Labour party

Brown’s delivery may have been beyond sepulchral, but the content was encouraging. He laid out how Afghan stability is being bolstered by the increased activity and competence of Afghan security forces, the replacement of the heroin crop with wheat, an intensification of government in rural hinterlands and by arresting urban corruption. At least there now seems to be a degree of co-ordination between coalition and Afghan security operations, civic reconstruction and the administration of government. These are welcome changes but there is still no overarching sense of what the ‘Afghan mission’ hopes to achieve, beyond the dubious contention that it will make the West safer. As a result, a number

Most of Fleet Street might have abandoned Gordon Brown but judging by today’s editorial the FT, along with the Mirror, will be with Brown to the end. In its editorial today it praises Brown’s “prudent suggestions” for the G20 meeting. It goes onto say that “the G20’s aim should be to provide political cover so that governments – including the UK’s – have the room to continue running large deficits, if sustainable growth should prove to be further away than hoped.” Then, bizarrely, it goes onto say that the “prime minister faces both ways on bankers’ bonuses” as if this is a good thing. In a way, it is unsurprising

Alistair Darling has long suggested that the original dividing line between the Tories and Labour concerned Labour spending, which will stimulate growth, versus Tory inaction. And last week, Darling was quoted in the Mail on Sunday setting out a new dividing line between the parties by framing the “debate in terms of our cuts being better than their cuts”. It is a stance that presupposes Britain is returning to growth thanks to the government’s strategy. And that is the message of an opinion piece, titled ‘The cure is working’, penned by Darling in this morning’s Guardian. Here’s the key section: ‘The Tories have opposed our measures every inch of the

Mike Smithson has an interesting post with how the fallout from the al-Megrahi affair is damaging Labour. He writes: ‘Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point. What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out – why not get in with their explanation first?’ He’s right that Labour have made an enormous tactical blunder by not coming clean over this piece

It’s been terrible a morning for Gordon Brown in the editorials and on the front pages. And David Cameron, scenting blood, has condemned Gordon Brown’s leadership over the al-Megrahi affair. These pieces share the same basic analysis: Brown’s calculated caution is the cause of his problems. John Rentoul, admittedly no fan of the PM, writes in today’s Independent: ‘This has everything to do with a pattern of behaviour, an inbuilt caution that served Brown well enough on the road to No 10, but which is disastrous in anyone actually holding the top job.’ Brown’s leadership style has been unremittingly disastrous because it is not leadership; it is the political equivalent