Labour party

There have been many interviews with Peter Mandelson this week, but I don’t think any of them have got as much out of him as Patrick Wintour has in today’s Guardian: ‘For he is quite clear in the interview that Labour would be probably be in power now if it had been possible for Brown to be replaced by a consensual alternative. "If you really force me, I think probably it would make a 20 to 30 seat difference to the result. They would have gone to 280 and we would have gone up to 270. They probably would have been the largest party, but not by a decisive margin." Asked why, then, he tolerated Brown's continuation in office he says: "I felt a sense of personal loyalty.

Reading Ed Miliband’s piece in today’s Times on how Labour can win back southern voters, I was struck by this section: 'We need to be clear that part of the job of social democratic politics is to conserve those things in society that free-market Conservatism would destroy. Our communities are too precious to be dictated to by markets. Take the example of how our towns have changed. If you travel through the market towns of the South, too often you find them dominated by late-night bars, clubs and betting shops, even when local people want a more friendly place to live.’ Ed Miliband has made this kind of argument before, but this is the clearest exposition of it. I suspect that this traditionalist argument will chime well with a lot of voters.

Pat McFadden, the sullen-looking Shadow Business Secretary, has given an important speech to the Fabian Society. He said: ‘Fight the cuts is a tempting slogan in opposition, and there are indeed some that must be fought. But if that is all we are saying the conclusion will be drawn that we are wishing the problem away.' He is the first shadow minister to recognise that Labour’s current approach is counter-productive, and Ed Balls’ philosophy is suicidal. He notes: ‘In fact, that is the position the Tories and the Lib Dems would prefer us to adopt. They want Labour to retreat to its comfort zone and allow them to say that they alone are capable of facing up to Britain's problems.

Meanwhile, in other Labour news, Ed Balls has just jumped into the deep end without any armbands.  Speaking to the BBC this lunchtime, everyone's favourite Labour leadership candidate said that he didn't - and doesn't - approve of Labour's plan to cut the deficit in half "through spending cuts."  As if to underline the point, he added that he's reluctant to identify cuts until after "this huge risky experiment has been tried on our economy by the Conservatives and the Liberals".  So he's got the fiscal insanity and anti-Clegg positions nailed, then.

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 bind the coalition partners together.

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.

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 can hand over to Labour.