Labour party

Monday

David Blackburn

Me? Sleight of hand?

Two weeks ago, Barry Sheerman opened a second front against Brown’s premiership by attacking Ed Balls’ appointment of Kathleen Tattersall to Ofqual without a pre-hearing before the Schools select committee. Brown had introduced a requirement that recommended appointments to offices that reported to Parliament be scrutinised by legislators prior to confirmation of their appointment. Sheerman, with characteristic venom, referred to a “sleight of hand”. This afternoon, Balls defended himself and his permanent secretary, arguing that the committee did not object to the appointment when it was made in July 2008, and any rate the pre-hearing was not operational then. I don’t know whose memory is accurate. If Balls is correct

Peter Hoskin

A matter of trust

Oh dear.  Seems like Labour supporters don’t have too much faith in their party of choice.  A new poll for PoliticsHome finds that only 47 percent of “natural Labour supporters” believe that their party is either “fairly likely” or “very likely” to fulfill its manifesto pledges.  That’s against 77 percent and 75 percent for Tory and Lib Dem supporters, respectively. Of course, you’d probably expect this kind of result for a party which, thanks to 13 years of government, has had plenty of opportunity not to deliver on its promises.  But it still demonstrates just how difficult Brown will find it to convince the public about his “guarantees“.

Alex Massie

Today Wales! Tomorrow Scotland?

Iain Dale says he has absolutely no idea why the Scottish Tories have failed to make as much headway as their Welsh counterparts. A new opinion poll puts the Conservatives on 32% on Wales, only 3% behind Labour, and a massive 11% up on the last general election. However, in Scotland, the Conservative ratings are only marginally up on 2005, Why is this? Why are Welsh Conservatives so much more successful than their counterparts north of Hadrian’s Wall? We’ve ridden these marches here before, but another trip can’t do any harm. The first and most obvious answer is that the SNP is a much stronger beast than Plaid Cymri for

Mark Bathgate

Three steps to cleaning up our toxic banks

Fraser outlined the problem with the British banks in his earlier post, but I’d like to suggest a three-step solution.   1. To deal with the problem, you have to admit to the problem. This is the First Step for Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step plan but holds true for politics. Say it out loud: the banking system is still broken. It needs fixed, and the process won’t be pretty. There will always be a political temptation to turn a blind eye, as there was in Japan during its ‘lost decade’. 2. Use an objective and credible third party to analyse the ability of banks to withstand losses, and to go

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Labour’s policy is a hostage to their internal struggles

So Gordon is selling himself as a champion of the middle classes.  There is, as various commentators have pointed out, more than a little bit of hyposcrisy about that.  But the thing that strikes me most about our PM’s change of tack is how similar it is to Darling’s honesty over cuts last weekend.   Like Darling’s admission, it represents some sort of progress for Labour: on paper, the politics of aspiration should play better – and have wider appeal – than the crude class war that they’ve engaged in recently.  But, also like Darling’s admission, it highlights just how inconsistent the government have been over the last few months. 

Peter Hoskin

The insiders bite back

Another weekend, another set of embarrassing revelations for Gordon Brown.  The Mail on Sunday continues its serialisation of Peter Watt’s Inside Out; this time focusing on what Watt wryly describes as Labour’s “plans … for swapping the most electorally successful Labour Prime Minister in our history for Gordon Brown.”   Ok, so the Blairite-Brownite wars are nothing new, but this alleged Brown quote, made at the time of the cash-for-honours scandal, deserves adding to the notebook: “Later, rumours swirled in No10 of a furious bust-up between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. ‘I’ll bring you down with sleaze,’ the Chancellor was said to have yelled.” Although, to my mind, this

Saturday

David Blackburn

Gentlemen interrupt their lunch for no one

Why did it take Peter Mandelson so long to support Brown on the afternoon of the snow plot? Well, his lordship was taking luncheon. His interview with the Telegraph contains the disclosure: ‘As the scheming by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt unfolded, the Business Secretary ate haddock with an old friend. “We had a good talk which did not focus on events back at Westminster. When I got back, I put out a statement suggesting that it was a very minor storm in an even smaller teacup. I called it right. By teatime it had become a two-hour wonder.”’ Mandelson must eat at a Gladstonean pace. The Business Secretary is

David Blackburn

Will faith prove Cruddas’ undoing?

What intrigues me most about the Cruddas/Purnell axis is their commitment to faith in public life. Many politicians discuss faith carefully and define its role in society as essentially passive – remember David Cameron’s recent interview with the Evening Standard. Cruddas and Purnell envisage faith and the civic mutualism it engenders as an active ingredient to renew both party and country. Writing in the Guardian earlier this week, Purnell wrote: ‘The Labour movement was built upon organisation, the practices of reciprocity and mutuality that, if successful, led to a shared responsibility for one another’s fate… There are deep conservative elements in the Labour tradition, and we should honour them –

Friday

James Forsyth

The government caves in to the Muslim Council of Britain

The government has caved in its dispute with the Muslim Council of Britain. The government broke off relations with the group over its deputy director-general Daud Abdullah signing the Istanbul Declaration. Indeed, Daud Abdullah even instigated legal action against the then Communities Secretary Hazel Blears over her statements about what the declaration called for. But now Stephen Pollard is reporting that the government is bringing the MCB back in. A DCLG spokesperson tells Pollard that an MCB commitment to examine “their internal processes and ensure that the personal actions of all members, including senior leaders, remain true to the organisation’s agreed policies, avoiding a repeat of the issues which arose

David Blackburn

Burnham’s exocet misfires

The sword of truth is working overtime this afternoon. First, Andy Burnham writes a letter to David Cameron demanding answers about a £21,000 donation from John Nash, chairman of CareUK, to the office of, oh dear, Andrew Lansley. As Paul Waugh notes, a conflict of interest scandal looms here because CareUK is a private firm that makes £400m running GP surgeries and so forth for the NHS. But the truth will out as they say. It turns out that the Chairman of BUPA, Lord Leitch, wasted £5,000 on Gordon Brown’s unopposed leadership campaign. BUPA also does rather well out of the NHS. The indefatigable Waugh has dug up this gem from a

Alex Massie

A Pizza Strategy for Labour?

Hopi Sen argues that Gordon Brown needs to run a Harry Truman-like campaign. That’s probably right. But Labour’s problem is that Brown is in a position that’s more like the Truman of 1951 than the surprisingly victorious Truman of 1948. The economy has done to Gordon waht the Korean War did to the great haberdasher and, like Truman, Brown’s approval ratings have plummeted. (At one point Truman’s slumped to 22%). Eventually, of course, defeat in the New Hampshire primary helped persuade Truman not to run at all and it was Adlai Stevenson who was defeated by Eisenhower. It’s too late – surely! – for Labour to persuade Brown to step

Thursday

James Forsyth

Labour’s coming man?

The Labour leadership drama now looks like it will take place in opposition not government. This will have an effect on the kind of leader Labour elects. If one of the coups against Brown had been successful, Labour would have almost certainly selected someone who could be presented as a credible Prime Minister from day one: a David Miliband, an Alan Johnson or – if they had gone for the caretaker option – Jack Straw. But in opposition, the Labour’s electorate is likely to feel that it can pick someone who will grow into being a credible PM in opposition. At the moment, there are two people who everyone assumes

James Forsyth

Labour rebels muster to oppose reform of universal jurisdiction

Martin Bright and the Jewish Chronicle have the scoop that Labour will change the laws so that the power to issue arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction will pass from magistrates to the attorney general. What this means is that foreign politicians will not be arrested in this country for human rights abuses or war crimes without the say-so of the attorney general. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the situation where the Kadima leader and former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni could not visit the UK because of an arrest warrant issued by a magistrate. As I blogged yesterday, there is a Labour revolt brewing over this issue.

Martin Bright

Labour’s Revolting Over Israel

As the Labour Party descends further into student union gesture politics, it is perhaps appropriate that the last backbench rebellion before the election is set to be over Israel and the Palestinians. As James has pointed out on Coffee House, disgruntled Labour MPs are preparing for battle over the issue of universal jurisdiction, which blew up when an arrest warrant was issued for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni. Not to be outdone, the Jewish Chronicle will be splashing on the story tomorrow and has already put the story up on its website. I had it on very good authority that the government will announce the law change next week. 

Peter Hoskin

Labour put “guarantees” at the heart of their campaign

Does Gordon Brown look like the kind of guy who can keep a promise?  Because that’s the main question which stands in the way of Labour’s election strategy, if Andrew Grice’s revelations in the Indpendent are anything to go by.  According to Grice, Labour are going to repeat their trick from 1997, and focus on five or so pledges – what Downing St now calls “guarantees” – during their election campaign.  It’s not certain what they’ll be yet, but Grice reports that Labour MPs are being instructed to concentrate on the following policies in their constituencies: — Training or further education will be provided for all school-leavers and a job

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Is there a Labour revolt brewing over any changes to universal jurisdiction?

Following the issuing of an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the government committed to looking at changes to the way that ‘universal jurisdiction’ is applied. David Miliband said that, “The Government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed in order to avoid this sort of situation arising again.”   It is expected that the government will say what changes it intends to introduce next week. But judging by a debate on the Goldstone Report in Westminster Hall yesterday, there will be trouble from some Labour backbenchers over this. Five Labour MPs spoke out explicitly against any change and several more did so implicitly.  

Peter Hoskin

Getting around Gordon

Ok, ok, I get the message: you CoffeeHousers don’t much care for James Purnell.  But this exchange between him and Nick Robinson, to be aired on Radio 4 later, is still worth a read: “I asked James Purnell how you could get radical policies past a reluctant prime minister. Here’s his reply: James Purnell: The other thing that you could do is outflank and No 10, by trying to be more radical…you could just unilaterally go out and commission someone to review the system for you, and then the prime minister would be left with the choice of either firing you or pretending that they were into that idea all

Peter Hoskin

What a difference 13 years make

Hearing Cameron joke, in PMQs, that Labour would airbrush Gordon Brown out of their election campaign, I couldn’t help but think of Labour’s 1997 manifesto.  As you can see to the left, it proudly featured Tony Blair’s face (and not much else) on its cover.  So: what chances that Labour use Brown’s face on the front of this year’s manifesto?  And, more importantly, how long before someone makes a spoof version of the 1997 cover with an image of the current Labour leader?

Peter Hoskin

Memo to Brown: before boldness comes unity

Stop sniggering at the back.  I mean, all I asked was whether Gordon Brown can be bold and radical.  The way things are looking, he certainly needs to be – and, according to Philip Webster’s insightful account of yesterday’s three-hour Cabinet meeting, the PM has called on his colleagues to think up as many “eye-catching” proposals as possible for Labour’s manifesto.  One “senior source” says that the party “should have the most radical manifesto yet put to the electorate.” Which is, of course, much easier said than done – a fact highlighted by another passage in Webster’s report, which reveals: “Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last

David Blackburn

Cuts and strategic dividing lines are indivisible

Daniel Finkelstein suggests an alternative analysis to that which prevails about the cabinet split. Labour’s aristocrats are divided not over style or substance, but the timing and extent of spending cuts. Finkelstein locates his argument in Labour’s repetitive history of poor financial management. Every Labour government runs out money and becomes riven by the prospect of retrenchment, a policy that is instinctively anathema to the left. The current episode dissents from the model in one regard: ‘As Chancellor, Mr Brown spent money as if there would never be a bust — an absurd hypothesis. And now, as Prime Minister, he is blocking the measures necessary to put right this error.