Gordon brown

Scoopmeister Paul Waugh has a cracking developing story over at his blog.  He revealed earlier that Harriet Harman's people have been canvassing Labour party members with questions like: "Who do you think is the best person to sell the Labour party?" "On a scale of 0 to 5, how do you rate Harriet Harman?" But, now, it turns out that there was another question on the list: "On a scale of 0 to 5, how do you rate Gordon Brown?" Smells fishy, doesn't it?  Team Harman are claiming that she's just trying to keep in touch with the Labour grassroots, but it's very difficult not to see this as leadership positioning on her part.

The question of Gordon Brown’s leadership won’t go away, but there’s a feeling that nothing will happen for a while yet. Andrew Grice writes in The Independent today that the coup might come in December: “Labour's hard left and the trade unions are the dogs that have not barked. The assumption is that they stick with him for fear of something worse, and calculate that their best hope would be to exploit a backlash against New Labour after an election defeat. I am told that their mood is now changing. Some left-wing MPs and union bosses are coming round to the view that they would have an overriding duty to avoid a massacre that could keep the party out of power for a generation.

"What did he mean by that?" is the question one is left with after reading Derek Simpson’s interview with the Mirror. Simpson tells the paper that New Labour is dead and that "if you could convince me there is somebody who could take over and go down the Old Labour route without hesitation I'd share the view that if Gordon is not prepared to do it he should stand aside and let that person do it. That could save the Labour government.” This is, to put it mildly, rather off message and Unite have rushed out a statement this morning saying that Brown has Simpson’s “full support” and is the “only choice” to lead Labour into the election. But it doesn’t deny what Simpson said.

I had the pleasure of chairing the Editorial Intelligence/Policy Exchange/Policy Review/Cass Busines School (Phewee!) debate on the future of the quangocracy last night. I was expecting little common ground between Douglas Carswell, the Tory hammer of the quangos and an audience I thought would be packed with his ideological enemies. But it wasn't like that at all.  Carswell was a very entertaining turn, describing the House of Commons as "monumentally spineless and useless". His view was that select committees should be given the job of holding quangos to account, including making them justify their budgets on an annual basis. This, he said, would at least give give MPs something worthwhile to do and maybe shake them out of their "self-seeking indolence".

Over at his essential blog, Benedict Brogan says that Dave 'n' George deserve some praise for Moody's decision to retain the UK's AAA credit-rating.  His thinking: that because Messrs Cameron and Osborne have been going on about debt and the need to cut spending, investors - anticipating a Tory government - are more confident about Things to Come. A similar point is made by Edmund Conway in a comment piece for the Telegraph today: "Part of the reason the debt markets have remained relatively sanguine in the face of a staggering collapse in tax revenues and increase in the deficit is that they are assuming a Conservative victory: when the prospect of an Alan Johnson leadership challenge briefly made a hung parliament more likely, they panicked.

Jon Cruddas’s speech tonight poses a question that cuts right to the heart of Gordon Brown’s leadership, ‘what does Labour stand for any more?’ There is no clear answer to this question, which explains why Labour has no clear domestic policy message. The retreat into ‘the philosophical framework of the right’, Cruddas argues, means that Labour has lost its language, empathy and generosity. Considering Cruddas’s decision to stay on sidelines during the most recent leadership plot played a key part in saving Brown, this is a pretty devastating assessment (it also suggests that Cruddas made the wrong call in not intervening then).

Jackie Ashley complains in her column today about Labour misters going on ‘mic-strike’ saying that it will lead to Labour being beaten so badly that it might not be able to come back. Ashley is speaking for a lot of people in the Labour party, one hears frequent complaints these days about Minister who are prepared to pick up the cheque each month but not to put in the hard yards. The consequences of ‘mic-strike’ were evident this morning. William Hague was on the Today Programme talking about the latest revelations concerning the government’s relations with the Gaddafi regime but no Foreign Office minister was prepared to do a response. So, Ed Balls—who was on to do an interview about academies—had to answer the questions on Libya.