Gordon brown

Earlier, I wrote that Osborne's speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron.  Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that's the case.  Sure, there wasn't anything particularly new in it - and the delivery didn't quite zing - but its central point that Brown's approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message.  Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the "nasty Tories" and their "cuts in frontline services", so it's important for Cameron & Co. that they counter this in advance.

When Brown comes to weigh up his prime ministerial legacy, maybe he'll be satisfied that - if nothing else - he seems to have enshrined the idea of a "zero percent rise" in political discourse.  Here's a passage from the Times article today on how the Tories plan to freeze the pay of local government workers:       "Conservative town hall employers told The Times that 'a zero rise' for workers next year would be the 'maximum' that Tory councils would support." More seriously, the Times article indicates a toughening of the Tories' stance towards the unions, and perhaps even over public spending cuts more generally (although Andrew Lansley does rather undermine that point).

As the country prepares for Peter Mandelson’s week in charge, The Mail on Sunday reports that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, put the kybosh on him acquiring the title of Deputy Prime Minister. O’Donnell may well have said that it was inappropriate for a peer to be deputy PM but I would have thought that Harriet Harman would also have objected. As the elected deputy leader of the Labour party, I can’t imagine she would have taken kindly to somebody else grabbing the title of deputy PM which Brown had conspicuously failed to offer her. Given all of Brown’s women trouble at the time of the mid-plot reshuffle, I doubt that he could have risked angering Harman.

On Wednesday, the Downing Street press office confirmed with us that there was a timetable for ministers to stand-in for Gordon Brown. They said that Harriet Harman was in the job this week and last and that Lord Mandelson would begin “next week”. Today it’s emerged that Harman’s stint has ended prematurely, and that she’s been replaced by Mandelson – though he’s yet to return from Corfu. The Dark Lord is influential, but can even he run the government from the Med? We thought we’d check what was going and put in another call to Downing Street. This time they had a different story: we were told that there was no timetable; that there never had been a timetable.

The New Statesman’s interview with Douglas Alexander is making waves for Alexander’s admission that he was briefed against by Brown’s inner circle following the election that never was. The treatment of Alexander, a man who had been a Brown loyalist for his entire political career and was only following instructions, was particularly brutal. But what strikes me about the interview is how Alexander, who is still Labour’s general election coordinator, did not produce a single positive domestic policy argument for re-electing Labour that the New Statesman thought was worth printing. Indeed, when the interview turns to British politics, all we hear from Alexander is negative slogans about the Tories: they are “untested” and “outside the mainstream.

For those of you who missed it, Radio Four has just broadcast a piece about what the women who worked with think Gordon Brown think of him. Not a lot, it seems. Here are some of the quotes: Jane Kennedy "Well I think that the Labour Party is expecting us to do better. The Parliamentary Labour Party were told in the first meeting after the election in June we were promised that there was going to be a change.  We haven't seen that change yet, we haven't even really seen the kind of clarity and willingness to listen to what the voters are telling us about policy.

Ok, let's get the hard, grim facts out of the way first: Jacqui Smith was an ineffective Home Secretary whose expense claims were dubious, to say the least, and who rightly lost her job in government.  But - having said that - it's hard not to feel slightly sorry for her as she discusses the embarrassment caused by her husband's porn rentals in an interview with the Guardian today.  The whole piece is a remarkably candid exchange: she also discusses how she "did wrong" with her expenses, and how she'd "definitely" be voted out "if the general election was tomorrow".  But this passage struck me more than any other:      "[Smith] insists she wasn't forced out - that Brown asked her to stay when she first said she wanted out.

Brace yourselves.  According to some great research by David Herdson at Political Betting, Gordon Brown could refrain from holding a general election until 2013.  The loopholes by which he could manage it are a bit arcane and convoluted – so I’d suggest you read Herdson’s post in full – but this snippet gives the idea: “The only statutory requirement to move writs for a general election is under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, which allows no less than three years between the dissolution and the writs being issued. In other words, technically, the election doesn’t have to be held until June 2013.