Uk politics

With the threat of major strikes timed to coincide with Osborne's spending review in October, I think it's worth exhuming an important point that Julian Glover made in his Guardian column last month: "UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don't think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this government.

As the New Statesman's George Eaton suggests, there's quite a lot packed into Ed Balls's piece in the Times today (also on his website for those who can't venture beyond the paywall). And, what's more, some of it makes sense. Take his argument that Labour shouldn't cede the "radical centre ground" of British politics to the coalition. That's the right argument to make, even it if is rather undermined by Balls's own efforts to drag the party leftwards. As usual, it all starts to unravel as soon as Balls gets to the public finances. His position is blunt and straightforward: that "Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument against slashing public spending and raising VAT, which will increase unemployment and risk a double-dip recession.

Here's a slightly curious one: David Cameron and Nick Clegg have written a public letter to their ministers, reminding them that, "deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain," and that, "the purpose of our government … [is] … putting power in the hands of communities and individuals and equipping Britain for long-term success." If you wanted to read into it, then you could say that the emphasis on the "long-term" throughout the letter is a warning to any disgruntled sorts: policies for the long-term require time to implement, so the coalition has to be built to last, etc. etc. But, of course, this missive is directed at voters as much as anyone else.

Writing for the Times, Tim Montgomerie neatly overlays Aesop onto the Labour leadership contest: "The next Labour leader is unlikely to be an Abbott, Balls or Burnham. Gordon Brown’s successor will be a Miliband. But I’m more interested in whether he will be Mr Sun or Mr Wind. Aesop captured the dilemma in a fable. If you want a man to take off his cloak, do you huff and puff and force him to give it up or do you cover him with warmth until he discards it freely? In Aesop, the sun scores a predictable victory. Politics isn’t so easy. Harriet Harman’s blasts at Nick Clegg’s alleged betrayal of left-wing voters has undoubtedly blown many Liberal Democrat voters towards Labour.

Now here's a poll that you can really get your teeth into. Reported in today's FT, a survey of 100 or so academics has rated Gordon Brown as the third worst Prime Minister since the second world war. It marks him with 3.9 out of 10, ahead of only Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. At the other end of the scale, Clement Attlee comes out on top with 8.1 our of 10, ahead of second-placed Margaret Thatcher on 6.9. Which, as Tim Montgomerie says at ConservativeHome, is understandable enough – Attlee probably made a more indelible contribution to British life than anyone else on the list. I was struck by the context in which one of the survey's compilers placed Tony Blair's third-placed finish.