Labour party

As Peter Mandelson has us knee-deep in Kremlinology already, it’s worth pointing out this insight from Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent: ‘It was quite clear in 2008 and 2009 that Brown was going to lead Labour to defeat, whereas a messy leadership contest was by no means certain ….  Mandelson by then knew that Labour would lose under Brown. ‘Surely you know we can’t win with Gordon as leader?’ a colleague asked him last year. To which the reply was, ‘Do you think I’m mad? Do you think I don’t realise that?’ But Mandelson was convinced that Labour couldn’t win a majority under any leader. His big strategic mistake

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that

John Rentoul, who knows a successful Labour leader when he sees one, is having palpitations about David Miliband’s latest hustings speech. Everyone seems to be in fact. I’ve taken a look, following the Berkeleian principle that if everyone thinks something is important it invariably is. It’s a good speech. At last, one of the Labour leadership contenders has attacked Gordon Brown. Under Gordon Brown, Miliband argues, Labour’s failings, spin and high-handedness intensified. An expression about Sherlock and excrement comes to mind, but the first stage in a party’s renewal is to admit defeat, acknowledge failure and offer contrition. David Miliband has begun that process, which can only serve him well.

And so this morning’s Office for Budget Responsibility story rumbles on, with various Labour figures questions whether the organisation is as independent as it should be.  The most significant intervention, though, is from the government.  As the FT reports, George Osborne’s Treasury team is hanging onto its ability to select the next head of the OBR. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the next OBR chief will be a placeman, sympathetic and mouldable to the Tories’ wishes.  In fact, my guess is that Osborne will go out of his way to find an uncontroversial, neutral replacement for Sir Alan Budd.  But with a PoliticsHome poll showing that only 16

If cash was the one and only determining factor in elections, then David Miliband would have the Labour leadership contest sewn up.  As figures released today show, he’s raked in a hefty £185,000 in donations to his campaign.  That’s over 6 times more than Ed Balls has managed, and 12 times his brother’s total. Miliband’s monetary advantage is eyecatching in itself. But it also lets him trigger one of his electoral ploys. Smartly, if cynically, he has pledged to contribute one-third of his donations to a “fighting fund to help Labour win seats back at the next election”. So the more cash he has in the coffers, the more he

John Redwood has written a typically thoughtful piece, questioning the government’s arch cuts rhetoric. He writes: ‘Ministers would be wise to tone down the rhetoric of massive cuts. They need to mobilise, energise and reform the public services. Labour made clear in their marathon moan in the Commons yesterday into the early hours of this morning that they are out to talk the economy down, highlight alleged huge cuts in jobs and services and campaign with the Unions against sensible change. The government needs to be smart and careful in its choice of words to bring about the improvements in quality and performance needed.’ Ministers sound terse and defensive at

It’s becoming a familiar drill: another morning in Westminster accompanied by new spending cuts from the government.  Today, it’s the schools budget which is being trimmed to the tune of £1.5 billion, with the cancellation of Labour’s plan to rebuild some 700 schools.  But there are also reports of cuts to civil service pay-offs, and even of legislation to make it tougher for the unions to protest those cuts.  After yesterday’s news, the Treasury is clearly on a roll. Of course, the main political reason for all this early activity is that the coalition hopes to get much of it out of the way while the public is still on

Ok, so the general public doesn’t much care for this AV referendum – and understandably so.  But at least it has added a good slug of uncertainty into the brew at Westminster.  Already, curious alliances are emerging because of it – Exhibit A being Jack Straw and the 1922 Committee.  And no-one’s really sure about what the result of the vote will be, or whether it will deliver a killing blow to the coalition itself. But regardless of what happens on 5 May 2011, it’s clear that one group is already benefitting from the prospect of a referendum: the Labour leadership contenders.  Until now, they’ve been distinguished by their indistinguishability

So now, thanks to Left Foot Forward and reports this morning, we know: the referendum on an alternative vote system will take place on 5 May 2011, the same day as same day as the English local, Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections.  There are plenty of ins and outs, whys and wherefores – most of which are neatly summarised by David Herdson over at Political Betting.  But here are three questions that pop into my head, and are worth idly pondering on this sluggish Friday morning: 1) Does this strengthen the divide or weaken it?  Holding the AV referendum on the same day as local and regional elections was

Well, CoffeeHousers, I’ve read David Miliband’s article for the latest New Statesman so that you don’t have to.  And let me tell you: it’s classic Miliband the Elder.  Sure, the central theme – how Labour can reconnect in the English heartlands – is perceptive enough, and it runs through a few home truths which Miliband’s opponents have avoided thus far.  But what could have been a passionate rallying cry ends up reading a little cool and dreary. I mean, “Labour needs a revived politics of Englishness rooted in a radical and democratic account of nationhood”?  Maybe so, but only the wonkiest of wonks will be nodding along enthusiastically. Nevertheless, one