Labour party

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Getting to grips with spending

From our UK edition

This news in today's FT makes you wonder whether we might see some kind of spending review in the next few months, after all: "A massive data collection exercise across many hundreds of public bodies has been ordered by the Treasury to determine expenditure on IT, human resources, finance and procurement, in a bid to wring better value for taxpayers out of the billions of pounds spent. ... All government departments, agencies and hundreds of other public bodies that employ more than 250 people are being asked to provide the data by the end of next month for publication ahead of the autumn pre-Budget report. In time, the data are to be collected each year and will cover the entire public sector.

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s misplaced hope

From our UK edition

In his insightful article on Brown and the forthcoming G20 summit, Francis Elliot writes a sentence which should terrify Labour supporters: "[Gordon Brown] has already decided that his only hope of a comeback in the polls lies with the economy." Sure, we all know that Team Brown has been putting a lot of hope in a green shoots strategy.  But, as we've pointed out on Coffee House before, there's little reason to believe that an economic recovery will deliver a significant boost for the Government.  If that's all that the PM has, then his situation is looking more hopeless than ever.

Alex Massie

Lockerbie: What Would Cameron Have Done Differently?

From our UK edition

In the comments to this post, Iain Dale suggests I'm completely wrong to think that a Conservative government led by David Cameron would have been just as keen as Labour to assuage Libyan concerns and, if necessary, suggest that, yes, it would be a good thing if Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi did nto die in a Scottish prison. Well, maybe he's right. My confidence in my own suspicions was, I confess, dented by Roy Hattersley's column in the Times this morning. Any time one finds oneself in the unaccustomed position of thinking that the old blusterer has a point, you know it's time to have another look at the evidence... The luxuries of opposition make it very easy for Cameron to claim to be whiter than whiter on all this. Prime Ministers, of whatever party, tend not to be quite so pure.

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The FT is still the Brown ‘un

From our UK edition

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.

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s fightback is hampered by the negative stories that hover over him

From our UK edition

So Brown has said more about the al-Megrahi case, although he hasn't said anything particularly new.  Speaking at an event to mark the government's new "Backing Young Britain" project, the PM claimed that, "There was no conspiracy, no cover up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances to Colonel Gaddafi".  Which is exactly the message we've heard from a string of ministers, and which has been thrown into doubt by all those published letters.  No word yet on whether Brown agreed or disagreed with Megrahi's release, when it finally came. All this exemplifies the problem that Labour have had for months now, and will continue to have for months to come.

Daniel Korski

Can Cameron learn from Wilson?

From our UK edition

Few Tories will enjoy looking back on 1974, but they may find it useful to study the second Wilson government and its successor, the Callaghan government, when it comes to the question of Europe.  Back then, we had a government coming to power in the midst of a severe economic climate, and which sought to change the pro-European course that its predecessor had set, including by re-negotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU and by appealing to fraternal parties in France and Britain. However, it ultimately ran into blades of domestic discontent and international indifference. The question is: could this end up being the story of a Conservative government from the middle of next year? Sure, there are key differences between then and now.

James Forsyth

The Sky debate could be a lifeline for Brown

From our UK edition

As the Megrahi case grows more serious by the day, one thing should be cheering up those in the Brown bunker: Sky’s plan to host a debate among the party leaders. Now, Brown might be the only party leader yet to have agreed to the debate but he is the one with the most to gain from it. If Brown is to have any hope of stopping David Cameron from winning the next election outright, he needs a game changing moment—and a debate might just produce one. The first televised leaders’ debate will be a hugely hyped event. One has to imagine that it would draw a huge TV audience and a ton of media coverage. It would provide the clunking fist with the perfect platform to land a blow on David Cameron.

Tuesday

Alex Massie

Lockerbie Letters: No Smoking Gun

From our UK edition

I know this won't satisfy anyone who desperately wants there to have been a shady, grubby conspiracy but a quick perusal of the correspondence on the Lockerbie Affair published by the Justice Department, the Scottish Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today gives no support to the notion that there was any such deal*.  The pattern is quite clear: the Scottish authorities weren't happy with a PTA being signed at all but if there was one they wanted the PTA to contain a provision specifically excluding Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from its terms. London agreed and tried to make a deal with Libya excluding Megrahi. Libya demurred and London relented, permitting Tripoli a "victory" for its own domestic audience.

David Blackburn

Cameron is the winner of the al-Megrahi scandal 

From our UK edition

It is clear that the al-Megrahi release has damaged Labour, not least because their collective refusal to condemn, or at least have an opinion on, the release of the Lockerbie bomber has confirmed that the government is totally out of touch with public opinion. On the other hand, David Cameron has played a blinder. In stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s Trappist monk act, Cameron has led this issue, voicing considered condemnations of Kenny MacAskill’s decision, the government’s reticence and the its supposedly ethical foreign policy. Cameron writes a piece in today’s Times branding the entire affair a ‘fiasco’ and a ‘failure of judgement by the Scottish government...the British government...and the Prime Minister’.

Monday

David Blackburn

Labour’s new dividing line is a gamble

From our UK edition

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.

Sunday

David Blackburn

Labour’s tactical blunder

From our UK edition

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.

Alex Massie

Lockerbie-for-Oil?

From our UK edition

Pete suggests there's little more to say about the Sunday Times story on the UK government's attitude towards the release of the Abdelbaset ali al-Megrahi. The suggestion given by the paper - and increasingly assumed to be true by everyone else - is that Megrahi was freed for fear that keeping him in prison in Scotland would jeopardise potentially £15bn worth of business for BP in Libya. The implication is that, like the war in Iraq, it's all about the oil. Well, we had to reach this point eventually, I guess. Nonetheless, though it's written by my old friend Jason Allardyce, there's a little less to the Sunday Times's story than first appears. That's because the letters the paper has obtained have nothing to do with the decision to actually release Megrahi.

Peter Hoskin

The Libya plot thickens

From our UK edition

So the Sunday Times has got its hands on letters which suggest the al-Megrahi release was tied up with a BP-Libya oil deal, and overseen by the Government with an eye on "the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom".  The ST article deserves quoting at some length: "Two letters dated five months apart show that [Jack] Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country. In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Friday

David Blackburn

No way to lead a nation

From our UK edition

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.

David Blackburn

Brown faces another backbench revolt  

From our UK edition

Despite protesting to the contrary, it turns out the government have been cutting all along. The Times reports that, buried in the small print of the budget, there is a commitment to abolish the £780 per year surplus housing benefit allowance, which encourages families to pay their rent and trade quality of accommodation for cash. These changes come into force on April 1, probably a month before the election. Labour backbenchers condemn the saving, worth £160 million per year, and plan to table amendments. Frank Field, who draws a comparison between this cut and the 10p rate revolt, tells the Times:  “At one stroke, they get rid of a reform aimed at getting flexibility into a fairly inflexible market by giving people incentives to shop around.

Thursday

David Blackburn

Delicately poised in Scotland

From our UK edition

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.

Peter Hoskin

Public scepticism about Labour’s record on education

From our UK edition

Isn't it funny how things work out?  I imagine the government once thought they'd get credit for the ever-improving GCSE and A-level pass rates, but now results day just rekindles the debate about slipping standards - and rightly so.  Ed Balls may have tried to divert attention on to the Tories this morning, but he can't really escape the verdict of this ComRes poll commissioned by Newsnight.  Here are the main results: 67 percent of respondents said Labour hasn't lived up to Tony Blair's "education, education, education" vow. 52 percent said Labour hasn't improved the overall quality of education.  41 percent said they have. 47 percent said the standard of state education has deteriorated since 1997.  43 percent said it hasn't.

Peter Hoskin

Exam result shock: Balls fails

From our UK edition

You know how it is.  You start reading an article by Ed Balls - in this case, in today's Guardian - and, before long, you've come across so many deceptions, half-truths and tribal slurs that you decide to fisk the whole thing.  So here is Balls's article, with my supplementary comments in bold: The first group of young people to have been entirely educated under Labour pick up their GCSE results today. No doubt this will provoke some commentators into even greater efforts to do down their achievements – claiming more young people succeeding must mean exams are getting easier. In the early years of David Cameron's leadership, the Tories didn't join in this annual "dumbing down" chorus.

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

Nobody’s special

From our UK edition

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.