Peter Hoskin

Good work by the Times, who are tracking the Government's continuing problems on the PFI front.  If you remember, numerous PFI projects are in danger of collapsing as the banks withdraw funding, and word was that Brown 'n' Darling would have to stump up £4 billion of taxpayers' cash to fill the breach.  I'd assumed that would mean the Government hawking more gilts and adding to our national debt, which has all sorts of implications for the off balance-sheet nature of these schemes.  Turns out the Treasury may have something different in mind: "Billions of pounds could be taken from council staff pension schemes to bail out the Government’s PFI school projects, The Times has learnt.

The front cover of today's Mail should be stuck on the wall of every MPs' office in Westminster.  It spells out the scale of the national debt burden in the starkest possible terms: £2,000,000,000,000 in big red numerals, with a post-script translating that to £33,000 for every "man, woman and child" in the UK. Thing is, the Mail's figures - based on the ONS's release yesterday - are probably a bare minimum.  We don't yet know full extent of the nationalised banks' liabilities; there's likely to be more debt-heavy government action over the next year or so; and Brown's off-balance sheet ruses will add to the burden faced by taxpayers, whether they're brought into the open or not.

Like Steve Richards in today's Independent, I think it's highly unlikely that Brown won't remain Labour leader until the next election.  But Richards does spell out an alternative scenario which is news to me: "It is still possible that Brown might go of his own accord before an election, without a new job offer. When things were going badly last time around, he told an ally that he felt guilty about what was happening to Labour under his watch. If he felt a Tory victory could be prevented by his departure he would consider going. I suspect that Brown would do anything to stop Cameron and Osborne securing power, including stepping down for a vote-winning alternative." If true, it really does contextualise Brown's hatred of the Tory top two.

On the day the FT reveals that Mandelson is to "redraw [Labour's] recession rhetoric", the Times have this breaking story: Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, has attacked the chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, the American coffee giant, in a foul-mouthed tirade for talking down the British economy. Howard Schultz, who built the coffee chain which is now struggling in America, said in a television interview last night: “The concern for us is Western Europe and specifically the UK. The UK is in a spiral.” Lord Mandelson later said, within earshot of journalists: “Why should I have that guy running down the country? Who the **** is he?

Ok, so I'm not directly quoting Brown in the headline above, but it does capture the general tone of the PM's article on bonuses in the Times today. Basically, bankers are portrayed as evil, and all government action as wise and benevolent. Here's a chunk of it: "Everywhere I go in Britain, I sense and share the anger and dismay of millions of hard-working people who have watched in disbelief during a year in which irresponsible practices in global banks have brought the world's financial system close to collapse. Because this has had an impact on every high street and in every home in Britain, anger alone is not enough - only bold action to protect those endangered through no fault of their own will do.

CoffeeHousers sometimes chide us for getting a bit over-excited when we describe articles as "a must read", "essential" or "important".  But the opinion piece by Philip Collins, Tony Blair's former speechwriter, in today's Times, really is all of those things.  Collins' central point - that the Brown administration has elevated "political positioning over action" - is not a new one, but he expands from there to summarise the entire span of the New Labour years, and throws in plenty of healthy references to Sigmund Freud too.  Here's a key passage: "When Mr Brown commends [Anthony] Crosland's idea of equality, he does so on the grounds that it provides the Labour Party with its main dividing line from the Conservatives. He doesn't like equality because it's a good idea.

Saying the things that practically no other Labour MP will say, Frank Field writes an incisive article in today's Independent.  Number 10 will not be amused by his claim that there's a "very serious possibility of a sterling crisis'", but I figure it's this passage that should worry them most: "...tax increases are unavoidable even in the short run, and the Government should seize that necessity to help make our tax system more progressive. In times of economic decline it is more, not less important, to protect the poorest by developing initiatives that shift any increase in the tax burden onto those with the widest shoulders... ...increasing taxes on some, and cash limiting public expenditure, will mark a step change to a political culture built on debt.