Labour party

Ed of many colours

Philip Collins has an essential column in this morning’s Times (£), as a prelude to the Labour party conference. His theme is the many colours of Ed Miliband: he has been Red Ed, Blue Ed, Purple Ed, Green Ed and doubtless there will soon be Yellow Ed. Miliband has to be just one colour. Collins writes: ‘Take a bit of green, a bit of red, a bit of blue, a bit of yellow and a bit of purple, mix them all up in a big splodge and what do you get? You get Brown.’ The spectre of Brown evidently looms large in the minds of men like Collins, for whom the

Ed wants to tear it all up

Ed Miliband’s pre-conference interviews in Progress and the New Statesman serve as a reminder of the Labour leader’s desire to move the political centre ground. To the New Statesman he talks repeatedly of changing the current ‘settlement’ both economic and political. I presume by that he means the orthodoxies of the Thatcher-Blair era. Indeed, he tells Progress of one area where he wants to do things differently: ‘…people used to say “it is anti-aspiration to talk about people at the top”, it is not anti-aspiration – it is pro-aspiration. It is pro-aspiration because if you have got banks who are not doing the right thing, if you’ve got people in banks

Ed’s opportunity

Ed Miliband is the man to rip up the rulebook. He uses the phrase half a dozen times in an interview with the New Statesman. Ever since the phone hacking saga climaxed in July, Miliband has been busy posing as an insurgent against the Establishment; the politician who refused to fawn to Rupert Murdoch. His version of events is utterly specious: he was happily quaffing News International’s champagne at the beginning of the summer. But that is immaterial. Miliband has recognised an opportunity to redefine his faltering leadership. Despite his stern rhetoric, Miliband says very little about policy to the Statesman beyond promises of a VAT cut and a few

Battling it out over Brown’s legacy

Gordon Brown is back in the news this morning, or rather his legacy of debt is (an issue examined in depth by Pete and Fraser in 2008). The disastrous £12.7 billion NHS computer project is to be scrapped and, more important than that, the Telegraph reports that the care budgets at 60 hospitals are being squeezed by the costs of repaying PFI contracts totalling more than £5.4 billion. Andrew Lansley has taken to the airwaves to explain that Labour left the NHS with an “enormous legacy of debt”; he was keen to point out that no hospitals were built under PFI before 1997, so that there was no doubt where blame should

What Clegg failed to mention

Nick Clegg’s speech will be remembered for its visceral attack on Labour. But it was remarkable for other reasons, notably for what he neglected to say. Clegg said next to nothing about his government’s flagship education and welfare reforms. Only the increase in the pupil premium budget received a mention, as did the new ambition to send “at risk” children to a two week summer camp. This oversight was odd, especially for a leader who talks so much about social mobility. As Coffee House has illustrated on numerous occasions, the academies programme (which was supported by the Liberal Democrats in opposition and throughout the coalition’s opening negotiations) is dramatically improving

The Lib Dems’ long-term assault on Labour

Listening to Nick Clegg’s speech today, there was little doubt which party he’d rather be in coalition with. There were some coded slights at the Tories’ expense—the emphasis on how the Lib Dems had been ‘fighting to keep the NHS safe’ and his commitment that the Human Rights Act was here to stay—but they were nothing compared to the full frontal attacks on Labour. Clegg derided Miliband and Balls as the ‘backroom boys’ before warning the country to ‘never, ever trust Labour with the economy again.’ This line reveals something very important, the Lib Dem leadership believes that the more the economy is in trouble the more important it is

Labour is caught on a fork

Listen to John Prescott on the Today programme this morning and you may begin to understand the complexity of the task Labour faces. Prescott was putting the best gloss he could on Labour and the vastly incompetent civil service wasting hundreds of millions on regional fire stations. Listening to his bluster, even the most loyal Labour supporter might have been glad that the party was no longer in office. Prescott showed no remorse; no appreciation that the burden of taxation falls on working and middle class people, who need to hold on to every penny they can. As with so many left-of-centre politicians, he did not regard the waste of

Cameron’s Libyan gamble

It is conventional wisdom that David Cameron won’t get much of an electoral bounce from the Libya intervention, despite emerging as a bold and competent interventionist. People, the argument goes, are tired of warfare. A senior figure in Tony Blair’s No 10 told me yesterday that he did not think the PM would earn a lot of kudos, because with all the problems at home there is less tolerance for overseas adventurism. But this narrative overlooks a number of key points. First, the success of the operation has dealt with the charge that the government is less competent than it pretended to be. This was a serious charge, as the

A brutal no score draw at PMQs

Cameron and Miliband went six rounds on the economy at PMQs. Miliband tried to portray Cameron as just another Tory who thinks that “unemployment is a price worth paying”. Cameron, for his part, wanted to paint the Labour leader as someone whose policies would send Britain tumbling into a sovereign debt crisis. At the end, it felt like a bit of a no-score draw. Interestingly, Cameron stressed that “every week and every month, we’ll be adding to that growth programme”. We’ll have to see whether he’s talking about more small-bore measures, or something bigger on infrastructure investment. Labour had a new tactic today, trying to fact-check all of Cameron’s answers

A report to worry the two Eds?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies enjoys quasi-divine status in Westminster: chancellors and their shadows bother it for its blessing, and Budget Day is never complete until its judgment has been passed. Both parties have bent a suppliant knee before the institute in the past, but the IFS became particularly important to Labour after it declared last autumn that George Osborne’s policies to be ‘regressive‘. This is why the IFS report on the tax system, released today, is important. The review, conducted by Sir James Mirrlees, is a damning indictment on tax system that has fallen from 5th to 95th in the World Economic Forum’s tax competitiveness rankings. Mirrlees’ findings have far

Miliband: We can’t spend our way to a new economy

David Cameron and IDS have been promoting the Work Programme this afternoon and they reiterated that jobseekers must learn English to claim benefits if their language difficulties are hampering their job applications. It’s another indication of the government’s radical approach to welfare reform. Aside from that, the main event in Westminster today was Ed Miliband’s speech to the TUC. Miliband was widely heckled by the Brothers, especially when he told them: “Let me just tell you about my experience of academies as I’ve got two academies in my own constituency. They have made a big difference to educational standards in my constituency and that is my local experience of that.” The Tories

Miliband versus the Brothers

Ed Miliband is the Brothers’ man, or so the popular myth relates. Miliband has been trying to shake that perception ever since his election was secured by the union vote. He will make his most visible show of defiance yet in a speech to the TUC conference today. Miliband will refuse to countenance the proposed general strike over public sector pensions and instead urge the unions to change their ways. The Guardian reports that he will say: ‘The challenge for unions is this: to recognise that Britain needs to raise its game if we are to meet the challenges of the future and to get private sector employers in the new economy

Vickers provides the best of both worlds for George and Vince

It’s the moment of the truth for Britain’s banking sector: the publication of the Vickers report. The headline is as expected: the Commission recommends the imposition of a ringfence on banks’ ‘core operations’ (such as consumer deposits and small business lending) from the riskier elements of their business. According to the FT (£), the banks will have discretion over where the ringfence will fall, giving lenders and users a degree of flexibility, which suggests that Vickers is not recommending the full separation of retail and investment banking, as some had hoped. Vickers also proposes that banks reserve 10 per cent of the capital in their ringfenced operations to guard against future crises, which is expected to

SNP stretch lead over woeful opposition

How long will Alex Salmond’s honeymoon with the voters of Scotland continue? Given that his next mission is to hold and win an independence referendum, much depends on his popularity and that of his party. Today, a third opinion poll puts support for the Scottish National Party at just under half of the national electorate. Angus Reid, polling for the Sunday Express, puts support for the SNP has now hit a remarkable 49 per cent. Given that the Nationalists only won 45 per cent of the votes in May’s election – enough to sweep all the unionist parties into the background – this new high just shy of 50 per

How will Westminster respond to Vickers?

The Vickers’ report into banks will land on the Prime Minister’s desk tomorrow. It goes to the banks very early on Monday morning before being published later that day. The thing to watch for is how politicians react to it. We know that the report will propose some kind of ring fence. But what we do not know is how strict the ring fence will be and how quickly Vickers will want it implemented. As Robert Peston says the impact of the ring fence on the banks’ creditworthiness will be felt long before the actual ring fence comes into effect. Intriguingly, Ed Miliband is giving a speech to the TUC

Mandelson exposed

For those of you who missed the public outing of Peter Mandelson: The Real PM, the remarkably revealing, fly-on-the-turd psychomentary by the gloriously talented Hannah Rothschild, don’t despair, the boy will be back in town on DVD in full Slimeorama on 19th September. As I’ve already reviewed the show for this blog, the good and the great thought it would be a bit of a wheeze if I had a quick chat with Hannah over the phone. Now that was a shame, because lunch would have been much more fun, as Hannah was bubbly, mischievous and a Vesuvius of high grade gossip. She is so utterly disarming I can understand

Darling lifts lid on Brown’s chaotic government

Tieless, Alistair Darling appeared on Marr this morning to discuss his memoir. As with so many of these New Labour autobiographies, there was the strong whiff of a therapy session. At one point, Darling said “if Gordon is listening to this” before remarking that he still felt a huge amount of “residual loyalty” to him. It is not news that the Brown government was dysfunctional. But it was striking that Darling did not dissent when Marr suggested that under Brown, Labour had – collectively – not been fit to govern. In the serialisation of the book in The Sunday Times, the detail that stands out to me is that Darling and David Miliband met

Nationalist Measures for Unionist Aims

John McTernan’s latest Telegraph column has an entertainingly provocative headline –Tell the Truth: Scotland has been indulged for far too long – but is, in fact, less a blast against Alex Salmond’s monstrous regiment than an assault upon Mr McTernan’s colleagues in the Scottish Labour party. This attack is disguised by John’s observation – scarcely controversial and, anyway, being addressed, in part, by the Scotland Bill – that the Barnett Formula is no longer working as originally intended. He’s right that much of Scotland has prospered since Margaret Thatcher came to power; it’s also the case that the Labour party, above all others, has persistently denied this. As John must

The quiet man barks

Almost exactly a year ago, Tony Blair’s memoirs wafted into bookshops to cause a stir ahead of conference season. Now it it seems that Alistair Darling’s, due out next Wednesday, will do exactly the same. Judging by the extracts published over at Labour Uncut, the quiet man of the last Labour government will splash his simmering frustrations and enmities right across the page. Gordon Brown, he will say, became increasingly “brutal and volcanic”. Mervyn King was “amazingly stubborn and exasperating”. And Ed Balls and Shriti Vadhera will be accused of “running what amounted to a shadow treasury operation within government”. But the most eyecatching revelation, and perhaps the one with

Whitehall leaks

The Department of Education is remarkably unbothered by yesterday’s Guardian splash about free schools. Why? Because they have known for months that the emails on which it was based had gone missing. Indeed, the only thing that surprised them about the story was that it did not appear three months ago in the Financial Times. Email security in Whitehall is notoriously bad. Ministers and special advisers often don’t realise that civil servants have access to their email accounts. This access provides ample opportunity for those hostile to the government’s political agenda to leak out stories. (Most ministers in both this and the last government use secret squirrel email addresses to