Gordon brown

The Sunday Mirror and the Independent have jointly commissioned an opinion poll which finds that George Osborne is ‘too posh’ to be chancellor. This just happens to fit the prejudices of both newspapers, and I for one do not believe it. Poshness certainly obsesses Tory strategists, and Gordon Brown sometimes played the class card because he saw how much agony it caused them. But Brown’s card was not the winning trump he hoped for because the British public is not as obsessed about class as the British elite. That’s why it backfired when Labour tried a class strategy in the Crewe by-election campaign. That by-election suggested that the average British person cares more about competence than class. This is Osborne’s present problem.

‘If we lose sight of the central role of debt in this crisis, we will come to the wrong conclusions about how to respond,’ said George Osborne last night — before announcing another massive tranche of debt. The Mail and The Telegraph put it at £140 billion, the Times and the FT at £100 billion and Bloomberg at £5 billion a month. ‘The government, with the help of the Bank of England, will not stand on the sidelines and do nothing as the storm gathers.’ CoffeeHousers may hear an echo of Gordon Brown’s language here, contrasting advocates of a Keynesian spending plan with the ‘do nothing Conservatives.

Gordon Brown’s appearance at Leveson is yet another reminder of his stubborn refusal to ever admit error. The contrast between his and Tony Blair’s testimony is striking. One is left wondering how Brown ever became Prime Minister. Brown is maintaining that he didn’t get too close to the Murdochs, and that he never knew or encouraged his special advisers to brief against Tony Blair or other colleagues. Taking Brown at his word, the latter suggests that his operation was even more dysfunctional than we thought. One thing worth noting is that Brown has denied wholesale Rupert Murdoch’s claim, made on oath, that Brown called him after The Sun withdrew its support from Labour and told him that he had no choice but to 'make war' on the company.

Gordon Brown, Sir John Major, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Alex Salmond, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and David Cameron will appear before the Leveson Inquiry next week, for what will be the inquiry's last week of evidence. All eyes, of course, will be on Cameron, who is due to appear on Thursday. He will be embarrassed once again by his past proximity to disgraced News International executives, and his handling of the News Corp BskyB takeover. He previewed his likely answers on BSkyB in an interview with Andrew Marr last week. He said that his intention was for Vince Cable to marshal the bid, but that was scuppered by Cable’s preposterous comments about ‘declaring war’ on the Murdochs, made to Telegraph journalists posing as concerned floozies.

One of the media’s vices is to assume that the public are as interested in stories about journalism as journalists are. This always makes me slightly reluctant to write about the Leveson inquiry - more fascinating for my trade than to anybody else. But the Leveson inquiry is about to enter its political phase which, I think, makes it more relevant. Politicians will start appearing before it from towards the end of next month and, as I say in the Mail on Sunday, David Cameron is scheduled to face the inquiry which he created in mid-June. Six other Cabinet ministers are expected to be summoned before the inquiry. For Cameron, this is going to be a tricky moment (think horses, Oxfordshire weekends etc).

Transparency marches on, and what a joy it is. According to the newspapers today, George Osborne will tomorrow turn Ben Gummer MP's call for tax transparency into government policy. And so we will all get statements detailing just what our tax pounds are spent on. To use the example being bandied around this morning, a £50,000 earner will learn that they contribute £4,727 towards welfare payments. As James put it at the weekend, George Osborne tends to have both economic and political motives behind his actions — and the two are present, if almost indivisible, here. No doubt the Chancellor hopes that taxpayers, on seeing where their hard-earned ends up, will be keener for cuts in both spending and taxation.

Will George Osborne scrap the 50p tax in next week's Budget? Whispers to this effect have been getting louder, and now the Guardian is saying that it will come back down to 40p, and it makes a lot of sense. As I argued in my Telegraph column a fortnight ago, this is the perfect time to do it. Axing the tax paid by 1 per cent of the population will be unpopular with the remaining 99 per cent, so if Osborne is going to take a political hit he should do so now. Anecdotal evidence of its harmfullness has been getting stronger: multinational companies saying they can't persuade people to relocate to Britain, and early figures suggest a drop in tax from the rich in 2010-11.

A week devoted to Mervyn King and his eight-year reign at the Bank of England sounds like pretty turgid stuff. But, already, the series that has started in the Times (£) this morning — building up to an interview with the man himself — is anything but. Here, for instance, is a snippet from one of its articles, by David Wighton, on how Mr King reacted to the crumbling of Northern Rock: ‘As the plight of Northern Rock and other banks worsened, Sir John Gieve and Paul Tucker were urging Sir Mervyn to act, but he would not budge. “He mocked them as ‘crisis junkies’ and more or less accused them of enjoying it,” one former official says. Sir Mervyn took a different approach.

At the end of last year, Ed Balls suggested that Labour would be ‘taking a tougher approach to conditionality [for benefit claimants]. If people can work, they should work.’ Now the party are starting to outline what that means. As the Independent puts it today, summarising a speech that Liam Byrne has given in Birmingham, ‘The unemployed would be guaranteed the offer of a job but could lose their benefits for six months if they turned it down, under a tough new policy on welfare planned by Labour.’ The paper characterises this as an attempt to ‘outflank the Tories on welfare,’ which is surely true. But the whole thing also reminds me of the Brown era.

A sombre and muted PMQs this week. Dame Joan Ruddock raised the issue of benefits and asked David Cameron if he was proud of his new reforms. Tory backbenchers cheered on the PM’s behalf. ‘Then would he look me in the eye,’ Dame Joan went on, ‘and tell me he’s proud to have removed all disability payments from a 10-year-old with cerebral palsy.’ This tactic — the Super-Vulnerable Voter ploy — is highly manipulative and highly reliable. But Dame Joan had forgotten something which Mr Cameron is unlikely to forget. Explaining his reform of the Disability Living Allowance he glared angrily at her. ‘As someone who has had a child with cerebral palsy I know how long it takes to fill in that form.

It would be so much easier for Ed Miliband to attract headlines if he could shout in Andrew Lansley's face. As it is, the Labour leader has had to make do with giving a speech today attacking the NHS reforms. Within the parameters of what he might say, it's an okay effort. The predictable lines about ‘creeping privatisation’ are leavened by the admission that ‘the question is not reform or no reform. It is what type of reform.’ And he adds, by way of a cross-party sweetener, that he would ‘get round the table’ with David Cameron to discuss ‘the future of the NHS’. But the substance of the speech, rather than its rhetoric, is a little more questionable.

Douglas Alexander may sometimes hide the meaning of what he says under a layer of jargon but he remains one of the more interesting political strategists on the Labour side. Alexander, a Brown long-marcher turned Blairite, saw before many of his colleagues the need for Labour to level with the public on cuts. He privately thought that Gordon Brown’s attempt to fight the last election on a reprise of the investment versus cuts strategy of ’01 and ’05 was a mistake. So, it is no surprise that Alexander, now shadow Foreign Secretary, is trying to use the opportunity created by Ed Balls’ acceptance of the need for a public sector pay freeze to try and move Labour into a better fiscal place.

There was a fun game we used to play during Gordon Brown's premiership: counting the number of ‘buck up, or we kick you out’ ultimatums that Labour MPs delivered to their leader. There were, suffice to say, a lot of them. And tallying them up illustrated two things: the constant, sapping pressure that the Brown leadership was under, and Labour's persistent inability to actually finish him off. I mention it now because of this story in today's Mail on Sunday. It collects the increasingly public criticism of Ed Miliband by his own MPs, including Graham Stringer's warning that ‘Ed has got to get a grip and turn it around before the May elections.’ It's not at the level of the Brown Ultimatums yet, but it's certainly remiscent of them.