Following the success of the ‘I’ve never voted Tory’ spoofs, Tim Montgomerie has launched My Labour Poster and welcomes your contributions. I imagine it’ll receive po-faced censure from CCHQ, but Cameron&Co will be privately thrilled if activists get it up and running.
The media are obsessed with a Tory crisis. And why not? It’s a good story. The Telegraph is cheerleading the circus. It gave exhaustive coverage to the absurd hen-fight in Westminster North; on Monday it reported on more ‘rumblings and grumblings’ in the shires; yesterday, their subject was David Cameron’s heavy handed response to the ‘backwoodsmen’; and today Simon Heffer collates these events into the conclusion that ‘even if Mr Cameron doesn’t see how disenchanted the public is by its lack of lack of choice and his lack of definition, many of his MPs do. The ride is about to get rocky.’ By accident or design, the Telegraph’s analysis is
There is only one way the Tories can lose the election and that is if it becomes a referendum on them rather than a choice between them and the government. We are in such an anti-politics moment that the electorate is unlikely to give a positive endorsement to any politician or political party. This—not the poor choice of photo—was the real problem with the Tories’ opening ad of the year: it invited voters to judge Cameron in isolation. Cameron is the biggest asset the Tories have but he is their biggest asset when contrasted with Gordon Brown. This is why I think Daniel Finkelstein is wrong to argue that the
James Purnell envisages a society of ‘empowered’ voters left to make decisions for themselves. It is an attractive concept – individual responsibility displacing state directives will save money and, providing those running the institutions are competent, improve public services. Writing in the Times, Purnell acknowledges that these concepts can become lost in the abstract terms in which they are expressed. What a pity he didn’t take his own advice – his article is an extended abstract noun. Not that it’s all bad. What power is there for parents who can’t afford to move close to a good school, he asks. His answer is broadly similar in tone and substance to
The City had hoped that Britain would export its way out of trouble. Dream on City Boys: Britain’s trade deficit is £7.3bn. It is perverse that the Thatcher government is blamed for manufacturing’s decline. Certainly, deficits were a feature of the Thatcher years but Labour came to power with a £1.8bn trade surplus and the gap has widened every year thereafter; Britain was £56bn in the red by 2006. With a possible inflation crisis louring in the distance, precipitated in part by weak sterling and a dependency on imports, British manufacturing needs to be stimulated. John Redwood has a typically incisive post: ‘It is quite possible to make things
The headline might almost be word association, but when it comes to Twitter the devil makes work for idle thumbs. Guido points out that tweets cannot be edited once posted. Labour whip David Wright has previous with labelling the Tories ‘scum’, and he maintains that on each occasion he has fallen victim to a would be Lisbeth Salander, who uses their genius to post inane political slurs in no more than 147 characters. Either that or he’s artless at deceit. CCHQ scent blood and Eric Pickles is gunning for Wright’s head. He has written a letter arguing that Wright has breached the ministerial code. I can see this row
I couldn’t let today pass without a response to Danny Finkelstein. We do agree on the ends, but not the means. And, as he says, this debate mirrors one about the methods of reform. So, let¹s go through his points. 1. ‘I am afraid I think Fraser overestimates (a lot) how politically difficult this is all going to be. And how personally painful for a lot of people. And how technically difficult.’ Painful, yes, but necessary and it will be resented if Cameron is not straight about the cuts he will have to make. But how painful? Gordon Brown¹s great intellectual victory is to persuade the Tories that ‘cuts’
Listening to George Osborne on Today (and stripping away the visceral prejudice I always feel at his sneering patrician tone) I have to recognise that he was saying something very interesting. The idea of throwing open the public sector to worker-control is very, very intriguing. Co-operatives are the future of Britain: this is not something I ever thought I would hear from the mouth of a Conservative politician. I don’t know if George Osborne has any experience of living or working in a co-op (it strikes me he is not the type). They can be a mixed bag, but the principle is great one. I have long thought Gordon Brown
It’s not hard to see why the Prime Minister opted for a soft interview with Piers Morgan as his latest attempt to relaunch himself with the British public. Forget that he said he wasn’t the kind of politician who used his family as political props (always a daft thing for someone in public life to say). The Life Stories show is perfect format for the purposes of the celebrity-politician, designed to reveal only that which the guest carefully intends to share with the public. It is anti-journalism. All the pre-briefing and carefully-managed reaction was designed to leave all control in the hands of the invitee. This is particularly true of
Brown is very lucky to have a friend in Piers Morgan. He did him a great service in the ITV interview tonight – and while it would have made CoffeeHousers nauseous (if they watched it), it will be the best television the PM will get this year and probably ever. Mark my words: the Labour Party will not produce anything that shows Brown in such a sympathetic light. It was powerful, I’d say, because it was not party political propaganda: Morgan genuinely likes Brown and did his utmost to project the human side of him. Those hours of coaching from Alastair Campbell paid off. He kept smiling in a credible
If there was a story in the Sunday papers of a split between David Cameron and the two most senior figures in the shadow Cabinet over economic strategy it would be the talk of the town. But because it is about Brown and Balls versus Darling and Mandelson it is on the inside pages; it is as if the split over economic policy between these four men is priced into Labour’s standing. Patrick Hennessy reports that Brown and Balls would like to use the Budget as a pre-election springboard, announcing larger than scheduled increases in public spending and challenging the Tories to match them. Such a move would be economically
There must be something about stepping back onto Scottish soil that invigorates Alistair Darling, because his Edinburgh speech is one of the most political and confrontational he has delivered for some time. Sure, Darling is a Labour man, so it’s part of his job to oppose the Tories. But, compared to his Cabinet colleagues, he’s normally so restrained about it. Here, though, the gloves are well and truly off. The Chancellor calls Cameron a “real risk to Scotland’s future,” and throws in a dash of Thatcher-baiting (“The Tories … are as out of touch now as they were 30 years ago”). But, really, there are two passages worth dwelling on,
Hat-tip: Tim Montgomerie P.S. You can read selections from the interview transcript here.
Not the most arresting headline I grant you, but bear with me. Geoff Hoon’s political corpse is still warm (well, lukewarm as it’s Hoon), but the search for his successor is underway. The indefatigable Paul Waugh has the runners and riders: John Knight (the leader of Ashfield District Council), James Connell (Hoon’s former SpAd) and Michael Dugher (another former Hoon SpAd who is now Brown’s Chief Political Spokesman). Mischievously, Waugh asks: ‘Will Labour insist on all-women shortlist? And if not, why not?’ Why not indeed? Perhaps Joanne Cash could complete her volte face and stand for Labour. What strikes me most about Waugh’s list is that all of the candidates
Peter Mandelson gave the Dearing memorial lecture last night and in a section responding to the criticisms of the budget cuts for higher education said: “Much of the rest of the public sector will receive similar constraints in the course of this year or soon after.” Mandleson has implied this before, most notably on Newsnight the day of the Hoon Hewitt plot. But it is a very different from the message Brown is putting out. We in the press should demand details from Mandelson about what these cuts in financial year 2010-11 might be with the same intensity that we did when the Tories said they would make in
Gordon Brown is a creature of habit. Every morning at 7:30 he holds a telephone conference with his cabal of Shakespearean fools, who review the papers for him. I imagine a scene of domesticity, of coffee and muffins, an adoring wife and child milling about offering tactile affection – a hand on the shoulder, a kiss on the head. But then again Brown is a latter day John Knox and this morning he must have sat in pale fury as an aide summarised the extract from Lance Price’s latest book, published in the Independent. Price, Andrew Rawnsley and Peter Watt share the same lexicon. ‘Unforgivable’, ‘not a nice place for
I must admit to rather liking the Tory death tax ads. They are the kind of hardball aggressive politics that the Tories need to master if they are going to win this election. Are they dishonest? Well, I think in the grand political scheme of things they qualify as fair: Brown won’t rule this out and it is definitely an option Labour is considering so it is fair game. If this attack is out of bounds, then so is most of the dossier Labour produced on Tory spending plans at the beginning of the year. The other thing that really infuriates me about this whole debate is the idea that
Good spot by the FT’s Jim Pickard, who has picked up on these informal minutes from the last meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee. He’s aleady rooted out some of the juiciest sections (including stuff about voting reform and the election date), so I’d suggest you head over to the FT Westminster blog for that. But this deliciously sinister reference to the Hoon and Hewitt plot deserves repeating: “Two weeks earlier, members of the organisation committee had forcefully expressed grassroots anger at continuing outbreaks of indiscipline at senior levels and agreed that all members should be equally subject to party rules, but the NEC ended up adopting Dennis Skinner’s advice
This death tax levy is gutter politics at its most visceral and it’s thrilling drama. Brown’s and Cameron’s loathing for each other is pure soap opera, and they’re having a right old slanging match. I agree with Pete, it is dispiriting to see the Tories stoop to misrepresenting policies, the show-stopper in Brown’s repertoire. Together with Cameron’s personal attacks, the Tories have surrendered the high ground, but as Iain Martin notes is anyone really surprised? The Tories have been expecting, righty, Labour to fight a grubby election campaign and have decided to fight Brown’s mob with fire. Personal attacks appeal largely to those whose minds are settled, so I see
Yesterday’s Guardian story about a potential death tax would have been perfect material for Cameron in PMQs. Even after Andy Burnham’s denials, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about it. For instance, would the government say that they will never propose the tax? And, if not, how will they pay for their social care guarantees otherwise? Fired across the dispatch box, these enquiries could have put Brown on the back foot. But now that the Tories have jumped the gun, and released that poster attacking a Labour policy which isn’t actually a Labour policy, they’ve rather limited that line of questioning. If the death tax comes up, all
