Labour party

No tax cuts in England’s green and pleasant land

From our UK edition

Danny Alexander has told the Observer that substantial tax cuts are highly unlikely for five years. Alexander argues that ‘the tax burden is necessary as a significant contribution to getting the country's finances in order. So it will have to stay at that level for quite some time.’ Given that the income tax threshold will rise to £10,000 over the course of the parliament, designed to help lower earners, we can take it that there will be no tax cuts for the well-off and hard pressed middle classes. So the 50 percent rate stays, which is not wholly foolish strategically as Labour would preserve it. The squeezed middle classes pose more of a problem for the coalition.

New Labour’s psychodrama went global

From our UK edition

Not as thick as he looked, Dubya. The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Bush administration urged Tony Blair to remain in office because it had ‘big concerns’ about working with the monomaniac Gordon Brown.  Here are the details: ‘Senior officials in the US administration sounded the alert after a meeting between Mr Brown and Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s secretary of state, in which Mr Brown “harangued” her over American policy on aid, development and Africa. After the uncomfortable session, sources said she reported her misgivings to the White House, and they were sent on in turn to Mr Blair.

Cameron: I fear David Miliband most

From our UK edition

Strange but true: the Cameroons are wary of a Labour Party led by David Miliband. The Guardian's Nick Watt has been eavesdropping and he's gathered a few choice quotes. Kool-aid drinking Tories say: "David Cameron said the candidate he hoped for was Ed Miliband, and the candidate he most feared was David Miliband."  "On the whole we would prefer if Ed Miliband won. His analysis that Labour has to go for a traditional Labour vote, rather than the middle classes, is absolutely wrong. The Ed Miliband analysis will lead them into big trouble." In spite of his best efforts, David Miliband is likely to win.

The Milibands, Balls and Attlee

From our UK edition

I know, I know – there's only so much information about the Labour leadership contest that a sane person can take. But as an addendum to Ed Balls' pugnacious speech earlier, it's worth noting that Ed Miliband has since deployed exactly the same argument about deficits and the Attlee era: "We do need to reduce the deficit but politics must be bigger than that. Remember our history. After 1945, with the biggest deficit in our history, that Labour government set out the vision of a good society - for a new welfare state and a new economy." To be fair to MiliE, he's made the same point before now. But its reappearance is a reminder that he has more in common with Ed Balls on the economy than his brother does.

Malcolm X and Michael Gove: Big Society Brothers?

From our UK edition

A splendid spot by Dave Osler at Liberal Conspiracy: Malcolm X's ideas about education in Harlem and Brooklyn aren't so very different from those Michael Gove has in mind for Haringey or Toxteth. As Malcolm X wrote: The Board of Education in this city [New York] has said … there are 10 percent of schools in Harlem and the Bedford-Stuyvesant community in Brooklyn that they canot improve. So what are we to do? ‘This means that the Organization of Afro-American Unity must make the Afro-American community a more potent force for educational self-improvement.

Burnham goes blue in the face

From our UK edition

Whilst Ed Balls descends into bellicose self-caricature, Andy Burnham, the quiet man of this campaign, has written an incendiary article for the Guardian. It is subtly constructed: behind the veneer of his folksy idiom, Burnham proclaims a self-conscious radicalism. He has sharpened some of the ideas expressed so loosely in his pamphlet Aspirational Socialism. He advocates the adoption of land value tax, the abolition of inheritance tax and a very tough Blairite stance on crime and the causes of crime. He angrily dismisses the Milibands as thoughtless ‘comfort zone’ politicians, both stuck dumb in a trance to the mantra of ‘tax and spend’. Burnham’s aides must be as aghast as me because they are incapable of answering the phone.

Balls’ pitch for the shadow chancellorship

From our UK edition

If there's one observation to make about Ed Balls's speech this morning it's that it's punchy stuff. His main point is that the coalition are "growth deniers" – not only do their "austerity and cuts" risk a slide back into recession, but they're also unnecessary. He explains: Attlee didn't make his "first priority ... to reduce the debts built up during second world war," and he left us with the welfare state – so why should we cut spending now? Et cetera, et cetera. These are, more or less, all arguments that we've heard from Balls before. But this is definitely the most concentrated form they have ever taken. It's an unrelenting barrage of Brownite economics. As always with Balls, there are exaggerations, inconsistencies and half-truths aplenty.

Mother Miliband isn’t voting for Diane Abbott

From our UK edition

Judging by today’s papers, the idea that David and Ed Miliband’s mother is voting for Diane Abbott has entered into the political consciousness. But it isn’t true. When Ed Miliband said that his mum wasn’t voting for him or David and was instead backing Abbott, he was joking. As he explained to me the other day: “For the record, my mother isn’t voting for Diane Abbott, that's another joke, an ill judged joke that I made.  I actually went on holiday, shut off my phone and a couple of days later I discovered that I’d spawned a whole series of stories saying the definitive view is that she is voting for Diane Abbott.  It was a light hearted remark.

Labour’s 50p tax equation

From our UK edition

Here's one aspect of the Labour leadership contest that has passed without much comment: how many of the contenders want to extend the 50p tax rate from those earning over £150,000 to those earning over £100,000. Ed Miliband's one of them; so is Diane Abbott; and so too – as he reminds us in interview with Left Forward Forward today – is Ed Balls. Sure, only one of these candidates has a realistic chance of becoming leader – but another could easily end up as shadow chancellor. So it’s fairly probable that this will be official Labour policy in the not-too-distant.

Clegg leads the fightback

From our UK edition

On Monday, I wrote that the question of whether the Budget is fair or not will "pursue the coalition more doggedly than any other". Yesterday, we saw just how dogged that pursuit will be. But there's no need for the coalition to panic as Mark Hoban did on the Today Programme yesterday. Instead, with policies from welfare reform to low taxes for low-income earners, they have built a firm redoubt from which to stage a counterattack. They can put the chase to their opponents. It is encouraging to see Nick Clegg do just that with an effective article in the FT today. He was bluntly dismissive of the IFS report yesterday, calling the organisation's work "partial".

Cruddas backs David Miliband for middle Britain

From our UK edition

The rumours were true: Jon Cruddas has backed David Miliband. It’s an unlikely union on the face of it - an ambitious centrist and an almost utopian socialist. Though Cruddas once forged a partnership with the equally centrist James Purnell, so it is no great surprise that he is a pluralist. Cruddas tells the New Statesman that in ‘terms of the nature of the leadership that's needed, he's beginning to touch on some of those more profound questions that need to be addressed head-on.’ Is Cruddas right? Miliband has delivered the speech that he thinks will define his campaign. To be brutally honest, it was not profound. There was little other the usual Milibandian quota of abstractions and specious waffle.

The Staggers backs Ed Miliband

From our UK edition

The New Statesman has backed Ed Miliband in the battle of the brothers. Press endorsements don’t count for what they used to, but the country’s leading left-wing magazine remains significant in this context. Below is tomorrow’s New Statesman lead article; it rejects the charge that Ed Miliband is ‘comfort zone Labour’ and portrays him as a thoughtful dissenter from New Labour’s orthodoxy. (On the counter, there are rumours that Jon Cruddas is to back David Miliband. Support from such an independent and left-minded source would be worth its weight in gold for David Miliband.) ‘The Labour leadership contest began in earnest with the New Statesman debate at Church House in Westminster on 9 June.

What do you need to know ahead of the Spending Review – Welfare

From our UK edition

This is the fourth of our posts with Reform looking ahead to the Spending Review. The first three posts were on health, education, and the first hundred days. What is the budget? The welfare budget must be at the heart of the debate on how to restore the public finances. The Government spends more on welfare than anything else. In 2009 the bill for social protection was around £199 billion. This has almost doubled in real terms over the last 20 years from £104 billion in 1989. Social protection now represents 32.5 percent of all government expenditure or 14.2 per cent of GDP. Some welfare spending varies with economic conditions, with increasing unemployment, for example, leading to greater expenditure on assistance to support people back into work.

Today’s GCSE results prove that academies work

From our UK edition

Today's GCSE results demonstrate the tremendous success of City Academies, a hugely heartening trend given that this formula - which was so slowly rolled out under the Labour legislation which introduced them - can now be rapidly implemented under the new Academies Act. It's always been a con to look at the absolute results of Academies, as under Labour the only schools given such status were schools that were doing poorly. What matters is improvement. Let's take the three Academies groups and look at the ratio of  pupils winning five good GCSEs (i.e. A-C including English and Maths). In the The Harris Federation, which now runs nine schools, there was a 10 point increase. In the ARK academies, a 13 point increase. In the ULT Academies, an 8 point increase.

A very British diarist

From our UK edition

The extracts from Chris Mullin’s diaries that ran in the Mail on Sunday this weekend suggest that the second volume will be as good as the first. It contains things that you just couldn’t make up. Tom Watson, for example, told Mullin that he was pushed into rebellion by the knowledge that Cherie Blair had had the Prime Minster’s section of the nuclear bunker redecorated.   But, perhaps, the most telling  story is what happened when Gordon Brown went to the Chinese embassy to sign the book of condolence for victims of the earthquake there: “While Gordon and his party were inside, word reached them that David Cameron was waiting outside.

How the coalition can develop its case for fairness

From our UK edition

The coverage in today's FT is a reminder that one question will pursue the coalition more doggedly than any other: are the cuts fair and "progressive"? This isn't an issue that Osborne & Co should duck, and not just because they've set it as a measure of their own success. There is, to my mind, a moral and economic necessity for measures that benefit the least well-off – and, what's more, this is terrain which the coalition should feel quite comfortable traversing. Benefit reform, schools reform, lifting low-income earners out of tax: these policies provide a solid foundation for an argument about fairness. If the coalition wants to develop that argument persuasively, then it should remember four points: 1) The graphs don't show the whole picture.

Andy Burnham’s faltering campaign

From our UK edition

Andy Burnham’s leadership campaign is going the way of all flesh. According to Left Foot Forward’s model, Burnham is set to come fourth behind Ed Balls. A You Gov poll predicted a similarly poor showing for Burnham. I’m surprised by this. Burnham is presentable against a field of gawky rivals. Also, after a faltering start, he has tuned a clear anti-establishment message, crafted to politicise the north south divide and New Labour's soulless metropolitanism. He reiterates it for today’s Independent, arguing that the party has been run for too long in ‘an elitist, London-centric and controlling way’ and that New Labour was ‘born of a distrust of its members.

Ed Balls’ contract with the Labour Party

From our UK edition

Ed Balls has produced a contract with the Labour party. Three things strike me about it. First, he emphasizes broader consultation and promises a greater role for activists and local representatives. These political impulses are championed by the coalition – an indication that Cameron and Clegg’s partnership is beginning to change Britain party political landscape. Second, Balls is a proud friend of the trade unions and wants to restore the link between Labour and the unions, perhaps to redress Labour’s chronic financial position. Third, like Ed Miliband, he has adopted Harriet Harman’s goal of having women as 50 percent of the shadow cabinet.

David Miliband looks odds-on

From our UK edition

Crack out the nibbles, David: looks like you’re going to win the Labour leadership. An extensive You Gov poll of Labour members and trade unionists puts David Miliband 8 points clear of his brother in the final run-off. This is the first statistical analysis that supports the general feeling in Westminster that Ed Miliband’s charge has calmed. Courtesy of John Rentoul, the results are diluted in this table. UPDATE: Mike Smithson points out that the fieldwork for this poll was carried out between 27-29 July. So I stand corrected: Ed Miliband's charge has been on the wane for a month.

Clegg’s alternative view on the alternative vote

From our UK edition

Nick Clegg’s fortnight in the sun continues with a big interview in today’s Telegraph. What struck me most were not his comments on a graduate tax (which David has blogged about) but those on AV. If the AV referendum is lost, then Clegg will have a very difficult time keeping his party united and in the coalition. But if Clegg makes clear how much AV means to his party, then the chances of it being defeated increases as Labour voters and those dissatisfied with the coalition see it as a chance to bring it down. (Remember we can expect most Tory voters to back first past the post, making the support of Labour voters crucial to the passage of AV).