Labour party

A conference that changed nothing

The red flag has been sung and the delegates are heading home. But no one I’ve spoken to believes that this conference has really changed anything. Labour is still heading for defeat at the next election.   Perhaps, the biggest thing to come out of this conference is that Labour’s relations with the media are rapidly heading back to where they were in the days of Neil Kinnock. The party is in a rage at both the BBC and Sky News and seems intent on picking a fight with News International. If Labour does carry on running against the media, the only winner will be the Tories. Labour is also falling into that other delusion that parties that are heading for defeat do: believing that no one would vote for the other lot if they knew what they were really like.

Memo to Labour: the Press is Always Revolting

The press really is beastly, isn't it? According to Jonathan Freedland, The media's conviction that Labour, and Gordon Brown in particular, are doomed has grown so intense that it has turned into a kind of sneering disdain for the government, casting aside all conventions of respect for those holding elected office... You don't have to yearn for a return to the days of dinner-jacketed deference on the BBC, or want an end to robust questioning, to feel uncomfortable at all this playground bullying of a man deemed weak. Like it or not, Brown does lead the democratically-elected government of this country. True, he does not have a personal mandate. But the office of prime minister deserves a modicum of basic respect.

Is Miliband the elder up to the job afterall?

If there was an award for most improved conference speaker it would go to David Miliband. Last year his lacklustre effort helped put an end to his putative leadership challenge. This year he showed delegates why he might be up to the job of being Labour leader after the next election. He has dropped his voice making him sound more serious and cut out the gurning. His comments about military force which sounded so absurd last year carried more weight this time round. However, he’s far from presentationally perfect. He still managed to get ahead of his autocue and hit the microphone with his hand when trying to emphasise a point. But in the leadership stakes the bar was doing better than Ed Balls did yesterday and Miliband sailed over it.

Brown claims it’s 1945 all over again

So we've heard before that Brown is "obsessed" with Winston Churchill and, in his mind, wants to avoid the wartime leader's fate as a Prime Minister who guided Britian through a crisis only to be answered with a thumping in the polls. In which case, it's rather odd that Brown should write this in the campaign document that he's releasing today:   "This is the stark choice facing the British people at the next election. The choice will be as stark as 1945." So who's Brown meant to be?  Churchill or Attlee?  Or some alternate universe Churchill who won the 1945 election?

Burnham blocks reform

More evidence today that the TUC is dictating government policy on public services. Nick Timmins in the FT notes that Andy Burnham’s new guidance to health authorities requires them to treat NHS organisations as the “preferred providers” of care, reversing the Blair/Milburn reforms which opened up health care to private suppliers. By insisting that NHS providers have ‘at least two chances to improve’ before failing services are put out to tender, and that NHS staff should have the opportunity to bid not just once but twice for any new service contracts, Burnham is effectively excluding private providers from the process. It’s no surprise that Unison welcomes the move as a ‘significant policy shift.’ No word yet from Andrew Lansley.

Will Labour go to war with The Sun?

Tony Woodley of the Unite union just received a huge cheer for coming to the podium and ripping up a copy of The Sun while laying into ‘Australian Americans’ who come to this country and try and tell us how to do politics here. There’s no doubt that the feeling here in Brighton is that Labour should hit back at The Sun. Harriet Harman laid into the paper this morning and Peter Mandelson called The Sun ‘losers’ at a fringe event. (However, Labour is denying that its responsible for the Google ads that appeared today saying, "You can't trust The Sun. Wrong on Hillsborough, Wrong on Labour".) But the more Labour pick a fight with The Sun, the more hostile the paper is going to be to it.

When does a joke become a smear?

Paul Waugh highlights a passage from Harriet Harman's speech today: "Contrasting Labour's record on equalities and feminism with that of the Tories, she said that David Cameron would extend foxhunting rights to everyone, while George Osborne would replace a SureStart in every community with 'a lapdancing club in every community'." Now, Paul reports that Harman's people are saying the "lapdancing" bit is merely a "jokey reference to lapdancing club tickets distributed during last year's Tory conference in Birmingham".  But it seems to me that this is a particularly contrived and even nasty attempt to sully an opponent's name.  I expect the Tories can expect more of this dubious treatment as Brown's government fight for their political survival.

On this morning’s evidence, Brown’s fightback is already over

If you still haven't made up your mind about whether Brown's speech yesterday will do anything for Labour's chances, then just dash through his interviews with the broadcast media.  Two topics stand out – the Sun's decision to back the Tories, and whether Brown will get involved in a televised debate – and there's little substantive discussion of the agenda that Brown set out in his speech yesterday. Now, you could, like Alastair Campbell, say that this is because the media is hell-bent on portraying Brown in a negative light.  But I'd argue that, aside from some crowd-pleasing passages for the Labour faithful, his speech yesterday was remarkably thin.  Any boost it may have provided is already deflating – and rapidly.

Did you know? Gordon Brown’s been talking about strong global regulation for years

Well, that’s what he claims anyway. Brown’s extended interview on the Today programme was an exercise in deflecting blame (and the Sun coming out for Cameron) – ‘none of this would have happened if people had listened to me because, you see, I saw it all coming’ was his refrain. This exchange with Jim Naughtie was particularly telling: “JN: Let me take you back to ‘markets without morality’, which was in your speech and you’ve repeated it now. When did you decide that bankers were being greedy and excessive in their demands? GB: Well Jim, you know, I’ve always been of the view that we needed a better global financial supervisory system.

Brown’s watch words to defeat

Comment Central’s Alice Fishburn has collated Brown’s buzzwords. It’s revealing that derivatives of ‘choice’ and ‘change’ were used 38 times, whereas the words ‘honest’ and ‘responsibility’ were uttered twice and four times respectively. Given that the public have turned against the government’s running of the economy, Brown was unwise to concentrate on Tory-bashing rather than attempt to emphasise his honesty and sense of responsibility, but perhaps he’s given up on that front. Initially, his Goethe-inspired avowal to dream big and change the world again had me grasping for the gin; but this speech was for the hall first and the voters second, which isn't enough to avoid defeat.

Good enough for Labour

For Brown this was a doddle. He couldn’t fluff it. Expectations have sunk so low that all he had to do today was show up, try not to look too knackered, spout a few revivalist platitudes and make sure he didn’t fall over. The rebellion has stalled, the plotters are paralysed. Those who criticise won’t lead, while those who would lead won’t criticise. Mandy, like a protection racketeer within the cabinet, has enriched himself in the currency of ‘loyalty’ (which in these circumstances means a reluctance to coerce others to be disloyal), and yesterday he couldn’t contain his delight at the scale of his new-found wealth. And so Mr Brown, Mandy’s proudest protégé, appeared at 2 pm today on the Brighton seafront.

What was in Brown’s speech for those turning away from Labour?

Much like Peter Mandelson's address yesterday, Gordon Brown's speech was designed for the Labour Party members inside the conference hall.  It was effectively book-ended by two crowd-pleasing rat-a-tat lists: the first, a rundown of Labour "achievements" which received massive cheers; and the second, a disingenuous account of Tory measures "for the privileged few", designed to draw hisses and boos from the audience.  All very pantomine.  And all very fun, I'm sure, for the party faithful. But what about those voters who are turning away from Labour in their droves?  What was there for them?

Brown’s speech: live blog | 29 September 2009

1404, PH: We'll be live-blogging Brown's conference speech from 1415 onwards.  In the meantime, CoffeeHousers, your thoughts on how our PM will kick things off.  Last year, of course, he got Sarah Brown to introduce him.  Will he repeat the trick this year?  Or will he get someone else?  Mandelson, perhaps?  Or someone off X-Factor?  Or will it be nothing flash, just Gordon?  Your predictions, please... 1405, PH: Brother Massie is also live-blogging the speech here. 1410, PH: Oh, and you can watch the speech here. 1416, PH: So what will Brown actually say?  Well, his announcements on anti-social behaviour and childcare have been heavily trailed.

Whatever you do in Brighton, don’t mention journalists

Labour activists don’t have much in common with Republican activists but they seem to agree on one thing: the media are loathsome. The hostility towards journalists from the delegates this week reminds me of being at Republican gatherings in 2008. When someone stood up at a fringe meeting yesterday and introduced themselves by saying ‘I am not a journalist’ they received a spontaneous and sustained round of applause. There is a perception that the media are biased and beneath contempt. Undoubtedly this is due in part to Andrew Marr’s inappropriate question to Brown on Sunday morning. But there is something deeper at work, a belief that the press are preventing the party from getting its message out.

Brown’s uncertainty over a TV debate exemplifies his moribund premiership

So what's the story with Brown and the leaders' TV debate?  There were reports, weeks ago, that the PM was going to use his speech today to, ahem, "challenge" his opposite numbers to a debate, but then Sky intervened and Downing Street fell silent.  Last we heard, Brown was veering towards a debate, but was still uncertain about the timing of it all. Now, this morning's FT reports that Brown "spent hours on Monday night agonising" over whether to mention a televised debate in his speech today.  Nick Robinson has followed that up by saying that the relevant passage has been removed from the speech.  If Brown does finally accept a debate, Robinson writes, then he may attach a set of demands which will slow the whole process down.

Gordon & The Last Chance Speech

Fraser says that the Labour conference in Brighton is like an Irish wake: People are happy to see each other, but sad at the circumstances of the gathering. Shouldn't that be the other way round? At least you know what you're supposed to feel at a funeral; there's none of the bittersweet sensation that can accompany a wedding, nor any nagging suspicion that the party has gathered to celebrate a terrible mistake. So, Gordon Brown has it all to do. It is, once again, the Most Important Speech of His Political Life. As Iain Martin points out, We've Been Here Before: We are told that Brown must demonstrate his party is really back in the fight with the Tories. To pull this off he must make the speech of his life, apparently. Last year he was set a similar challenge.

Brown is either fleet-footed or indecisive – he cannot be both

Gordon Brown delivers the most important speech of his life this afternoon. Whether that speech can even check the march of the seemingly inevitable is doubtful, but his best chance is to express an alternative strain of personality from the severe and serious man the electorate plainly dislike. Jim Naughtie and Neil Kinnock debated the alleged disparity between Gordon Brown in public and Gordon Brown in private. Kinnock repeated the line that, behind closed doors, Brown is a barrel of laughs, a near dilettante, and he sang the usual ‘if you could see him through my eyes’ chorus.