Labour party

Wednesday

Andrew Lilico and Helen Thomas

Rules versus discretion

Today’s White Paper on financial regulation avoids introducing some unnecessary regulatory changes at the expense of failing to introduce some necessary ones.  In particular, it fails to recognise the abject failure of Gordon Brown’s “tripartite” framework, in which prudential supervision of the banks was taken from the Bank of England and given to the FSA. Prudential supervision is the proper task of the central bank, for only if it has oversight of banks can the central bank decide whether they should receive last resort lending when they need it.  Without prudential oversight, the Northern Rock debacle is the likely result, and the fact that we are still debating this the

Fraser Nelson

Harman’s debt calculator is broken

I know Harriet Harman is not supposed to be taken seriously, so I’m prepared to believe that she just struggles with numbers and didn’t knowingly mislead MPs today. But it’s worth correcting the record on one crucial point. “We have paid down debt,” she says. Actually, if you take the last Budget into account – it ranges to 2013/14 – decisions taken by her government will have increased national debt by more than every government since the Norman Conquest. Put together. If this is her definition of paying down debt, I’d hate to see her overdraft. Don’t they teach them anything in St Paul’s?

Sam Brown

Could you stick with Gordon for 3 more years?

Brace yourselves.  According to some great research by David Herdson at Political Betting, Gordon Brown could refrain from holding a general election until 2013.  The loopholes by which he could manage it are a bit arcane and convoluted – so I’d suggest you read Herdson’s post in full – but this snippet gives the idea: “The only statutory requirement to move writs for a general election is under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, which allows no less than three years between the dissolution and the writs being issued. In other words, technically, the election doesn’t have to be held until June 2013.” Sure, it’s highly, highly unlikely that Brown

Peter Hoskin

When the cat’s away…

Hm.  Seems like Alan Johnson has chosen the day that Gordon’s away in Italy to write another comment piece on voting reform.  Like his article for the Times a few months ago, it pushes the AV+ version of proportional representation.  And, like his Times article, it goes out of its way to mention Brown (“I work for a leader who accepts the need for … renewal”), but it still comes across as an attempt to grab the leadership limelight.  After all, why should the Home Secretary be reiterating points he’s made before about voing reform?  Why isn’t he leaving this attention-grabbing stuff for his leader who “accepts the need for

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

To freeze or not to freeze?

The question of whether or not to freeze public sector pay has had a fair bit of airtime over the past few days.  In his interview at the weekend, Alistair Darling seemed to take a hard-line on the issue – and most outlets wrote it up as him not ruling out a freeze.  But, via today’s Times, “sources close to [Darling]” say that he won’t re-open wage deals to introduce a freeze.  While, for his part, David Cameron is also claiming that a Tory government wouldn’t order a freeze of public sector pay.  The politics of the situation is plain: neither side wants to seem especially tough on public sector

Alex Massie

How to Cut Spending and Frame the Argument

A characteristically interesting column from Rachel Sylvester in The Times today, in which she describes how the Tories are looking to how the Liberal Party in Canada managed to slash public spending a decade ago. As Sylvester describes it, our Canadian friends lopped 20% of their public spending bill and dismissed as many as a fifth of all state employees. In other words, cutting spending can be done, even if it’s never easy and always controversial. But unless you tackle welfare and the NHS then – absent a fundamental rethink of government needs and priorities – it’s unlikely that many of the other measures – charging for museum entry! –

Peter Hoskin

A rebellion stirs

So, what does today hold in store for Gordon Brown?  Howabout another 10p tax rebellion marshalled, as always, by Frank Field?  A bunch of around 30 Labour rebels have prepared an amendment to the Finance Bill, by which the last Budget couldn’t pass into law until everyone who lost out from the 10p tax fiasco has been fully compensated.  It should be debated today, and the rebels have the support of both the Tories and the Lib Dems.  In response, Labour whips have cancelled all foreign trips by ministers and MPs, and are feverishly trying to rally the troops.   If the rebellion succeeds, then it will be hugely embarrassing

Monday

James Forsyth

How important were all those initiatives the government kept announcing?

There was a time when the government seemed to be announcing new measures to get the economy and the banking sector in particular moving again on an almost daily basis. Today, the Wall Street Journal has done a rather good audit of these measures. For instance, in January “the British government created a guarantee program meant to revive the dormant market for asset-backed securities. The program aims to spur purchases of banks’ asset-back securities, or bundled consumer loans, by guaranteeing them for buyers. The guarantees were made available in April, but since then, none of the major U.K. banks has issued a security with such a guarantee.” Also, only 13

James Forsyth

Lacking in boldness

David Miliband is right that political parties need to adapt if they are to survive. Membership of all the main parties are down and the number of activists they can call on in shrinking. His John Smith memorial lecture contains some worthwhile ideas on how to open up the Labour party. But, as so often, Miliband has not taken the opportunity to be truly bold. In the speech, Miliband speaks approvingly of open primaries. So, why not use an open primary for the post-election leadership contest? It would be a way of saying that post-defeat, Labour would look out not in. It would also guarantee that the contest attracts national

Peter Hoskin

Brown puts on his gloomy face for the world stage

How peculiar.  After all the economic optimism coming out of government recently, all the talk of recovery by the end of the year, Brown’s going to warn that the worst of the recession may be yet to come in his meetings with G8 leaders this week.  The Times has the full story here, but this snippet from the Dear Leader’s address in France today gives you the idea: “If we do not take the necessary action now to strengthen the world economy and put in place the conditions for sustainable world growth, we will be confronted with avoidable unemployment for years to come.” So does this mean he’s losing faith

Sunday

James Forsyth

Blair is right on climate change

Ahead of Tony Blair’s launch of a report on climate change, he’s given an interview to The Sunday Times. The interviewer Jonathan Leake is highly sceptical of Blair and takes particular issue with this statement from him: “The answer to climate change,” he says solemnly, “is the development of science and technology. Yes, we will get changes in the way we consume but we will be consuming differently, not necessarily less. People are not going to return to the 19th century. The critical thing is to use the technologies we have and to incentivise the development of new ones. That is the only practical way we will make this thing

Fraser Nelson

Pure Balls | 5 July 2009

According to the Sunday Times, poor old Shaun Woodward is getting the blame for inspiring Brown’s mendacious “Labour investment v Tory cuts” line. As if. This is the work of Ed Balls, and his trademark belief that the public can be easily fooled on such issues because their eyes glaze over when you mention statistics. A quick chronology: when the 10 percent figure came out in my Daily Telegraph piece it was Ed Balls who seized on it (his wife did so earlier that day with the Standard) and used it in a letter to Michael Gove demanding where those 10 percent cuts would be made. He used my figure as

Peter Hoskin

More blows against Brown’s spending narrative

It’s public spending time again, dear CoffeeHousers, with a couple of eye-catching articles in  today’s papers.  The first is a comment piece by Steve Bundred, chief exec of the Audit Commission, on the necessity for extensive spending cuts.  If you recall, Bundred claimed a few days ago that health and education shouldn’t be ring-fenced from cuts, and here he repeats the point, adding a snappy conclusion: “So don’t believe the shroud wavers who tell you grannies will die and children starve if spending is cut. They won’t. Cuts are inevitable, and perfectly manageable. We should insist on a frank and intelligent debate about how and where they will fall, which

Friday

James Forsyth

Brown’s U-turns analysed

Steve Richards’ column in today’s Independent – analysing Brown’s u-turns on the Post Office, 42 days and the abolition of 10p tax rate – is superb. As Steve notes, all these u-turns have in common the question of where does Brown stand in relation to Blairism; is he break from it or its continuation? Steve’s conclusion sums this up brilliantly: “The U-turns show that Brown has never acquired a clear voice of his own as Prime Minister and has failed to break away from his complicated past. Perhaps an early election would have liberated him from the manacles. Instead, we are left with a trail of major reversals that convey

Peter Hoskin

The candidates for cuts

Over at the Beeb website, Mark Easton flags up a new Ipsos MORI poll on public spending; you can view the whole thing here.  There are plenty of eye-catching results in there.  For instance, most people strongly agree that many public services are a waste of money and can be cut, while 40 percent of the public think that the Conservatives would be most effective party at getting good vaule for money from public services (compared to 25 percent for Labour).  In particular, I think these two charts deserve attention: Going off what the Tories are currently saying, they’d ring-fence both overseas aid and health spending.  The charts above suggest

Peter Hoskin

Another one for Miliband’s collection of cock-ups

Great spot by Paul Waugh, who’s got evidence of the latest Miliband cock-up over at his blog.  Basically, Miliband told the Commons earlier this week that British aid to India would be decreased and eventually stopped because “India is becoming a richer country”.  But now he’s had to sneak out a complete retraction, which even makes reference to India’s “continuing levels of poverty”: “We have no plans to scale down the provision of aid to India, nor to stop the provision of aid by 2011.  Our aid expenditure under current spending plans amounts to £285m in 2008/09, £275m in 2009/10, and £280m in 2010/11. These figures reflect India’s continuing levels

Peter Hoskin

Can Brown’s inner circle be broken?

Given the speculation that’s whirling around Westminster about plots to oust Brown in the autumn, it’s worth noting this passage from Steve Richards’ article for the latest New Statesman: “The most significant change since the hopelessly disparate attempted coup last month is how the rest of the cabinet relate to Brown, Mandelson and Balls, the trio who are working closely together. Recently a friend asked one cabinet minister on the so-called Blairite wing whether he thought Mandelson would tell Brown that the game was up if polls suggested Labour was heading for electoral oblivion. The minister replied that he could no longer have such a conversation with Mandelson; it would

Alex Massie

A Few Simple Questions for Alan Johnson

Home Secretary, is “identity theft” unknown in countries that already have identity cards? If it isn’t, then how will Britain’s ID cards solve that problem? (A problem that is, in any case, vastly smaller than you claim.) You now say that ID cards will be “voluntary”. Doesn’t that compromise their (putative) effectiveness? And if the case for ID cards is so compelling – as you insist it remains – why has your government been backtracking on the matter? You argue that you are “committed to delivering them more quickly to the people who will benefit most”. Previously this was everyone. Who “needs” them “most”? Or, to put it another way,