Labour party

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 attention, something that is often not the case with opposition leadership elections—remember just how little coverage the Tory contest in 2005 got.

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 in the "green shoots" strategy, by which a grateful nation will hail him for leading the UK out of recession?  No, I rather suspect not.

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 if it were official Tory policy.

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 will then enable everyone to make more sensible plans.

With Brown shifting his position on spending by the minute, it's worth highlighting this snippet from today's Guardian: "Treasury ministers, in particular, believe they can look at whether there will be a need for cuts at the time of the pre-budget report in the autumn. They intend to use the report to show the scale of projected future savings, as well as how frontline services and new priorities can be protected by switching resources. Labour still believes the Tories have made a political mistake by committing themselves to public spending cuts so early." It rather supports Fraser's prediction that, following all their talk about "envelopes" and "projections," the Government will suddenly start saying those "cuts" aren't necessary after all.