Labour party

Labour caves to divisive Livingstone

If I was a member of the Labour party I would be feeling pretty uneasy this afternoon as news of Ken Livingstone’s victory in the mayoral candidates battle sinks in. There is a cold reality about cuddly uncle Ken which deserves serious examination: he is a ruthless political operative who will sell out everyone, including his own party, to win. But Ken is not just a divisive figure, he was also a sinister Mayor, presiding over an wildly dysfunctional London Development Agency, controlling policy for London through a cabal of advisers calling themselves ‘Socialist Action’ and getting chummy with divisive and radical islamists including Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the build up

Hancock strikes again<font size="1"><font face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><br /> </span></font></font>

Yesterday, Matthew Hancock constructed what you might call the defensive part of the government’s argument on cuts: an explanation of how spending restraint can be good for the country. Today, he strides forward with the offensive component: an attack dossier that asks of the new Labour leader, “What would you cut, Mr Miliband?” By Hancock’s calculations, David Miliband needs to set out £55 billion of cuts to meet his deficit reduction plans. For Ed Miliband, that figure hits £67 billion. The attack is two-pronged. First, it pushes the idea – contra Ed Balls – that cuts are necessary. And, second, it puts the Labour leader immediately on the back foot.

From the archives: Labour election special

A double hit from the Spectator archives, this week, in recognition of events in Labour land. The first is a recent piece, by Andrew Gilligan, on why the battle between Ken and Oona – now resolved, of course – is the real battle for Labour’s soul. And the second is Boris’s take on Blair’s election to the Labour leadership back in 1994. Enjoy, as they say. The real battle for Labour’s soul, Andrew Gilligan, The Spectator, 11 September 2010 This summer’s election to choose a new deputy regional sales manager of the Co-op, sorry, a new leader of the Labour party, has rather obviously failed to set the nation on

Boris v Ken, round 2

What we have long expected has now been confirmed: Ken Livingstone will be Labour’s candidate against Boris in 2012. From the moment he lost, Livingstone has been working out how to beat Boris in 2012. He is consumed by a desire to be London’s mayor when the Olympics open in 2012. Boris won the mayoralty in almost the best conditions possible for a Conservative candidate — the Tories in opposition, an unpopular Labour government and an economy in mess. He’ll be running for re-election in almost the worst — a Conservative led government making deep spending cuts.   But if any Conservative can win in these circumstances, it is Boris.

Ed Balls steps up his bid for the shadow chancellorship

With the result but a day away, there’s plenty of radio chatter about the Labour leadership election this morning. The Guardian reports that MiliD will work for MiliE if he loses. The FT observes Harriet Harman shifting towards the Eds’ position on the deficit, even if she is remaining neutral in the contest itself. A Populus poll for the Times (£) suggests that Gordon Brown is currently more popular among Labour supporters than either of the Milibands (which is deeply amusing). And Political Betting is calling it for Ed Miliband. But perhaps the most noteworthy contributions come courtesy of Ed Balls, compiled and skilfully analysed by Sunder Katwala over at

Mili-monomania

No doubt attempting to affect affability and languid charm, one of the Milibands has goaded his team into mastering a hybrid of semaphore and tic-tac to bring him early news of the leadership election result. It’s unclear which of the brothers has descended into total monomania, but it’s sobering to think he may have his finger on the button one day. The ballot closed yesterday, but idle speculation about the shadow cabinet has opened. The Miliband that loses is expected to be encouraged to run for shadow chancellor, though from what I hear Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls are the favourites for that prize. A deadwood edition of the Telegraph

Too many policemen chasing paper-clips

Back in June, I asked how long the public would stomach David Cameron blaming Labour. Not long, was my answer – the government would have to form a narrative that suggested it was the ‘great reforming government’, not a symposium of partisan budget balancers. So far, it has failed to compel of cuts’ and public service reform’s necessity. Crime can now be added to the list. Theresa May has blamed Labour for HMIC’s findings into the police’s failure to arrest anti-social behaviour. ‘Labour achieved nothing,’ she said. Fair enough, but this was an opportunity to husband a narrative for public service reform. HMIC is in no doubt that the police

Politicking with the defence of the realm: advantage Labour

Is Trident’s renewal (either a like-for-like replacement or an alternative) within the scope of the Strategic Defence Review or not? The Lib Dem conference voted to include an alternative in the SDR. But, apparently, the cash-strapped coalition seeks to defer any decision (which will take renewal out of the review entirely). Earlier today, Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey intimated that he preferred deferral. As the video below suggests, Harvey’s objective is overwhelmingly political and couched in the language of opposition, not government: I don’t see this as a ‘hot potato’ for Labour. Cast in opportunism’s obvious garb, the Liberal Democrats are playing politics with national security and the Conservatives

Whither the Lib Dems?

A striking aspect of the Liberal Democrat conference is how discussion of cooperation with Labour takes place in public while talk of any future work with their current coalition partner happens in private. Tonight, Paddy Ashdown told an Observer fringe meeting that the Liberal Democrats’ long-term goal should still be to become the dominant party of the centre-left in Britain. I must admit that I struggle to see how this is possible. The steps that the coalition needs to take to deal with what Nick Clegg calls the ‘invisible crisis’ of the deficit will alienate the party from the centre left. But then again, as one liberal Liberal Democrat said

A lot done – and a lot still to do – for Nick Clegg

There’s always an after the Lord Mayor’s show feel at conference the today, after the leader’s speech. Adding to this feeling today is that the programme is relatively light; Simon Hughes and Chris Huhne are the star attractions.   Last night at the various parties one sensed a certain satisfaction among those close to Clegg at how the conference has gone. They feel they have got though it without any serious trouble and that the leader’s speech has warned the party of what is to come. But I do think that it is next year’s conference, when the cuts are biting, that will be the real test of what the

Why David Miliband is the most dangerous candidate for the coalition

Now how’s this for an opinion? Writing for Labour Uncut, Dan Hodges announces that David Miliband has won the Labour leadership contest. His piece starts: “This Saturday David Miliband will become leader of the Labour party. He will have won a majority of his Parliamentary colleagues and the wider membership, along with sufficient support from unions and other affiliates to secure not just victory but  an overwhelming mandate. The New Labour era will be over.” To most other observers, myself included, it still looks too close to call. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that David Miliband is best equipped to win this contest. If

Clegg’s little bit of political S&M

Nick Clegg is making life horribly difficult for those of us on the right who spent the last few things portraying him as a figure of fun. He is now delivering the best speeches of anyone in the Cabinet, characterised by a quiet sense of urgency and direction. He’s in the business of making the case for cuts. He spoke to a party that spent much of the last decade attacking Labour from the left. For those delegates, it was a little bit of political S&M. It must have hurt – but they liked it. “We haven’t changed our liberal values,” he said – and then went on justifying Conservative

Clegg speaks to the hall

Nick Clegg chose to speak to his party not the country today. His address was a justification of his decision to go into government with the Tories and a plea for his party to stick together over the next five, difficult years.   The crucial bit of the speech came when Clegg said of his party ‘maybe we got used to [being against every government that came along] ourselves’ but ‘imagine if we had turned away. How could we ever again have asked the voters to take us seriously?’ Clegg’s point was that opposition was not an option and ‘this country could not have borne five more years of Labour’.

Answering The Lib Dems’ Scottish Question

Pete mentions Tim Montgomerie’s suggestion that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood could be the most likely result at next year’s Holyrood elections. As Tim puts it: One thing I’ve worried about for sometime is the implications for the Coalition of bad results for the LibDems in next year’s Scottish elections but it is perfectly possible that Labour – like in 1999 and 2003 – will go into another Holyrood coalition with the LibDems. This double coalition deal could be an important tool for Clegg to keep his Left happy and for the new Labour leader to open the door to a future LibLab deal at Westminster. Well, anything is

The Lib Dems’ Scottish question

If you’re looking for a spot of LibCon strife that might actually mean something, then how about Tavish Scott’s interview in Scotland on Sunday? Judging by what he says about David Cameron, the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems clearly isn’t one for coalition niceties: “I suspect that (David Cameron) doesn’t even think about Scotland. It is not even remotely on his radar screen. He has a Scottish Secretary, and that’s that.” With the Scottish general elections drifting into view, there’s little doubt that Scott is dissociating his Lib Dems from a Tory party that is unpopular and – as Alex has frequently noted – inept north of Carlisle. But

Balls, McBride and off-the-record briefings

John Rentoul has already pulled the best passage from this preview of a forthcoming radio series on Gordon Brown. But I reckon that the testimony of Spencer Livermore, the former strategy chief in No.10, deserves a spot in the Westminster scrapbook: “Mr Livermore, who was Downing Street’s director of political strategy, regrets not warning about the downside of scrapping the election when Team Brown got cold feet as polling in marginal seats suggested only a slim Labour majority. ‘I don’t think it’s possible. Does anyone?’ the Prime Minister told his inner circle at the crucial meeting. The mood was ‘very, very sombre’, according to Mr Livermore. Ed Miliband told Mr

Don’t Worry About the Opinion Polls

I’ve suggested that the current crop of opinion polls are meaningless. That’s not true. As a friend pointed out, they measure public opinion and that can’t be considered wholly meaningless. So let me put it another way: the “meaning” of the opinion polls is, at present, greatly over-valued by the Westminster Village. Happily, uber-expert Philip Cowley is on hand to act as an expert witness in this case: Several of my Labour-supporting friends have a spring in their step – level in the polls at last, as revealed by yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos-MORI poll. How rubbish this new coalition government must be. It took New Labour years to lose its poll lead

The Labour leadership contest, all over bar the voting

The Labour leadership hustings are over, tonight’s one on Question Time was the last one. As has been the case at so many previous hustings, Ed Balls was the most intellectually forceful of the contenders. Whatever you think of his arguments on the economy (and I disagree with them), he puts them across with a clarity and directness that none of the other candidates can match. It was revealing how when Ed Balls took issue with Andy Burnham’s accurate statement that there would have been ‘significant job loses’ under Labour, the others all backed away. In the contest between the two front runners, David Miliband was the more statesman-like refusing to get drawn into