Labour party

So, the number-crunchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have worked their magic and delivered their verdict on today's spending cuts.  You can find their summary here, although the standout line is that the £5 billion in reduced borrowing implied by today's cuts is "less than a tenth of the fiscal repair job that Alistair Darling's March 2010 Budget forecast suggested will be needed over the next few years".  In terms of capturing just how much remains to to be done, it's a sobering remark.  But it's worth remembering that a Labour government wouldn't have made these extra £6 billion of cuts this year.

A week ago, I wondered whether the Labour leadership contest might produce a "cuts candidate": someone prepared to responsibly debate the fiscal situation as part of their campaign. But, as Danny Finkelstein has noted, none of the candidates so far has even mentioned the deficit, let alone suggested solutions for trimming it. Their wilful silence on the issue is starting to look bizarre, to say the least. The worry, though, is that it will also prove dangerous.  So long as the d-word doesn't get a look in, Ed Balls is blissfully free to do what he does best, and bang on misleadingly about "investment vs cuts".

Jonathan Baume is fast becoming one of the political celebrities of the LibCon era.  If you recall, he's the union chief who revealed that the senior civil servants had written letters to Labour ministers in concern at spending decisions made close to the election.  And now he's popped up again, with more unflattering comments about the previous administration.  Speaking at his union's annual conference, he said that "new ministers and MPs must begin to display the personal and moral integrity that was so obviously lacking in the previous Parliament, even within the Cabinet."  Hm, I wonder who he could mean.

With Ed Balls and John McDonnell announcing their candidatures for the Labour leadership, it's clear that Labour's soul-searching period has now begun in earnest.  Speaking in front of the cameras just now, Balls reeled of the lines that he's been priming over the past week: "listening ... immigration ... listening ... beyond Blair and Brown," etc.  While McDonnell was keen to separate himself from the other candidates, describing them as the "sons of Blair and the sons of Brown". Both of them might care to read David Lammy's appraisal of where it went wrong for Labour – and where it went right for Cameron – in tomorrow's issue of the Spectator.

Is the new government marching across scorched earth?  They certainly claim so, and now they seem to have the civil service backing them up.  Speaking to the Beeb this afternoon, Jonathan Baume, the leader of a civil service union, said that senior civil servants had written "letters of direction" to Labour ministers in concern at the spending decisions they took in the final months of their government.  As Baume put it: "It's not a decision that is taken very often to ask for such a letter of direction, which is why it is regarded something of a nuclear option. So when it happens it tends to be a big spending decision, where the civil service believes this is not the right thing to do." Good to know, even if only in retrospect.

Ed Miliband has given a surprisingly good speech this morning: free from all the junk language that his older brother has a weakness for. But he raises an interesting question: Why did Gisela Stuart win in Birmingham Edgbaston? Why did Karen Buck win Westminster North? Why did Andy Slaughter win in Hammersmith? Might it have been because all three of these politicians were, at one point, thorns in the flesh of their government? That they all at times campaigned, on principle, against the Labour government? As I said in The Times yesterday, the German-born Ms Stuart was a committed foe of the EU Constitution - who denounced it, and the Lisbon Treaty, as loudly as she could.