Labour party

Who’s lobbying for Blair?

Isn't it funny how things change?  A few years ago, Brown could barely stand to talk to Blair.  But now, according to the Guardian, he's got civil servants lobbying on the former Prime Minister's behalf in Europe: "Gordon Brown has asked two of his most senior civil servants to lobby discreetly within Europe for Tony Blair to become its new president amid warnings from allies in government that the former prime minister will lose his chance unless he launches a dynamic campaign. John Cunliffe, the prime minister's most senior Europe adviser, and Kim Darroch, Britain's EU ambassador, are taking soundings at senior levels. David Miliband, meanwhile, has also intensified Britain's campaign for Blair to become the first president of the European council.

The Neather clarification

Plenty of CoffeeHousers are mentioning the Andrew Neather revelations in various comment sections.  If you haven't seen them yourself, the story is that Neather, a former government adviser, wrote a comment piece claiming that New Labour's immigration policy was "intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."  Many reports since have taken this as confirmation that Labour's policy was exclusively politically-motivated.    In which case, it's worth highlighting Neather's latest column for the Evening Standard, in which he claims his comments have been exaggerated and misinterpreted.

The EU prepares for a Conservative government

The wheels seem to have come off Tony Blair’s EU presidency campaign and no doubt there is much genuflection and soul-searching in Connaught Square. The Director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant, gives an intriguing explanation at Comment is Free: ‘Yet it may be the Conservatives who spike Blair's chances of getting the job. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has told the other EU governments that the Conservatives would see support for a Blair presidency as a "hostile act". A week ago, Blair was the clear favourite, with the likely support of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, plus several of the smaller countries. But on my travels around Europe last week, I have found that Hague's comments have made a huge impact.

The Tories now have a monopoly on the language of optimism

So how big a blow was the news that we're still in recession to Gordon Brown?  Well, compare and contrast his latest podcast on the Downing Street website with David Cameron's article in the Sunday Times.  Brown's effort is necessarily defensive.  Gone is the "we're leading the world" bombast of a few weeks ago, to be replaced with a crude "pledge" to get the economy growing again by 2010: "My pledge to you is to make reform of the financial sector a reality, and to see Britain's economy return to growth by the turn of the year." While Cameron's effort is considerably more agressive, and concentrates on outlining a "pro-growth, pro-enterprise agenda".

Still no room for complacency about the BNP

It's an odd one is today's ICM poll in the News of the World.  Most of it makes for sobering reading for the political class: it finds that two-thirds of voters think the mainstream parties have no "credible policies" on immigration, and that one-third agree with a core BNP policy on removing state benefits from ethnic minorities.  The Tories will be disappointed to see that only 20 percent of respondents think that their plan to cap immigrant numbers will work. But there are also some findings which support Alex's thesis that we shouldn't be unduly troubled by the levels of support for the BNP.  For instance - and despite all of the above - 26 percent say the Tories have the best policies on immigration, compared to 21 percent for Labour and 13 percent for the Lib Dems.

So where does this leave Brown?

Most people expected this morning's official GDP statistics to show that the economy has come out of recession.  But they didn't.  In fact, they had the economy shrinking by 0.4 percent in the third quarter of this year.  So the downturn continues – and it's the longest on record. We've always maintained on Coffee House that coming out of recession won't do much good for Brown.  But, obviously, staying stuck in one has far more dangerous implications for him (not to mention the country).  Obviously, the government won't be able to deploy the green shoots strategy now.  But with other major economies already out of recession, they'll struggle to deploy it in future.  You imagine the Tories will have a field day with this.

Euro Foreign Minister Miliband?

The Lisbon Treaty decrees that Europe must have a Foreign Minister. It is not clear exactly what the Secretary of State will do, but David Miliband is being widely tipped for the role. According to one diplomat quoted in the Times and the Guardian, Miliband has “good European credentials and a brilliant mind.” The minister made famous (rather unfairly) by banana-wielding and a penchant for Indian donkeys is undoubtedly pro-European: he is in favour of further integration and deeply opposed to Cameron’s euroscpetic Tories and their European allies: so he ticks all of Brussels’ boxes. But would he take the job? The Labour party’s Titantic predicament is now so advanced that the protagonists have given up reorganising the chairs on deck.

Inscrutable polls

And so the strangeness continues: the latest Ipsos MORI poll has the Tories leaping a hefty 7 points to 43 percent, while Labour climb 2 to 26 percent, and the Lib Dems fall 6 points to 19 percent.  It's most likely a correction from their last poll – which had the Lib Dems above Labour for the first time since the 1980s – but the Tories' 17-point lead is still at odds with some of the other polls we've seen recently.  I'm sure CCHQ will be pleased, but, as I said yesterday, it's worth waiting a few weeks until the polls settle before drawing judgement. UPDATE: Guardian/ICM also gives the Tories a 17-point lead.

Are we about to see a double-act?

It's Tuesday, so it's time to sift through Rachel Sylvester's column for juicy quotes.  In her latest, she saves the best for last: a Cabinet minister saying that "It’s up to the brotherhood now".  No, not that brotherhood – but the brothers Miliband, Ed and David.  The intimation being that they need to take over from Brown – and sharpish. There's been plenty of speculation about the Milibands recently, so this latest titbit shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.  But, to my mind, it's interesting how this minister packages Ed and David together – as the "brotherhood".  It has generally been assumed that one or the other wouldn't run for the leadership if the other one did.

When will they learn?

Why argue your case when you can smear your opponent's name? According to this morning's Telegraph, that's the approach that a group of MPs are taking over the Sir Thomas Legg letters. The plan they're apparently considering is to use parliamentary questions to find out details such as Legg's pay, his team's expenses and how much they've spent on media advice. One Tory MP tells the paper that there are "legitimate questions" about these things.  Hm. It's not only a pernicious strategy, it's also stupid.  Even if MPs manage to uncover some sort of hypocrisy on Legg's part, do they really think it will divert public anger away from them?  And do they not see that they could end up with egg on their faces if Legg comes out squeaky clean?

Those strange post-conference polls

So what's the deal with the opinion polls we've been seeing in the newspapers recently?  There was some hubbub in Tory circles yesterday over the fact that two weekend polls – YouGov for the Sunday Times and ComRes for the Indy on Sunday – had Labour either gaining ground on the Tories or a maintaining boosted level of support around the 30 percent mark.  What had happened to the 19 percent lead that the Tories enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of their conference?  Had the Labour conference really been more successful than the Tory one, despite all appearances?  I've heard these, and similar questions, doing the rounds over the past couple of days. I rather suspect that there's some volatility involved in all this.

A few honest men

Right, wrong, or somewhere in between?  I imagine that a few people who were fervently behind the Legg letters started having second thoughts when Frank Field announced his opposition to them over weekend.  After all, it's one thing when the usual, venal suspects start whining, but quite another when Field – one of the decent men* of Westminster – starts to murmur.  If you haven't read his blog post on the subject, then I'd suggest you do so here.   And it's also worth reading through Bruce Anderson's related article in the Independent today.

Current Tory health plans are backward-looking and reactionary

I have long been depressed about Tory health policy, or lack thereof. The News of the World today does a head-to-head about whether Andy Burnham or Andrew Lansley would be better to run the NHS – and I give my verdict.  The answer, I say, is neither of them. The patient should become the consumer, as is the case in the healthcare system of every developed country. But this would require taking on the NHS establishment, which no party is committed to doing. Or, rather, Alan Milburn was committed to – and had actually started to enact. But that reform agenda came under attack from the Brownites and Andrew Lansley. The Tory health policy, as it stands, defies understanding.

Brown the Reformer: er, good luck with that

Brace yourselves. According to the Guardian, Brown is about to sell himself as a Great Reformer: "Brown, the cabinet sources say, decided in the past few weeks to adopt a tougher pro-public sector reform stance, in order that his defence of the state in the face of recent attacks on big government by David Cameron does not become confused with complacency about the current performance of the public sector." Despite the sensibleness of the reform argument, I can't imagine that Brown will make much headway with this. For starters, he has that "Roadblock to Reform" label, and Labour's patchy record on public service reform, hovering over him like the proverbial albatross.

Harriet now more dangerous for Gordon

The once-daft (but now rather good) Labour List has a very interesting story about Harriet Harman. Apparently, she will tell Andrew Neil on this weekend's BBC Straight Talk that she won't stand for the leadership in any circumstances and has no leadership ambitions.  This is very bad news for Gordon Brown. This may seem like a strange thing to say, but in several conversations with Labour MPs and activists I have heard a version of the following: "We can't get rid of Gordon because Harriet would win the election to replace him."  With Harriet gone, the way is now clear for a genuine challenge.  The likelihood is that this won't happen.

Labour’s future 

Sky’s Jon Craig has the scoop that a rump of Blairite MPs and former ministers have formed a group called Labour Future. Headed by Charles Clarke and featuring Malcolm Wicks, Nick Raynsford, Denis Macshane, Parmjit Dhanda, Hugh Bayley, Meg Munn and crony-in-chief Charlie Falconer, this club's terms of membership are intense anti-Brown sentiment, and I wonder what the Foreign Secretary makes of this daring little coven? Craig’s informant has loftier ambitions: “It’s about setting out our agenda for the future and showing that Labour is not intellectually dead”. The underreported story of the summer was the suppression of Blairite thinking from Labour’s public discourse.

Brown’s strange position of strength

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: the email exchanges between Danny Finkelstein and Philip Collins over at Comment Central are one of neatest features in the political blogosphere - always worth a read.  They've got a new one up today, discussing how Brown should go about handling the Legg letters.  Does he force Labour MPs to cough up, and risk drawing their anger?  Or does he fold and allow them to fight Legg, to maintain some degree of their support?

Brown told to repay £12,415.10 of expenses

Here's the statement from the office of the PM, courtesy of Sky's Cheryl Smith: Mr Brown received a letter from Sir Thomas Legg this afternoon. Sir Thomas Legg has issued his provisional conclusions to MPs, asking for further information where necessary before concluding in December. Mr Brown has always supported this process and will cooperate fully and make the necessary repayment. Mr Brown's expenses have always been cleared by the House Authorities as entirely consistent with the rules. He has not claimed the maximum level of expenses. The Review says its findings "carry no implication about the conduct or motives of the MPs concerned".

Is this the death of another anti-Brown plot?

An eagle-eyed spot by Hopi Sen, who has posted on Barry Sheerman's comments in the Huddersfield Examiner today.  If you remember, Sheerman was mooted as a key component in an anti-Brown plot, whereby he'd stand as chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party on a Get Gordon Out platform. Votes for Sheerman, it was thought, would be votes against Brown - and increase the pressure on the PM to stand down.  But in the Huddersfield Examiner, Sheerman suggests that, while he will stand for the PLP position, he won't do so as part of a coup: "...Mr Sheerman denied this was part of a move to topple Gordon Brown. He said “If colleagues ask me to stand I will consider it.