Labour party

A Lib Dem future? Not so fast my friends!

Tom Harris doesn’t much care for the Liberal Democrats: Having seen the damage done to the Labour Party through its association with the Liberals in the Scottish Parliament in previous years, there is, if anything, more hostility among MPs to the idea of power sharing than ever. On the other hand, if the Liberal Party want to sign up to the implementation of Labour’s manifesto in the aftermath of the election, fine. So long as they don’t expect either Labour or Tory MPs to agree to a change in the electoral system so that every possible outcome in future would result in the Liberals being in government. Now I’m as

The Complex Personality of Peter Hain

A good mini-scoop from the Independent on Sunday based on an article from Peter Hain. News stories based on articles by politicians are often the last refuge of a political journalist who has run out of road. But this piece by Jane Merrick and Brian Brady is an exception. The former Work and Pension Secretary is putting his head above the parapet on this one and issuing a rousing call for the Labour Party to return to its true values. He makes similar points in his interview in the Sunday Telegraph, although that newspaper chose to make a little less of them.   The following two paragraphs in the Hain piece in the Sindy are a genuine challenge to the

The Next Labour Manifesto

Taking a cue from Vogue and other glossy mags, the New Statesman has decided to liven things up attract some publicity by inviting a celebrity to be “Guest Editor” for a forthcoming issue. Their choice? Alastair Campbell. Among his ideas? This: As well as the articles I’ve already commissioned, one of the pages will be handed over to ‘LabourListers’ and others to finish the phrase: ‘if I could get one sentence into Labour’s manifesto for the next election, it would say this…’ I want to do this because, for all that the Tories may be ahead in the polls, and taking that position for granted, I think the battle of

Fear and Loathing at the Heart of Government

There’s some really fascinating stuff knocking around today. Rachel Sylvester’s column in The Times is really quite extraordinary. She claims that in a conference call with Peter Mandelson and Ed Balls, the Prime Minister could not be persuaded to concentrate on domestic policy and kept returning to the international global crisis. Were there others involved in the call or is one of Balls or Mandelson briefing the Blairite Sylvester (hmm, I wonder)? Pete Hoskin over at Coffee House has suggested that the level of humility in Alistair Darling’s interview in today’s Telegraph and similar noises from Ed Balls suggest that perhaps Brown will go for a mea culpa of his

Pollsters Go To War

I sometimes wonder about pollsters and political consultants. That is, I wonder if they are rather like the financial Masters of the Universe whose mastery turns out, it seems, to have been somewhat exaggerated. That’s not say there aren’t differences between well-run campaigns (Barack Obama) and lousy, ill-focused, foolish ones (Hillary Clinton), rather that the benefits of good political advice aren’t nearly so great as the damage caused by poor advice and ill-conceived strategy. Hindsight is always useful, of course, but imagine how different the race for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination might have been had the Clinton campaign remembered that it might be useful to compete seriously in caucus

Harman’s Outrage: Day 2

Harriet Harman’s proposal for legislation designed to target a single person – Sir Fred Goodwin – who, whatever his other failings, has not yet been charged wth any crime, seem even more extraordinary today than they did yesterday. Daniel Hannan puts the matter into some historical context: Harriet Harman is proposing that a law be introduced aimed at a specific individual, retrospectively to criminalise something that was legal at the time. Such laws were known mediaevally as Acts of Attainder: they declared someone guilty after the event, and with no trial. Attainder Bills were introduced very rarely, usually following a gross abuse of ministerial power or an open insurrection. The

Harman’s Law: Laws Don’t Count

Peter may well be right to argue that it’s hard to see how Gordon Brown can sack Harriet Harman. But let’s just say that she’s not really helping the government these days. Take her performance this morning, for example: “Sir Fred Goodwin should not count on being £650,000 a year better off because it is not going to happen,” she told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show…And it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in.” This is the sort of talk that only comes from a government in terminal

Today’s government news

Avigdor Lieberman – Israel’s new kingmaker and, according to no less a hawk than Marty Peretz, a “neo-fascist” – says his ideas on citizenship really aren’t any different from those espoused by Gordon Brown’s government. Elsewhere, regardless of whether or not Fred Goodwin “deserves” a £650,000 pension is becomes abundantly clear that, despite this still being Hang-a-Banker season, the government’s descent into idiotic, populist pandering should also be resisted. Goodwin’s pension may indeed be excessive, but John Prescott will receive £60,000 a year from the public purse which seems equally generous or, if you prefer, scandalous. Thirdly, it turns out that Jack Straw has a rather strained relationship with the

Bloody Students: The Next Generation

I’ve been teaching the politics specialism at City University’s journalism course and I’ve been pleasantly surprised how much fun it has been. I was warned before I started that my student would be barely literate, apathetic lumps with just a passing knowledge of British politics. I was surprised how few of them regularly read a newspaper, but I have found them, for the most part, well informed and engaged. My job is to provide them with insights into the job of a political reporter, which mainly involved me droning on about my scoops and great victories over the forces of darkness. But from time to time I wheel out a special guest.

A Very British Diarist

Chris Mullin is a good egg and, what’s more has a pawky sense of humour. So I imagine his diaries, serialised in the Mail on Sunday this week, will be entertaining stuff. What strikes one above all – apart from the digs at Gordon Brown’s expense – is the sheer and ghastly tedium of being a government minister. It’s almost enough to make one think they deserve their generous expense accounts and lavish pension. Almost, I say. But then the government reminds you of the extent of its ghastliness. Mullin describes one such event that in some sense seems to ilustrate the gruesome nature of modern politics in general and

Gordon Brown, Lawrence Oates and Polly Toynbee

Polly Toynbee is always worth reading. Her latest column is no exception. For all that one might disagree with her, indeed even be infuriated by her, there’s always something useful to be gleaned from her columns. Still, there’s a kind of panicked resignation about this latest one and an implied acceptance that Labour are doomed. The only thing that can save them? Massive increases in spending and government debt apparently. Well it’s an idea… I confess that, rather mean-spiritedly, my favourite bit was this: In the dream scenario, Brown ascends the world stage to head a beefed-up IMF, but few imagine the man who wanted it so much can confess

Carrying the Country First

An excellent post from Blimpish, making the point that while Labour governments tend to be elected with great enthusiasm, voters are usually more cautious when choosing Conservative ministries. It was only in 1983 that Thatcher won her landslide (Reagan, of course, emulated her example in 1984). And as he says, you don’t need to win your party (completely) to win the country: Thatcher’s latter-day hero-worshippers may believe the British people enthusiastically embraced the full-blooded Thatcherite agenda of sound money, free markets, union-busting, etc.  But it wasn’t the case; leaving aside that what became ‘Thatcherism’ didn’t really exist in 1979, inasmuch as it was articulated, people were generally sceptical – after

Marie Antoinette is traduced again

Like King Canute, Marie Antoinette is a much-misunderstood and, generally speaking, a much and unfairly maligned figure. Disappointingly, this time the guilty party is my old boss Iain Martin. For shame. Iain hazards that Peter Mandelson’s suggestion that everyone try and keep their heads in these turbulent times since there is “no value in creating frenzy” is but the latest “Marie Antoinettish” comment from the noble lord. In the first place, Marie Antoinette probably never said “Let them eat cake”. Secondly, if she had she would scarcely have been the first to suggest that the populace switch to brioche in times of shortage. Thirdly, this would have been a perfectly

Three Terms are Enough

Brother Bright gives some of his reasons for hoping that Labour will prevail at the next election here. As a good man of the left, one would expect no less from him. And he’s right, I think, to suppose that we’d be facing many of the same problems had David Cameron and Georgie Osbourne been running the country these past five years. In that sense, you can undertsand the frustration some of the Prime Minister’s supporters must feel. Not all of this is the PM’s fault, but he’s the only fellow the public can kick. But for those of us who aren’t automatically attached to any party the calculation is

Gordon Brown Should Just Abandon Hope

From Andrew Rawnsley’s (must-read) column yesterday: A member of the no contrition tendency in the cabinet says: “Gordon apologise? Bugger that. No way. People don’t want to see him wringing his hands. They don’t want him to get into this psycho-babble. They want him to get the job done.” Is this actually true? I mean, do people actually want Gordon to “get the job done”? I’m not convinced they do. Isn’t it possible that the electorate is enjoying this? The sourness and vindictiveness of the public mood at present seems unlikely to be much impressed by anything the Prime Minister could propose, let alone achieve. You might expect Tory voters

Ecstasy and the Agony that is Jacqui Smith

So the government is going to reject advice that Ecstasy be reclassified as a Class B drug. No surprise there. Got to adopt a tough stance on these matters, you know. Not that the penalties for possession of a Class B drug are anything other than absurdly draconian themselves: you can still be locked away for five years or, for the crime of selling a drug to your friends, receive as many as 14 years imprisonment. This does not seem a lenient approach to me. Meanwhile, a government expert makes the obviously true point that more people are killed horse-riding each year than as a result of taking Ecstasy and

The Opening Salvo

What I am about to do makes me more nervous than any other piece of writing I have embarked on since my first forays into journalism in the late 1980s. During most of my career I have had the luxury of writing for “people like me”: the sort of middle-class liberals who read the Guardian or the Observer and carry those publications under their arms as the outward symbols of their right-minded decency. I spent 15 years writing for one or other newspaper. I was deeply honoured during the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 to be described as a “liberal eurotrash” on the right-wing Drudge Report website. Until

Tales from a Convert

A friend of mine, once armed with impeccable progressive credentials, recently came out s a Conservative – much to the bemusement of his family and many of his friends. With Neill’s permission, here’s the explanation he published on his Facebook page. Sure, this is just one person’s story, but I wonder how many other people might have come to similar conclusions after 12 years of Labour government. Anyway, I think this a pretty persuasive critique of Labour in power: I grew up in a Tory-hating family in Thatcher’s Britain. In those divided times, we were definitely not “one of us” – Mum was a teacher, Dad brought up the kids

Chump of the Day

The National Gallery of Scotland needs to raise £50m to prevent the sale of Titian’s Diana and Actaeon from being sold. The painting, part of the Bridgewater Collection, has been loaned to the gallery for decades but is now being sold by its owner, the Duke of Sutherland. Well, £50m is quite a lot of money. Then again, it’s a pretty nifty painting (though my own tastes run a little later – to Caravaggio and Velazquez in particular). Anyway, it’s hard to imagine there being any discussion in France or Italy or Germany of the rights and wrongs of committing public money to the fund-raising effort. And while I have

This Britain

Since coming to power in 1997 Labour has created 3,605 new ways for you to break the law. That’s an average of 320 new offences a year or, to put it another way, more than one new offence is created every day Parliament is in session. Time to dust off an old and favourite proposal: every new offence or law should be accompanied by the repeal of an old one…