Labour party

Today’s press will not have made happy reading for Ed Miliband and his supporters. Alan Johnson’s comments to The Times about the need to change the way Labour elects its leader has revived the debate about the legitimacy of Ed Miliband’s victory. Meanwhile in the New Statesman there’s a piece setting out the internal tensions within the party. Intriguingly, Lisa Tremble, who was David Miliband’s press chief during his leadership campaign, has put what could be considered a rather provocative quote on the record. She tells the magazine, ‘David’s rediscovered his excitement in politics…He’s looking forward to the new challenges. He’s not going anywhere.

It may take another week to discover if Phil Woolas has the right to challenge the election court ruling that destroyed his career. To the delight of his cadre of supporters in the House, judges have said there are "difficult questions to resolve" - not about the evidence of Woolas' campaign making "false statements", but about the specific application of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Before the last die is cast, here are two quick contextual points. First, it is not just Harriet Harman who is keen to shut down this episode - many folks on all sides of the House of Commons would like to pretend skulduggery of this kind is exceptional. It is not - Phil Woolas' behaviour is far from untypical of northern politics.

Slap all kinds of health warnings on this, but – in view of speculation that the Wills and Kate nuptials might work in the coalition's favour – I thought CoffeeHousers might like to see what happened to the the Tory government's poll rating in 1981, around when Prince Charles married Diana. So here's a graph I've put together from Ipsos MORI's figures. The dotted line represents the date of the wedding: PoliticsHome suggests that the "royal wedding worked wonders for Thatcher" – but, on the basis of the above, I'm not so sure. It's worth nothing, though, that the Tories surged ahead of Labour as soon as the Falklands War flared up in 1982. By June 1982, Thatcher's party were 27 points ahead of their rivals. P.S.

Oh, how Labour enjoy misleading the public about their record on the public finances. Ed Miliband did it a couple of weeks ago, with some very loose rhetoric about how the previous government had "paid down the debt". And now Alan Johnson's at it, with a fiery speech at the RSA which reheated many of the themes in his recent New Statesman article. The passage that struck me was this: "In 2007/08 as the crisis hit, we have the second lowest debt level in the G7 reduced by 14 percent in the 10 years we'd been in office... …The year before the crisis hit we were borrowing 2.4 percent of GDP compared to the 3.4 percent we inherited from Ken Clarke." Some points: 1) Second lowest debt level in the G7.

This Phil Woolas business is fast becoming a rather large problem for Ed Miliband. Those Labour MPs who are organising a fighting fund for Woolas are effectively defying the party leadership. Remarkably, he is on course to raise £50,000 by Friday. There is a whole slew of explanations for why Labour MPs are, to borrow a phrase, standing by Phil. First of all, the idea of judges overturning election results isn’t popular. Second, he’s a well-liked and sociable colleague, and no one who has fought a Lib Dem has much sympathy with their complaints about dirty tactics. But after these explanations, we move into more murky territory.

The British government is 99.9999999 percent staffed by apolitical Civil Servants with the statistically irrelevant remainder being political appointees. The Sir Humphreys, rather than being pushed around, are very much in charge. Too much in charge. Ministers get only two Special Advisers - or SpAds - each who are placed away from the Minister's office and in the beginning of the Government's term often had to fight to even join meetings with their bosses. Some are knowledgeable experts other researchers with little experience beyond a few years in an MPs office. In what looks like a partisan broadcast from Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell, Rachel Sylvester in The Times (£) says "Civil servants can help think through and implement policy in an ordered way.

The longer we go before a date is set for the Oldham East and Saddleworth general election rerun, the better it is for the coalition. This delay allows the Tories to give the Lib Dems a head start; Nick Clegg’s party can pour resources into the seat while the Tories do very little until a date is set. There will be a Tory candidate in this election, but I doubt that a Tory victory would be a cause for celebration at CCHQ or in Number 10. The Tory leadership knows that a bad result for the Lib Dems would make their coalition partners jumpy and make it harder for the coalition to govern effectively. A confident Liberal Democrat party would make Cameron’s life a lot easier than one more Tory MP.

Away from turbulent priests and the welfare battle, there have been important changes to electoral politics today. The coalition partners will fight one another in Oldham East and Saddleworth. The seat is a three way marginal, which was number 83 on the Tories’ target list – precisely the sort of seat they’ll need to win in 2015. However, as James noted on Friday, the Liberal Democrats’ need is greater at the moment. Already, tongues are wagging that a pimpled Etonian is destined to journey north of the Watford Gap, safe in the knowledge that gallant defeat will ensure he is the next Prime Minister but three. Enter Nigel Farage, opportunistically.