Labour party

Prescott’s pitch for the police commissioner job

How strange — John Prescott is fast becoming the poster boy for elected police commissioners. He appeared on the Today Programme earlier to explain why he's putting himself forward for that very job in his home of Humberside. But has he acquiesced to Tory thinking? Don't bet on it. As he told John Humphrys, he doesn't actually support the legislation, but he does believe that Labour should have a man in the fight: ‘The Labour Party didn’t like this legislation and I voted against it, but once there is an election the party isn’t going to stay out of it and they will want to see it doesn’t go the way they feared it might go.’ Which probably explains why Prescott sees the role of elected police commissioners as quite limited.

How to implement a minimum price for alcohol

Pete posted earlier on the Prime Minister’s latest intervention on the issue of problem drinking. The new proposals — like a greater police presence in A&Es, and ‘drunk tanks’, special units where drunks are taken to sober up — are sensible enough, but seem small relative to the scale of the supposed problem, and focus on peripheral (though important) side-effects, rather than the core of the issue. The ‘big idea’ seems to be missing, even though the Conservatives have been flirting with it for some years, is a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol: far more controversial, but potentially far more effective. The last Labour government, in which I was an adviser, looked at this idea in some depth.

Post-Moody’s, King backs Osborne

Moody's doubts might not be making much difference to the actual economy, but they could make a good deal of difference to the political battle being waged over it. George Osborne, of course, is citing this as further proof of the need for fiscal consolidation. Ed Balls, meanwhile, is redoubling his call for a ‘change of course’ — and somewhat misleadingly too. But what does Mervyn King think? Thanks to his comments in a press conference this morning, we don't have to guess.

A warning for Osborne and his economic agenda

Why did Moody’s downgrade Britain to AAA with a negative outlook, but leave other countries on AAA? One crucial factor is the scale of our debt increase: 60 per cent over the parliament. You won’t find it mentioned much today. The Chancellor is talking about austerity, helped by Balls who talks about his harsh deep cuts. Osborne today swears to keep ‘dealing with the debt’ — but his definition of ‘dealing with debt’ would even make an Italian blush: As Balls said on the radio this morning, the plan isn't working. But Balls' narrative — that Osborne is cutting harsh and deep — is untrue, as Moody's knows.

Labour’s plan would have cost us our AAA rating

For Ed Balls this morning, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the news about our credit rating: ‘A change of course is needed.’ But to what? Balls no doubt means a shallower course of deficit reduction — less far, less fast. But Moody's are clear that we have been placed on a negative outlook because of doubts that our fiscal consolidation will continue strongly enough. Specifically, they say that, ‘Any further abrupt economic or fiscal deterioration would put into question the government's ability to place the debt burden on a downward trajectory by fiscal year 2015-16.’ So how would Labour have fared? We already know that they didn't propose to put debt on a downwards trajectory back then (see my post here).

Moody’s puts UK’s AAA rating on negative outlook

‘It's now clear that Britain's economic reputation is on the line at the next general election, another reason for bringing the date forward and having that election now ... For the first time since these ratings began in 1978, the outlook for British debt has been downgraded from stable to negative.’ So said George Osborne when S&P placed Britain's AAA credit rating on a negative outlook in May 2009, when Labour were in power. But guess what? Another credit-rating agency — Moody's — has just done the same to our rating this evening. Given how much Osborne made of Britain being a ‘safe haven’, it's rather a tricky one for him.

The battle over Downhills takes another turn

Remember Downhills Primary School? This was the underperforming school in Haringey that became a political battleground towards the end of last year. On one side was Michael Gove and the coalition, proposing that Downhills — and schools like it — become academies, as that's how to boost academic performance. On the other was the local MP, Labour's David Lammy, as well as the school hierarchy and various union types, all apoplectic at having academy status ‘imposed’ from above. Harsh words were traded, meetings were convened, and little was resolved by it all.

Lansley’s battle should’ve never been fought

A small war has broken out over Lansley's NHS Bill — ConservativeHome has three Cabinet members attacking it. I find that shocking. At least a dozen want the Bill killed, and why ConHome found just three is beyond me. Politically, it's probably impossible for Cameron to drop it. But if it was torn up, I for one would shed no tears. For what it's worth, here's my take. It’s depressing to think that Alan Milburn’s NHS Plan of 2000 was both more radical and more sensible than what Andrew Lansley is serving up now. The whole debacle has shown politics at its most petty, partisan and pointless — a complete contrast to the coalition’s approach to school reform, which has been to fit rocket boosters to a very good Labour reform.

Ken’s gaffe and what it tells us about his campaign

We now have the first major gaffe of the 2012 London Mayor race and to everyone's surprise it wasn't Boris. Ken Livingstone granted an extraordinary interview to the New Statesman, where his comments on the incumbent mayor, Margaret Thatcher and his work ethic have caused a decent stir. However, it is the thoughts on homosexuality in the Conservative Party - 'the Tory party was riddled with it like everywhere else is' - that have prompted outrage. He was claiming hypocrisy, but instead came off bitter and twisted. The pro-Boris politicos are delighted - Ken's true colours have been exposed, they say, and Labour should deselect him at once. But they shouldn't overstate the case. Ken has been supporting gay rights for years now, so probably deserves some benefit of the doubt.

Scottish Labour Embrace the Logic of Independence

One of the problems with the Scottish parliament is that all gathered there must pretend it is more influential and vital than it really is. In fact, as has been observed often enough, it has few powers that were not previously available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. What the parliament did, then, among other things, was establish a clear and plainly Scottish link between the electorate and the people charged with those responsibilities. Now the parliament is here there is a tendency to argue about, for example, the annual budget as though the Finance Minister at Holyrood is in some way comparable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Westminster. Thus Ken MacIntosh - remember him, Mr Miliband?

Miliband gets the better of Cameron on the NHS

As expected, Ed Miliband went on the NHS and it helped deliver him a points victory. Whenever Miliband raises the issue at PMQs, David Cameron’s rather overly macho body language gives away that he knows he is playing on a sticky wicket. The exchanges today were not particularly enlightening but Miliband had the better of them. There was, though, one effective counter-attack from Cameron where he compared what is happening to the NHS in England to what is happening in Wales where the devolved administration is sticking with the status quo. There’s mileage in this argument if the coalition has the patience to develop it. But part of the problem is that the coalition is so clearly unenthusiastic about its own reforms.

Miliband to keep pressing on with his NHS attacks

The last PMQs before recess gives Ed Miliband a chance to have another go at the coalition’s NHS reforms. I suspect that the ‘Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot’ quote that appeared in Rachel Sylvester’s column (£) will make an appearance at some point.   Miliband will keep going on the NHS because he knows it is one of the Tories’ biggest vulnerabilities and one of the few subjects on which Cameron isn’t confident attacking. Based on past performance, any PMQs where the focus is on NHS reform will produce at least a score draw for the Labour leader.   But I still don’t expect Cameron to move Lansley anytime soon.

No-one emerges from the health reform smash-up with any credit

Andrew Lansley should be grateful for small mercies. Rachel Sylvester's column (£) today may quote a Downing Street source to the effect that ‘Lansley should be taken out and shot’, but there is yet no sign that a hundred Conservative MPs will write to the Prime Minister to say that the Health Secretary's reforms have to stop. We've had such a letter for wind farms and for Europe, but on the NHS it's not very likely. Most Tory MPs find the NHS a difficult rallying point at the best of times. And these are the worst: they are acutely embarrassed by the car-crash that has been the Health and Social Care Bill, and dearly want the whole thing just to go away. Besides, you try finding a hundred of them who actually know what these health reforms are about.

The government will have to fight for Lords reform

House of Lords reform is one of those subjects that make most people’s eyes glaze over. But it is going to dominate the next parliamentary session. The Queen’s Speech will include a bill for elections in 2015 for 20 per cent of the seats in the Lords using a ‘Proportional Representation’ voting system. This bill will take an age to get through the Commons, where it has to start if the coalition is to use the Parliament Act to push it through, let alone the Lords. One of the things that’ll be fascinating to watch is how large a Conservative rebellion there is on the issue. There are already Tory MPs mobilising to block the kind of Lords reform that Clegg wants.

The other Miliband under attack

By now, we’re all used to waking up to newspaper columns describing Ed Miliband’s flaws and proclaiming him unfit to lead the Labour party. But today, it’s David Miliband who’s under fire in two articles – one by Roy Hattersley in the Guardian and the other by Matthew Norman in the Telegraph. They’re both in response to the elder Miliband’s New Statesman article, the significance of which Pete wrote about on Thursday.

The strange survival of Labour England

Any CoffeeHousers with a taste for schadenfreude should read David Miliband’s article in the New Statesman. We have to move beyond big government, he declares. We need a growth strategy. I’m not sure if any Labour leader has ever argued otherwise: maybe, as Miliband implies, it has found one now. But, as I ask in my Daily Telegraph column today, what’s worse: a party that’s stuck in 1983, or a modernising movement that’s aiming for 1987? But talk to any Tory, and it’s hard to find any who think the 2015 election is in the bag. Four factors should prevent us from writing off Labour’s chances: 1) David Cameron is brilliant, but just not (yet) at winning elections.

Is Ed Miliband Really a Debate-Changer?

According to Nick Cohen Ed Miliband is Britain's Greatest Leader of the Opposition. Blimey, that's quite a statement. He's a plucky wee chap too: Ed Miliband is a geek, a failure and a loser. All the press says so, so it must be true. Yet the apparent no-hoper retains the ability of the boy who confronted the naked emperor to change the terms of debate. But what debates has he changed? Nick suggests Miliband was brave to stand-up to Rupert Murdoch and that he's been right to lead the way in banker-bashing. Perhaps so. But few people outside Westminster (and parts of north London) actually care very much, if at all, about Rupert Murdoch even if they do deplore (or pretend to deplore) the tabloids. It's not a vote-harvesting issue.

Bankers need to realise that things have changed

In a speech tomorrow, Ed Miliband will call for ‘one nation banking’. The Labour leader will argue that banks have to show that they are part of the society in which they operate.   But, perhaps, most interesting is Miliband’s point — previewed in the political column this week — that the behaviour and pay structures of banks are fair game for parliament because they are ‘either directly or indirectly supported by the taxpayer.’ Labour will, indeed, propose a vote on the broader bonus culture. The clear target of this motion will be Barclays and Bob Diamond.   Before the bailouts it would have been easy to dismiss all this as left-wingery gone mad.