Labour party

Has Peter Oborne Gone Mad?

How bad was the last Labour government? Pretty much as bad as you can imagine says my old friend Peter Oborne. Which leads me to ask if my old friend has gone mad? According to Peter: It is now widely accepted that the years of New Labour government were an almost unalloyed national disaster. Whichever measure you take – moral, social, economic, or the respect in which Britain is held in the world – we went into reverse. Nevertheless, historians may come to judge that these 13 years of Labour misrule served a vital purpose. In retrospect, the Brown/Blair period may be seen as a prolonged experiment which taught the

Murphy sets Labour’s new strategy a-rolling

A few weeks ago, a shadow minister urging Labour to avoid ‘shallow and temporary’ populism over spending cuts might have seemed like a sally against the party’s Ballsist wing. But given that Ed Balls has since said that ‘Labour will give more details of its tough spending decisions [in 2012]’, then Jim Murphy’s intervention in the Guardian today is a little less provacative than that. In truth, the shadow defence secretary’s words fit perfectly into Labour’s plan to sound more fiscally responsible this year. It is, most likely, party policy dressed up as a clarion call. What’s striking is that Murphy goes beyond this simple rhetoric, becoming the first shadow

Why Tom Baldwin reckons Labour shouldn’t give up on Miliband

Before Christmas, The Times’s Sam Coates managed to get his hands on Labour’s ‘media grid’ for the week — and much Westminster-y fun it was too. But now he’s gone one better, by publishing a strategy memo that Ed Miliband’s director of communications, Tom Baldwin, has produced for his Labour colleagues. It’s well worth reading in full, here and here, not least because it outlines the party’s argument for the coming year. In summary, though, it’s much like Miliband’s New Year’s address: more of the same, with a side order of fiscal responsibility. Baldwin emphasises the ‘squeezed middle’ and Labour’s ‘five-point plan for jobs and growth’, but he also adds:

The coming battle over the ‘undeserving rich’

Who can be toughest on the ‘undeserving rich’ is shaping up to be one of the main political battlegrounds of 2012. David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s comments today on tax avoidance are an attempt to get ahead of this debate.    Clegg, though, is keen to make this issue his own. As I say in the politics column this week, he is planning a big speech later this month on ‘responsible capitalism’. He will use it to argue that there need to be more checks and balances within companies and call for more shareholder power over executive pay. One Cleggite tells me, in reference to the Labour leader’s conference speech

Abbott’s Twitter troubles

That Diane Abbott tweet that Pete mentioned earlier (‘White people love playing divide and rule’) has made her the centre of attention this morning. She may have deleted it, and claimed that it has been ‘taken out of context’, but still the Labour Party has deemed it necessary to give her a public telling off for it. A spokesman said: ‘We disagree with Diane’s tweet. It is wrong to make sweeping generalisations about any race, creed, or culture. The Labour Party has always campaigned against such behaviour – and so has Diane Abbott.’ And Abbott herself has now apologised, although not exactly wholeheartedly: ‘I understand people have interpreted my comments

Every day, in every way, it’s getting worse for Ed Miliband

Unless one of Ed Miliband’s New Year’s resolutions was to ignore absolutely everything going on around him, I expect the Labour leader will be in a particularly glum mood this morning. And it’s not just that Maurice Glasman article — which has inspired the headline ‘Miliband’s former guru says he has “no strategy”’ on the front of today’s Guardian — either. It’s the, erm, questionable tweets from one of Miliband’s shadow ministerial team. It’s the LabourList poll that finds scant support, and much disapproval, for his leadership. It’s that John Rentoul column suggesting Yvette Cooper for the throne. It’s the Tory minister who said to Iain Martin that ‘Keeping Ed

Lord Glasman’s target is the other Ed

Maurice Glasman’s New Statesman piece on Ed Miliband is causing a bit of a stir. Lord Glasman, an academic who Miliband proposed for a peerage, writes that the Labour leader ‘has not broken through. He has flickered rather than shone, nudged not led.’ But if you read between the lines of Glasman’s article it is clear that he thinks someone is holding Miliband back and he drops very heavy hints as to who that is. For instance, the second sentence reads as follows: ‘Old faces from the Brown era still dominate the shadow cabinet and they seem stuck in defending Labour’s record in all the wrong ways – we didn’t

Where ‘constructive engagement’ could become destructive

Those ‘cross-party talks’ over social care haven’t started quite yet, but the positioning has already begun in earnest. In response to a letter by a gaggle of experts in today’s Telegraph — which urges politicians to ‘seize this opportunity for urgent, fundamental and lasting reform’ — both David Cameron and Andy Burnham have tried to sound utterly reasonable and mutually accommodating. The word ‘constructive’ is being deployed generously by all sides. In his interview with the Today Programme, however, Burnham did also hint at what’s likely to be the main area of contention. ‘Councils right now have been given brutal cuts to adult social care budgets,’ he observed, ‘and it’s

Byrne offers ‘something for something’ — but what does it mean?

What’s this? Seems like Liam Byrne has emerged from his policy review with an idea. He calls it, in an article for the Guardian today, ‘something for something’: ‘…“something for something” means reward for those who are desperately trying to do the right thing, saving for the future and trying to build a stable, secure home. Right now, these families are offered too little reward and incentive — in social housing and long-term savings — for the kind of behaviour that is the bedrock of a decent society.’ In truth, it’s not a new or surprising idea at all. Labour’s brain-in-exile, James Purnell, urged this sort of thinking on his

The cross-party talks that may test the coalition

Whenever politicians talk about social care, they tend to promise ‘cross-party talks’. It’s their little euphemism for ‘we don’t want to commit to a policy by ourselves.’ Don’t get them wrong, it’s not that they don’t have ideas for fixing a system that is straining under the weight of an ageing population; the Dilnot report, released earlier this year, gave them plenty of recommendations to work with. It’s just that they don’t want to be the ones to implement the tax hikes or spending cuts that will be necessary to fund it. If they can talk it through with the other parties — the thinking goes — then this crucial

Miliband’s New Year message: The same, but different

Well, folks, the 2012 model of Ed Miliband looks and sounds rather like the unfancied 2011 model. Just compare the New Year message that he released today with the one that he issued a year ago; the similarities are plenty. His main argument this year is that the Tories are the party of gloom — resigned to years of stagnancy, unemployment, pestilence, etc — whereas Labour are the party of a bright new future, there to show that ‘optimism can defeat despair’. Or, as he put it at the end of last year, ‘Even in these tough times, we must keep the flame of optimism burning.’ There are some differences, though.

Salmond’s Advantage Over Labour

A reader asks: What do you think about Johann Lamont winning the Scottish Labour leadership contest? Well, jings, far be it for me to intrude into these matters but it bears noticing that Lamont, doughty as she may be, relied upon the tame votes of Trades Union affiliates to secure her victory. Ken McIntosh – remember him, Mr Miliband? – actually won the most votes from individual party members. All Scottish Labour types now admit the party’s “arrogant” belief Scotland would always be there for Labour; all claim to have learned from the chastening experience of this May’s election. All say they must be “about” more than just Nat-bashing. All

Your five point guide to Balls’s highly political interview

It’s a strange sort of Christmas present; interviews with Ed Miliband and Ed Balls — but that’s what the papers have seen fit to deliver us this morning. There’s not much political content in the Miliband one, which is more of an At Home With Ed and Justine sort of deal. But Ed Balls’s interview with the Independent is a totally different matter. Here are five points distilled from the shadow chancellor’s words: 1) We’d cut, I tell ya. Rarely has Balls sounded as much of a deficit hawk as he does here. Sure, he drops in the usual lines about the Tories going ‘too far, too fast’, and Labour

What phase of the coalition are we in now?

It was not so long ago — the run-up to last May’s AV referendum, to be exact — that we heard the coalition would be entering a new phase. Gone was the happy synthesis of the Tories and Lib Dems that prevailed after the election, and in its place would be a government that spoke more openly, more angrily about its differences. But even if Phase 2.0 had the appearance of being more fractious, it was actually designed to keep the parties together. The idea was that, by highlighting the essential differences between the two sides, their supporters could more easily be kept on board with the overall project. I

Miliband is trapped in his own foggy argument

With one well-timed jab in PMQs, David Cameron turned much of this week’s political debate – in domestic terms, at least – into a debate about Ed Miliband’s leadership. And how is Miliband responding? Predictably, for the most part. His celebratory speech in Feltham and Heston this morning reduced down to the claim that the result ‘offers a verdict on the Government’s failed economic plan’. And his interview in today’s FT covers much of the same territory. But the FT interview is also revealing in one particular regard: it demonstrates, once again, how Miliband is caught in a strange, undefinable strategy somewhere between attack and defence. This was, if you

A victory for Labour, but not necessarily for Ed Miliband

‘This result… is a victory for Labour that shows the progress we are making under Ed Miliband’s leadership; a vote of confidence in the way that Labour is changing…’ Or, rather, it isn’t. Whatever Labour’s winning candidate in Feltham and Heston, Seema Malhotra, says, this byelection result was little more than an unsurprising Labour victory in a Labour area. The opinion polls, as we know, show more comprehensively what people think of the ‘progress’ that Labour is making under Ed Miliband’s leadership. And it’s far from a vote of confidence. Which isn’t to say that Malhotra underperformed in her byelection victory, last night. Not at all. Labour actually increased their

Miliband’s poll nightmare returns

There has, as we all know, always been a fug of doubt about Ed Miliband’s leadership. Even when Labour have been winning by-elections (as they’re expected to in Feltham and Heston tomorrow), even when even when they have fluttered ten points above the Tories, the question has always been there: would they be better off without him? After all, in terms of poll numbers, the party has generally exceeded the man. But today that question is wrapped in flashing, coloured lights, with a star on top. It’s not just how David Cameron filleted Miliband in PMQs earlier, but more Labour’s position in the latest opinion polls. As others have pointed

Miliband crumples to a new low in PMQs

Inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy, crap. With thesaurus-rifling regularity Ed Miliband comes to PMQs and delivers a performance which is inept, useless, incompetent, maladroit, hopeless, clumsy and crap. The only virtue the Labour leader has is consistency. He’s consistently worse than last week. In theory he should have scored some damage today. Unemployment is soaring. Growth seems grounded. Cabinet ‘partners’ scuffle in public whenever they get the chance, and Nick Clegg changes his mind as often as he changes his socks. And Miliband’s tactics had some merit too. By disinterring the PM’s New Year Statement from January 2011 he was able to open up the Coalition’s wounds and have

Cameron pummels Miliband in PMQs

Today, was yet another reminder that David Cameron knows just where to hit Ed Miliband to make it hurt. After a few questions on the economy, Miliband moved to Europe — the coalition’s greatest vulnerability. Miliband joked that it was ‘good to see the deputy Prime Minister back in his place’, before mocking the coalition’s divisions over Europe. Cameron began his reply by saying it was no surprise Tories and Lib Dems don’t agree on Europe before saying that the split on the issue could be exaggerated: ‘it’s not like we’re brothers or anything,’ Cameron said in his most mocking tone. At this line you could see the Labour benches