Labour party

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.

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 way, but I make no apology.

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 of realpolitik.

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.

Despite a week of international codemnation, a YouGov poll shows that 42 per cent of Scottish voters still agree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release al-Megrahi, whereas 51 per cent oppose it. Channel Four’s Gary Gibbon notes that this undermines Labour’s arguments that the SNP’s decision is not backed by the Scottish working class, and that Labour will find the Glasgow North East by-election hard going. I’m not so sure. Clearly it’s going to be tight, but Labour will take heart from this poll, which also reveals voting intentions. The SNP is down 6 points to 33 per cent and Labour is up 5 to 33 per cent. It was expected that the al-Megrahi decision could end up doing the SNP more harm than good.

In The Times today, Danny Finkelstein defended the most hated profession in contemporary politics – the Special Advisers, or SpAds. Booo, hissss. The case against was (again) laid out by a number of former senior officials, with ex-Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull telling a Lords committee recently that he did not like  SpAds rising to become Cabinet ministers by the time they were 38 “without touching the sides of real life”. Booo. Hisssss. Boooo. But how many of the current Shadow Cabinet do you think have been SpAds in the past? Come on, what do you think? Half? A third? Out of the 28 members of the Shadow Cabinet, including David Cameron (who worked for Norman Lamont and Michael Howard) there are only four ex-SpAds. The others: Osborne, Clark and Willets.