Uk politics

Well, well another PMQs where Brown holds his own. He struggled for a long time after the election that never was, but in the past couple of months Brown has found some form. For the second week in a row, he had the best line: “He’s getting much redder than he is on his photograph”. Cameron did have one particularly effective moment when he asked Labour backbenchers whether they were putting Brown on their election literature. Only a handful did. In some ways this is all Westminster Village froth, few voters watch PMQs. But Cameron’s failure to win these clashes is bugging him. While Brown’s performances must be boosting his confidence before the three planned televised debates.

Stop sniggering at the back.  I mean, all I asked was whether Gordon Brown can be bold and radical.  The way things are looking, he certainly needs to be – and, according to Philip Webster's insightful account of yesterday's three-hour Cabinet meeting, the PM has called on his colleagues to think up as many "eye-catching" proposals as possible for Labour's manifesto.  One "senior source" says that the party "should have the most radical manifesto yet put to the electorate." Which is, of course, much easier said than done – a fact highlighted by another passage in Webster's report, which reveals: "Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last week’s botched coup.

Daniel Finkelstein suggests an alternative analysis to that which prevails about the cabinet split. Labour’s aristocrats are divided not over style or substance, but the timing and extent of spending cuts. Finkelstein locates his argument in Labour’s repetitive history of poor financial management. Every Labour government runs out money and becomes riven by the prospect of retrenchment, a policy that is instinctively anathema to the left. The current episode dissents from the model in one regard: 'As Chancellor, Mr Brown spent money as if there would never be a bust — an absurd hypothesis. And now, as Prime Minister, he is blocking the measures necessary to put right this error.

Here, CoffeeHousers, is my take on this morning's Cameron interview: 1. General demeanor: excellent, articulate, confident. The complete opposite from Brown. It does make you think that he should wipe the floor with Brown in the TV debates. 2. “Last week we saw William Hague and George Osborne going to Afghanistan together. First shadow Chancellor, the man who is going to be in charge of the money, on the frontline seeing what is going on in Afghanistan”. Indeed, but the NHS pledge and deficit cut pledge imply deep cuts to the military. To govern is to choose, and Cameron has made his choice: NHS spending before the military.

There's that prism I mentioned: Ed Miliband writes an article for the Observer, which ostensibly backs Gordon Brown in the first paragraph, and it's written up as the first, tentative step on his own leadership campaign.  Thing is, that's probably also true.  The clue is in how far he steps off his ministerial beat*, to deliver an overall prospectus for the Labour Party: "Let's start, as our manifesto will, with what the country needs in the coming five years. It can't be about business as usual. We need to rebuild our economy in a different way from the past, with more jobs in real engineering not just financial engineering.

So, at the end of a hyperactive week in politics, we've got a pair of interviews with Brown and Cameron.  The PM chats with the News of the World, while Cameron appeared on the Marr sofa earlier. One general similarity between the two interviews stands out: neither is particularly confrontational. Rather than chiding Labour after Alistair Darling's admission yesterday, Cameron adopted a more conciliatory tone, saying things like: "If [the government] ... set out reductions that we think make sense we won’t play politics with it, we’ll say yes."  And, for his part, Brown only nods towards the "big choice" to be made at this year's election, and doesn't mention the Tories once.  Quite rare that, for Gordon.