Labour party

Cutting it with the Fink

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' can only mean frontline services cut ­ so (as Brown once said) 10% cuts 'mean schools close and hospitals close.

Does George Osborne finally have a big idea?

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.

Now Gordon Brown has to live with himself

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 the moment of supposed loss of control - "the weep". The whole package is demeaning to everyone concerned.

The best publicity Brown is ever likely to get

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 way - telling anecdotes in exactly the way that he does, in private, when he's trying to charm people.

It is Brown and Balls versus Darling and Mandelson again

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.

Darling enters election mode

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, for what they might tell us about Labour's election campaign.

The hunt for Hoon’s successor

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 are ‘career politicians’.

Mandelson: Public sector will face cuts this year

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 year cuts if elected. Who knows Mandelson's plans might be more ambitious than the £1.5 billion that the Tories have been able to find.

Lance Price: Brown became PM when his skills were declining

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 people to work’, ‘psychologically flawed?

The death tax ads are the sort of hardball politics the Tories should play

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 the responsible thing to have done would have been for the three main parties to hammer out some compromise deal and then just present it to the public.

The Tories’ dirty tactics are dispiriting but effective

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 little electoral advantage in delivering them.

Has that Tory poster made Brown’s job easier in PMQs?

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 Brown need do is point to the poster and cry foul play. He can even throw in a few words like   "misleading," for good measure.

Cameron attacks tax-happy Brown

A strident interview from David Cameron in today's Express, in which he touches on everything from inheritance tax to not, never, ever joining the Euro. It's this passage that jumped out at me, though: “Middle Britain has had a wretched time under Labour. This Government has taxed mortgages, marriages, pensions, petrol and travel and raised national insurance and the top rate of income tax. We cannot keep squeezing hard-working families." Why so noteworthy? Well, off the top of my head, this is the first time that Cameron has referred to the current system as a "tax on marriage".

The problem with that David Cameron ad

Labour’s new ad with David Cameron facing both ways highlights what was wrong with the Tories’ opening ad of the year, that one dominated by Cameron’s face. The Tory strategy for the election campaign has to be to try and make it into a referendum on this failed government. But that ad, which emphasised Cameron so strongly, gave Labour an opening to try and turn the election not just into a choice between two parties but into a referendum on David Cameron and Tory policy. Labour’s success in doing this is largely responsible for the Tory wobble. The contrast between Cameron and Brown does work to the Tories’ advantage. But it works because it is a contrast.

Blair on Chilcot…

...well, sorta.  5:25 into his interview with Mike Huckabee, our former PM gives his take on the constant stream of Iraq inquiries: You can certainly see his point. Although I doubt the government will be too impressed with Blair trawling through all the Iraq stuff on American television, only weeks before he hits the campaign trail for Labour.

The Dividing Lines Obsession

This is one of those things that I don't quite understand. Gordon Brown is obsessed with dividing lines and this is supposed to be upsetting us? Sure, this need to draw a contrast (often a false one, but never mind) between his Virtuous Labour party and the Callous Toffs & Cads at Tory head office is frequently petty, prickly and pointless. But what of it? Pete's the latest Spectator gentleman to complain about the Dividing Lines Obsession: So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British politics.  "Caring" versus "cruel", as far as the eye can see.

How should the Tories respond to those Labour guarantees?

If you're going to take anything away from Andy Burnham's press conference this morning – apart from his denials about a £20,000 "death duty" – it's how heavily those Labour "guarantees" are going to feature in the election campaign.  Here we had social care guarantees, cancer treatment guarantees, waiting line guarantees, and even a new website and poster (see above) attacking the Tories for not signing up to the same guarantees.  So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British politics.  "Caring" versus "cruel", as far as the eye can see.