Labour party

Saturday

Fraser Nelson

Brown’s latest confidence trick

One of the Brownie's we've been hearing recently from the Dear Leader is that it is in some way ambitious to "halve the deficit by 2014". It's a Brownie because it is technically accurate, yet designed to mislead the voter. Two years ago, he forecast no deficit at all by 2014. Now he's projecting one of 5 percent of GDP - simply mammoth - and still makes out that this is something to be proud of. It's a confidence trick: the voter is supposed to think 'I don't know about the figures, but if he's boasting about it then it must be good'.

Friday

David Blackburn

The Tories should ignore Byrne’s tax fantasy

Liam Byrne told The Daily Politics yesterday that Labour would reduce the deficit without raising additional taxation to that which is already planned. Iain Martin describes this pledge as being akin to a chocolate fireguard. He’s right. It’s less realistic than a Jeffrey Archer novel. As Andrew Neil notes, Labour plans to reduce £82bn from the deficit by 2014 with £19bn in tax rises and £38bn in cuts. They bank on economic growth eradicating the remaining £25bn. The government’s optimism for Britain’s economic prospects is touching but scarcely credible on the basis of 0.3 percent growth and the frightening trade deficit. Andrew Neil observed that Byrne was armed with books of notes and briefings.

David Blackburn

Do these slogans hit the mark?

Michael Savage called it right. The LibDems’ campaign slogan (Change that works for you. Building a better Britain) is a wooden, overly alliterative union of Labour’s and the Tories’ respective slogans. All three party slogans are jumbled. ‘A future fair for all’ is mealy-mouthed and grammatically suspect – where will they build this national fairground? Similarly, ‘Year for change’ is vague, and ‘We can’t go on like this’ is a staple line of Radio 4 afternoon plays. So to be fair, the Liberals didn’t have much to work with. Campaign slogans are important, reducing a vision to a firm phrase. For me, none of these quite hit the mark.

David Blackburn

Affluence for influence

I'd assumed the left was dead, but Mehdi Hasan says otherwise. The left is triumphant. Whilst Hasan defines left with abstractions like ‘progressive’ and ‘empowerment’, I prefer something more concrete. Unionism is triumphant. With New Labour in rigor mortis, the Unions slipped their moorings and struck out for old havens. Whelan, Crow, Simpson and Woodley are fixated on disruption. Crow will close the railways next Friday, the BA cabin crew suicide pact is now all but signed in blood, and thousands of civil servants will exchange the pen for the sword. Certainly, the members have grievances, but who doesn’t? Britain is emerging from the deepest recession since 1929 with a financial equivalent one of Kingsley Amis’ existential hangovers.

Thursday

Alex Massie

Gordon’s McCavity Days Are Ending

Watching the news last night, I was struck by how little one had seen of Gordon Brown on TV recently. No wonder the polls have tightened. But the Prime Minister, alas, cannot play McCavity forever. The "bullying" allegations weren't as damaging as they might have been in other circumstances because, for many, they merely confirmed that Brown is an impossible individual and, frequently, an unpleasant one too. But people already knew or suspected that. Instead, the papers and the teevee have been dominated by Ashcroft and the Tory wobble. In a sense this was a verdict on the government too: since few people expected Labour to win, it's sensible to tak a long look at the opposition.

David Blackburn

City middlemen don’t like Osborne precisely because he is competent

The City’s elopement with New Labour has ended violently. A poll of leading financiers, conducted by City AM, reveals that 73 percent think that a Tory majority would be best for the economy; a mere 10 percent support Labour. But the City has little enthusiasm for George Osborne: 23 percent believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor, 13 percent behind Ken Clarke. So where is it going wrong for Osborne? James Kirkup observes that the Tories recent collapse in the polls coincided with Osborne and Cameron obscuring their economic message. But the City’s antipathy to Osborne is long established. Disquiet reigned even when Osborne and the Tories were storming the polls.

David Blackburn

Clegg’s conditions

Nick Clegg is the rage of the papers this morning. His interview with the Spectator is trailed across the media and the Independent has an interview where Clegg once again lists the four demands that would be his initial negotiating tests for backing a minority government. They are: - Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 through taxes on the rich. - An education spending boost for the poorest in society through the 'pupil premiums'. - A switch to a Green economy, less dependent on financial services.  - Political reforms at Westminster, including electoral reform. What to make of that quartet? There is much that is sensible, much that is not, and still more that is unworkable.

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Hague and Cameron are vindicated for leaving the EPP

Daniel Hannan breaks the, sadly, not very surprising news that MEPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of an EU Tobin tax. The margin: 536 to 80. Only the European Conservatives and Reformist group and a handful of radicals opposed the motion. The EPP, which describes itself as ‘centrist’, voted uniformly in favour. Cameron was right to withdraw from a grouping whose interests are at odds not only with British Conservatives but with Britain itself: a tax on all financial transactions would castrate the City. What does this division mean for Britain? On the face of it not a lot: anyone of the member governments could veto it. However, many European governments, including our own, seem alarmingly pro the measures.

James Forsyth

The Tories will have waves of dirt thrown at them<br />

If you want a flavour of what is going to be thrown at the Tories between now and May 6th, read Jonathan Freedland’s column today. Freedland has a fair point about how Michael Ashcroft should pay tax in this country, in my view no one should be eligible for an honour let alone a seat in the legislature if they are not fully domiciled in this country for tax purpose, but it is all dressed up in the language of the class war. I’ve never met Richard Drax, Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax to give him this full name, but it seems rather cheap to drag up his family’s involvement in the slave trade in the 17th century in an attempt to discredit him. Then Freedland moves on to Annuziata Rees-Mogg. Her offence is that her parents live in the constituency.

Peter Hoskin

The Budget will be on 24 March

So now we know.  Gordon Brown has just announced that the Budget will be on 24 March – which strongly implies an election date of 6 May.  Brown could dissolve Parliament on 6 April, the manifestos would be published on 12 April, and then we'd be into the campaign proper.  Which means even more speeches, polls and dread speculation than we're getting now. As for the Budget's general flavour, we'll probably get an idea of that today, too.  Brown's currently giving a speech in which he's brushing over recent tremors in the markets, to say that we are "weathering the storm; now is no time to turn back".  Which comes straight off the same old hymnsheet: let's stick to our current deficit reduction plan (such as it is), and turn up the spending taps this year.

Alex Massie

Let us now praise Simon Hoggart

Simon Hoggart remains a treasure. His sketch in today's Guardian begins thus: It's going to be an awful campaign, awful. Yesterday we were at Labour HQ (they still have a smart new building in Westminster, but after the election they may move to a scout hut in Streatham) to see a video. It was introduced by the home secretary and by Harriet Harman, glossier than ever. Her eyes were like French-polished lentils. I spoke to colleagues afterwards, and we agreed that she seemed to be staring balefully at each of us. Like a very cross Mona Lisa, her eyes follow you round the room. Alan Johnson has been buried deep in the Home Office for months now.

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

A warning that applies to the Tories as much as it does to Labour

As James Kirkup says over at the Telegraph, it's worth paying attention to the credit rating agency Fitch when it says that the UK deficit will need to be cut quicker than is currently planned – to 3.3 percent of GDP by 2015, rather than 4.4 percent.  Throw in similar warnings from the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors yesterday, and you've got a bunch of testimonies which are broadly supportive of the Tory narrative.  You can expect CCHQ to give them plenty of airtime over the next few days.    But, lest it need repeating, the pleas from the CBI and others could well be directed at the Tories as well as Labour.  Sure, Cameron & Co.

Fraser Nelson

Bringing Clegg to the table

My gut feeling is that Cameron will win with a majority. But I had a gut feeling that Carey Mulligan would get Best Actress at the Oscars. When Scotland play rugby, I have a gut feeling that they will win. My gut, alas, has a pretty poor track record. But if I look at the polls, it suggests that Cameron will not win outright, and that Nick Clegg will be needed to form a majority. Today's daily Sun/YouGov tracker has the Tories with a five-point lead - which suggests that Cameron is 26 seats short of a majority, and that Nick Clegg has just 22 MPs to bring to the party. The chaos scenario, outlined by Allister Heath in this week's Spectator cover story ("Britain on the brink"), comes back into focus. So how afraid should we be? Not very, says Timothy Garton Ash.

Peter Hoskin

A well-timed change of heart from Lord Paul?

Previously, there were rumblings that Lord Paul was considering quitting the Lords to keep his non-dom status. Today, he has confirmed that he will end his non-dom status and remain in the Lords. If you were being cynical, you might think that there's been a change of heart so that Labour can ramp up their attacks on the Tories over Lord Ashcroft. But surely Brown & Co. would want to keep their focus on the "serious business" of government, wouldn't they?

Peter Hoskin

Charlie Whelan’s role in Labour’s election campaign

If you want a sense of how much work Charlie Whelan and Unite are doing on behalf of Gordon Brown, then I'd recommend you read Rachel Sylvester's column in the Times this morning.  There are the millions of pounds in funding, via the taxpayer, of course.  There's Unite's "virtual phone bank," canvassing votes for Labour.  And then there's Whelan himself – now almost as involved as ever with the Downing Street operation, and "working closely" with Douglas Alexander on Labour's election campaign.  This is, I remind you, the Charlie Whelan who was copied into the Smeargate emails, and whose other indiscretions are better described by Martin Bright and Nick Cohen, here and here.

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Labour and Tories level in marginals poll (but look to the swing)<br />

I know, I know – there are only so many polls a reader can take.  So I'll spare you the details from tonight's YouGov poll, or the Opinium poll in the Daily Express.  But this Populus poll in the Times is worth highlighting, if only because it seems to be attracting the most buzz.  It has Labour and the Tories both on 38 percent across 100 marginal seats.  Neck and neck – or so it seems. But as Anthony Wells points out over at UK Polling Report, what really matters is which marginals this poll covers, and what the swing is.  In this case, the marginals are those numbered 51 to 150 on the Tories' list of target seats – so it excludes the 50 Labour seats with smaller majorities.  And, even so, the numbers suggest a swing of about 6.

David Blackburn

Yet more good money after bad

So, the government is tying the taxpayer to £11bn of new IT contracts before the election, making the Tories’ planned immediate IT cuts very expensive. Is this latest example of a scorched earth policy? Or Labour ‘getting on with the job’? With the polls narrowing, I can’t see Labour setting a fiscal booby-trap that they could well have to de-fuse. But there’s the rub. Brown scorches the turf beneath his feet as he governs: he cannot stop spending money. An £11bn bender is irresponsible in this climate, plus Labour has a baleful record on IT contracts. It has bungled a staggering £26bn on flawed IT systems, many of which were introduced without pilot schemes.

Peter Hoskin

Guess what Miliband and Mandelson are going on about…

Fourteen years on from "education, education, education," Labour seems to have hit upon three new priorities for government: "Ashcroft, Ashcroft, Ashcroft".  Sure, we all knew that they would push this story as hard and as fast as it could go.  But it still says a lot about how they will go about their election campaign, when two senior ministers are still going heavy on the Tory Lord this morning.   In interview with the Guardian, Peter Mandelson says that Ashcroft has got Cameron "by the balls".  And, in the Telegraph, David Miliband claims that William Hague "can’t be an effective Foreign Secretary," after his role in the affair.

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Have the Lib Dems just saved Labour from a post-election Brown leadership?

To be honest, the leg-flashing that the Lib Dems are doing in front of the Tories and Labour just doesn't really grab my attention.  Their overtures and innuendo may, or may not, turn out to be significant in a few weeks time – but we need a general election before we can judge either way.  In the meantime, they'd be best off keeping their positioning to themselves, and getting on with an election campaign for which they actually have some fairly attractive policies. This story, though, is worth noting down.  Apparently, in the event of a hung Parliament, Nick Clegg just couldn't bring himself to work with Gordon Brown.  Labour, perhaps (as both Clegg and Vince Cable suggested on air earlier).  Brown, no.

Martin Bright

The Filth and the Fury

On the back of Andrew Rawnsley's revelations, I decided to write about Gordon Brown's "bad citizens" for the politics column of the Spectator. Under the magazine's new online rules, this is only available a week after publication. But now you can read the filth and the fury in all its sordid glory.  I have since been approached by one of the players named in the piece to say that I had misinterpreted his concern for my welfare as threatening behaviour.  This, I would suggest, is the whole problem.