Labour party

An interesting exchange between Danny Finkelstein and Andrew Cooper, director of Populus in which Mr Cooper addresses public attitudes towards cuts in public spending: In principle, then, there seems to be an acceptance of the need for (inevitability of) some spending cuts.  But three quarters of voters think that some areas of spending should be protected from cuts – with the NHS and schools most prominently mentioned. Focus groups constantly find a deep-seated conviction that great amounts of public spending are wasted – but when pressed people don’t know what exactly these are (and they are, archetypally, other people’s areas of spending rather than one’s own). Aye, that seems about right.

Say it ain't so, Harriet! Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has denied a report she would fight for the party leadership, as speculation grows over Gordon Brown's position. She insisted the story was "simply not true" and under "no circumstances" would she be a candidate. She told the BBC's Today programme: "I don't want to be prime minister and I don't want to be leader of the party." Can this be true? Surely not! Then again, Harriet seems determined to disappoint us. One does wonder, however, how many times Labour must talk about its leadership problem before anyone has the courage to actually do something about it...

If it weren't such fun despising Derek Draper one might have to pity the poor man. James has already highlighted one part of his latest post, but here's another noteworthy, if sadly delusional, passage: Maybe this affair will encourage the whole blogosphere, right and left, to commit to a new start, where offensiveness and personal attacks are avoided and debate is elevated not dragged down into the gutter? Maybe this can be a turning point at which we all redouble our efforts to tap into the internet´s positive potential rather than allowing its more peurile aspects to come to the fore? But that won´t happen without many many more people getting involved and taking blogging out of its ghetto.

Over at the Motherblog, Peter writes that Gordon Brown is being damaged by, inter alia, the continuing brouhaha over Jacqui Smith and her expense claims.  A revealing PoliticsHome poll, released this afternoon, finds that a majority of voters (56 percent) think she should step down as Home Secretary - with only 36 percent thinking she should remain in the post.  Despite his support for Smith, the PM will find it difficult to ignore that level of public disapproval. Count me among the 36% then. Not because I think Mrs Smith deserves to stay in the cabinet. Quite the reverse in fact. Outside the financial departments, no cabinet minister has done more to discredit this ministry than Mrs Smith. For that we owe her some thanks.

Tom Harris didn't much care for Dan Hannan's speech setting about Gordon Brown. Fair enough, as a Labour MP you wouldn't expect him to find it a hoot. But then he says this: What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism. Some Tories on the extreme right of the party share the problem of some Republicans in the States: they don’t regard the head of government to be the nation’s leader unless he or she is also a member of their little party. Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful.

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.

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.

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 policy ideas still has more energy on the left than the right, and I hope this page will reflect that.

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 own in America.

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.

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.