Labour party

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Why Labour is still within striking distance

From our UK edition

Things are looking good for Cameron – his coalition has 60 percent approval rating, he has managed to persuade the Lib Dems to support what always was a liberal Tory agenda. There is plenty for Conservatives to celebrate, especially on welfare reform and education. But, still, things could be a lot worse for the Labour Party than they are now. I say in my News of the World column today that, rather than being “out for a generation” as Tory strategists were hoping only a month ago, Labour remains (amazingly) in striking distance of winning the next election. And there is no telling when that election will be. Clegg and Cameron say their pact will last until 2015 – but only a tenth of voters believe it.

Saturday

Fraser Nelson

A lesson for all new MPs

From our UK edition

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.

Peter Hoskin

Ed Balls follows Ed Miliband’s lead

From our UK edition

So fraternal rivalry it is, then, as Ed Miliband prepares to announce his leadership bid at a Fabian Society conference today. And, reading his interview with the Guardian, it's clear that Ed Balls is soon going to follow suit. Two Eds, two leadership bids, and much shared rhetoric about "listening" to voters. But the similarities don't end there. The passage where Ed Balls argues in favour of "progressive universalism" – a welfare system which stretches to the middle classes – echoes an interview that Ed Miliband gave to the Guardian in March. Both claim that it's important to make sure tax credits and other benefits reach those higher up the income scale. And both claim that Tory plans to trim back the welfare state are damaging to this goal.

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Who will be Labour’s cuts candidate?

From our UK edition

As Guido and Jim Pickard have pointed out, Liam Byrne's article in the Guardian today reads like the launch of a leadership bid.  But if it is, then it's not a well-judged one.  Amid some sensible points about Labour's demise, there's too much "if we'd have done what I said" bravado which, I imagine, won't go down well with the party faithful right now.  A bit like pouring vinegar on an open wound. But it's worth considering another angle to a Byrne leadership bid.  A couple of weeks ago, I wondered whether Brown's departure would also take Labour away from the "investment vs cuts" dividing line of the past decade, towards a more responsible contribution to the fiscal debate.

Peter Hoskin

Why fraternal rivalry will be good for Labour

From our UK edition

With the Sun reporting that Ed Miliband is going to stand for the Labour leadership, it's probably a good time to dig out Anne McElvoy's profile of the Miliband brothers for the Sunday Times last month. To my mind, its opening neatly encapsulates the choice between the wonkish one and the slighty-less-wonkish one that Labour may have to make: "When David and Ed Miliband were teenagers, their north London household rang to the chatter of some of the most prominent left-wing names of the era: Tony Benn, Tariq Ali, the ANC leader Joe Slovo and the late Michael Foot. David, one regular guest recalls, would sit 'absorbing it all' and asking interested questions of the grandees.

Thursday

David Blackburn

Labour must recognise the scale of its defeat

From our UK edition

Will Straw was on the news this afternoon, arguing that Labour had lost only a small "doughnut" of seats around London and in the south. As John Rentoul notes, some doughnut: Labour was annihilated in England. David Cameron’s swift reform of the Conservative party was built on recognising the scale of defeat. Few on the Labour side have yet done so, including David Miliband, who clings to the spurious consolation that it could have been worse. In a piece for the Guardian, John Denham is candid about a share of the vote that was markedly lower than John Major’s in 1997: ‘Most obvious is just how catastrophic our defeat was.

David Blackburn

Miliband storms ahead. Whither Ed Balls?

From our UK edition

Amazingly, given his penchant to procrastinate, David Miliband’s leadership bid is flying. High profile endorsements fly-in – former defence secretary and arch-Blairite John Hutton is the latest. Miliband is out on the stump, canvassing the opinions of former voters. Ed Balls, by contrast, looks tentative and there is no doubt he’s losing ground.   Iain Martin has an excellent post on the Labour leadership contenders and concludes that Miliband is not yet the complete package. I agree. Bananas aside, Miliband’s chief problem is that he expresses himself in meaningless abstractions. Think Tanks and cosmopolitans adore the terminology, voters don’t – The Big Society was A Big Flop.

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

David Miliband kicks off his “unity” leadership campaign

From our UK edition

Surprise, surprise – David Miliband has just announced his candidacy for the Labour leadership, and there wasn't a banana in sight.  His address only lasted a few minutes, but it contained a number of hints about how, I suspect, he will look to run his campaign.  The emphasis was on newness, natch – "a new era, new dangers, new possibilities, new opportunities" – but also on unity.  He praised the leadership of Gordon Brown; claimed he was looking forward to a "warm, generous and comradely" contest; and said that he would go on a tour of non-Labour constituencies to "listen" to the public.  All of which was meant to reinforce one impression: that he would take Labour beyond the fierce tribalism of the Blair and Brown years.

David Blackburn

Game on for the Labour leadership

From our UK edition

The Coalition Cabinet remains unformed as yet - it's rumoured that Chris Huhne is going to environment and Michael Gove and David Laws are out doing one another in the 'I've no idea where I'll be' stakes. All the sounds are very positive but the contents of would-be ministers' statements are careful, as doubtless final decisions are being made. The Labour leadership has its own spot on Westminster's backdrop of delicate intrigue. Yesterday, Andy Burnham positioned himself as the candidate of sense, opposing Lib-Lab talks and acknowledging that Labour needed to reorganise itself in the aftermath of defeat. The preferred path to renewal is clearer this morning. Alan Johnson has declared he will not stand and has backed David Miliband.

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

Brown resigns as Prime Minister

From our UK edition

That No.10 lectern has had a lot of use over the past two days. Yesterday, it was wheeled out for Brown's resignation announcement; today, for his resignation proper. It was quite dignified, as it happened. He said that he he loved the job for its "potential to make this country fairer, more tolerant, more green, more prosperous and more just," and wished his successor well. And he finished by paying tribute to his wife and his children, who he said represented the "most important job" he could ever hold. So that is that, as one T Blair once said. The end.

Alex Massie

Clegg Gets Labour to Drive His Party to the Tories

From our UK edition

There's one thing that may be said of Nick Clegg's willingness to talk to Labour: it allowed Labour to show Liberal Democrat MPs that a deal with the Tories is the only show in town worth buying a ticket for. Once Labour MPs vowed to derail any plan to force through voting reform without a referendum and once John Reid, David Blunkett and Andy Burnham pointed out the absurdity of a "Loser's Alliance" that, however constitutionally permissable, would mock the actual, you know, result of the election then even the most sawdust-brained Liberal Democrat MP could appreciate that this bird wouldn't fly. That leaves a proper deal with the Tories the only sensible option - an outcome that I suspect was Clegg's preference all along.

Martin Bright

The Labour Party Must Accept Defeat and Move On

From our UK edition

As I write, the Liberal Democrats and Tories are meeting in the Cabinet Office. The Labour Party should accept this is the end of any hope of a Rainbow Coalition. This election was lost and well lost. The Conservative achievement is substantial. There are now over a hundred extra Tory MPs in parliament and David Cameron has taken his party from being an unelectable basket case to the dominant political force in Westminster. It would be gracious at this stage to admit defeat.  The unwholesome sight of Labour grandees scrabbling around in search of  deal with the Lib Dems is an affront to democracy. The suggestion that Labour has the best interests of the nation at heart, when it has been so comprehensively rejected by the electorate is the party at its authoritarian worst.

Peter Hoskin

Burnham strikes a blow to the Lib-Lab coalition

From our UK edition

As James suggested, the mood is shifting against a Lib-Lab coalition this afternoon. And now the idea has been dealt its biggest blow so far: Andy Burnham has spoken out against it public. Taking the kind of deliberate step that suggests he may be up for the Labour leadership after all, the Health Secretary said: "I think we have got to respect the results of the general election and we can’t get away from the fact that Labour didn’t win." And there's more. According to the irrepressible Paul Waugh, Burnham first made his discontent known in Labour's Cabinet meeting last night – where, according to Channel 4's Gary Gibbon, he was joined by Bob Ainsworth, Sadiq Khan and Jack Straw. So, then, have the rainbow coalition-ers given battle in vain?

James Forsyth

The obstacles to a Lib-Lab deal

From our UK edition

The main development of this morning has been Labour MPs throwing up obstacles to a Lib Lab deal. At the moment there are four main problems. First, David Blunkett and others arguing that Labour would be better off going into opposition and—this is implicit—letting the Tories and the Lib Dems make the cuts. One union fixer told me Labour couldn’t go into a coalition with a party committed to cuts to benefits and tax credits. Second, Jon Cruddas, a champion of party democracy, has demanded that the parliamentary party, the NEC and the unions be consulted on the terms of any deal. Third, there are lots of Labour MPs letting it be known that they’d vote against AV so the Lib Dems might not get the main thing they want from a coalition.

Peter Hoskin

Whatever happens, Clegg has sullied his credibility with the Tories

From our UK edition

Let's not get ahead of ourselves: some sort of deal between the Lib Dems and the Tories is still a distinct possibility, even if negotiations have been rocked by the events of yesterday. But whether it goes through or not, Clegg has seriously dented his credibility in Tory circles. Backbenchers who were warming to the idea of a formal Lib-Con coalition a few days ago – if only to scupper Labour's hopes – are now dead set against it. The very notion of Clegg as Home Secretary is becoming a collective anathema. The question now is whether – failing a Lib-Lab coalition – the Tory leadership is more inclined towards a confidence and supply deal than they were before.

David Blackburn

Game on for a Lib-Con Coalition

From our UK edition

Gary Gibbon reports: 'Last night’s two-hour meeting of the Lib Dem MPs (with a sprinkling of peers) seems to have swung the party decisively behind a Lib-Con coalition deal. An announcement is widely expected now today.' It’s preferable to the alternative and as George Osborne made clear this morning the Tories can do nothing without Lib Dem support. There’s a suggestion that Clegg may have forced Cameron’s hand into further concessions with his sudden wooing of Labour, in which case he’s a very clever and brave shyster. I’ll believe it when it happens though. PS: A note of caution, as if one were needed. Clegg can't put a time on any deal. Incidently, there is no appetite for a Lib-Lab coalition among centre-left bloggers.

David Blackburn

This isn’t English

From our UK edition

‘The Tories are stuffed,’ a resigned Shadow Cabinet minister tells Gary Gibbon. Endorsing any such view is premature but, with Lib Dem elders counselling Clegg to join Labour, the most likely outcome is a coalition of the losers, albeit nice progressive ones. Ah, the irony of the New Politics – plus ca change and all that. Politics has descended into a grotesque spectacle of blackmail, and bungled devolution is to blame. As James reported last night, talks with the Tories ran aground on sands that are the territory of Holyrood and Scottish Liberals presented every obstacle possible.

Peter Hoskin

The Lib Dem big hitters pushing Clegg towards Labour

From our UK edition

Today's papers have the lowdown on the events of the past few days, and one thing is becoming increasingly clear: a Lib-Con deal faces not just the opposition of the Lib Dem base, but also some of the party's most influential figures.  In a Times account of a Lib Dem meeting yesterday, it's revealed that Sir Menzies Cambell "urged his successor not to bind the party into a irrevocable deal with the Tories."  Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that "Vince Cable played a significant role in resisting an agreement [with the Tories]."  And Paddy Ashdown was across the airwaves this morning, explaining how a Lib-Lab coalition could provide "stability" and "legitimacy," against a "rabidly anti-European" Tory party.

Alex Massie

The Blundering Parties

From our UK edition

The biggest blunderer today was, I think, Nick Clegg but one can make a case arguing that each of the parties played their hand badly on Monday. Oh, sure, in one sense Labour must be enjoying this: Tories in a fury, Liberals suddenly interested again and, who knows, perhaps there's a faint glimmer of hope that something may yet arrive to rescue the party and keep it in office. But Labour's good mood reflects a short-term tactical stroke, not a strategic victory. Gordon might have wrong-footed the Tories today and damaged prospects for a Tory-Liberal arrangement but that's it. Labour's overall position had not, I suspect, improved greatly not least because, despite all the talk and the hype, it remains difficult to see quite how they really can push through a deal.