing now: "We're selling off assets we can spare to protect jobs and frontline services, unlike those dastardly Tories..." yada, yada, yada.

One strange side-effect of the car crash that was the Liberal Democrat conference is that no one dares say the word “cuts” anymore. Since Nick Clegg promised “savage cuts” – alarming his base in the process – we’re back to the normal euphemism of “efficiencies”. This, like so much in life, will have Gordon Brown hopping mad. He didn’t want to say “cuts” in the first place, and the whole farrago will prove (in his head) that he should stop taking advice from people outside his coterie.   The next stage in the debate is to focus on growth. As James revealed in his political column for the current edition of the magazine, the Tory plan to do this is an aggressive cut in corporation tax.

If you still haven't made up your mind about whether Brown's speech yesterday will do anything for Labour's chances, then just dash through his interviews with the broadcast media.  Two topics stand out – the Sun's decision to back the Tories, and whether Brown will get involved in a televised debate – and there's little substantive discussion of the agenda that Brown set out in his speech yesterday. Now, you could, like Alastair Campbell, say that this is because the media is hell-bent on portraying Brown in a negative light.  But I'd argue that, aside from some crowd-pleasing passages for the Labour faithful, his speech yesterday was remarkably thin.  Any boost it may have provided is already deflating – and rapidly.

Well, that’s what he claims anyway. Brown’s extended interview on the Today programme was an exercise in deflecting blame (and the Sun coming out for Cameron) – ‘none of this would have happened if people had listened to me because, you see, I saw it all coming’ was his refrain. This exchange with Jim Naughtie was particularly telling: “JN: Let me take you back to ‘markets without morality’, which was in your speech and you’ve repeated it now. When did you decide that bankers were being greedy and excessive in their demands? GB: Well Jim, you know, I’ve always been of the view that we needed a better global financial supervisory system.

Considering the dire situation in which Gordon Brown finds himself, yesterday's speech was really rather good. It gives the party faithful something to cling on to as they begin the grim task of campaigning for a Labour victory in 2010. The obvious question for me after hearing it, though, was "why now?" How can the Prime Minister credibly offer a message of change two years into his premiership? Think back to 2007 and the first flush of the Brownite dawn. His initial offer to the British people was constitutional reform. I know he was already beginning to be persuaded of the arguments for the alternative vote system at this point. The people around him were happy to talk about it. Why didn't he go for it then? And abolition of the hereditary peers: why wait?

Comment Central’s Alice Fishburn has collated Brown’s buzzwords. It’s revealing that derivatives of ‘choice’ and ‘change’ were used 38 times, whereas the words ‘honest’ and ‘responsibility’ were uttered twice and four times respectively. Given that the public have turned against the government’s running of the economy, Brown was unwise to concentrate on Tory-bashing rather than attempt to emphasise his honesty and sense of responsibility, but perhaps he’s given up on that front. Initially, his Goethe-inspired avowal to dream big and change the world again had me grasping for the gin; but this speech was for the hall first and the voters second, which isn't enough to avoid defeat.

For Brown this was a doddle. He couldn’t fluff it. Expectations have sunk so low that all he had to do today was show up, try not to look too knackered, spout a few revivalist platitudes and make sure he didn’t fall over. The rebellion has stalled, the plotters are paralysed. Those who criticise won’t lead, while those who would lead won’t criticise. Mandy, like a protection racketeer within the cabinet, has enriched himself in the currency of ‘loyalty’ (which in these circumstances means a reluctance to coerce others to be disloyal), and yesterday he couldn’t contain his delight at the scale of his new-found wealth. And so Mr Brown, Mandy’s proudest protégé, appeared at 2 pm today on the Brighton seafront.

Much like Peter Mandelson's address yesterday, Gordon Brown's speech was designed for the Labour Party members inside the conference hall.  It was effectively book-ended by two crowd-pleasing rat-a-tat lists: the first, a rundown of Labour "achievements" which received massive cheers; and the second, a disingenuous account of Tory measures "for the privileged few", designed to draw hisses and boos from the audience.  All very pantomine.  And all very fun, I'm sure, for the party faithful. But what about those voters who are turning away from Labour in their droves?  What was there for them?