Peter Hoskin

Britain's place in the world is under increasing scrutiny.  There's the continuing debate over the Lisbon Treaty; mutterings that the "special relationship" may break down; and questions about the viability of Brownite free trade.  And now - in a comment piece for the Independent - Mary Dejevsky notes the lack of major British players on the diplomatic stage: "It is hard to date the beginning, or the end, of our retreat, but the return of Mark Malloch Brown, then Deputy Secretary General, from the United Nations to join Gordon Brown's "government of all the talents" might be seen as a moment when we pulled up one of the last drawbridges linking us to the outside world.

Malcolm Rifkind writes an acerbic article over at Comment is Free, on why Tony Blair shouldn't fill the role of EU President.  He has two key points: 1) The role's not that powerful, and 2) Blair spells bad news for Europe.  Rifkind lets loose on the second of these:   "Ultimately, however, the question is whether Blair is the appropriate person to do the job. The answer to that has to be no. At the time of the Iraq war, he divided Europe in a way not seen for 40 years. His foolish decision to side so unequivocally with George W Bush has damaged his own credibility across Europe to such an extent that he would find it difficult to forge a consensus on political issues or to speak on Europe's behalf.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne confirmed the final details of the UK's point-based immigration system today.  The Australia-style scheme - first outlined in 2006 - will be rolled-out as of 29th February. I was struck by Byrne's claim that: "The points system means only those migrants Britain needs can come to the UK" Which jars a bit with his previous statement that: "I am not the general secretary of a Soviet-style central planning system. I do not sit, together with my colleagues, in an office in the Home Office deciding what the needs of the British economy will be next year" Surely, the Home Office using a points-based system to determine which migrants "Britain needs" is little more than a "central planning system".  If so, it's a dangerous approach.

Following Fraser's earlier comments on Tory spending, I thought I'd point out Iain Martin's excellent post on tax credits over at Three Line Whip.  Martin rightly characterises Brown as a "wasteful spendaholic": "The next time the PM calls the Tories a bunch of lunatic cutters who will defile the public realm, they should call him a spendaholic who has put the bill on our, the taxpayers, account." Just for the record, yesterday's tax credit report isn't the first time (or even the second - third - forth - or fifth time) that the Public Accounts Committee has accused the Labour Government of immense waste of taxpayers' money.

Thanks to Rachel Sylvester over at Three Line Whip, Tim Montgomerie’s tortoise-and-the-hare analogy has now been mapped onto the Labour Party. Sylvester characterises the Blairite reformers as “hares”, whilst those who stand in the way of reform are “tortoises”. On this account, she argues, Brown is increasingly acting like a hare:  “Now, there are increasing signs that the Prime Minister is turning from tortoise to hare. David Freud has been appointed to implement welfare reforms that Mr Brown tried to block (or at least delay) when he was Chancellor. This former banker is a hare on speed - he wants to hand large sections of the benefits system over to the private sector and get tough on those claiming incapacity benefit and lone parents.

John Rentoul writes a typically-perceptive piece in the Independent on Sunday, doubting that Gordon Brown will ever seize back the political initiative.  For Rentoul, Brown's major problem is that he's not engaging in "the drama of a dialogue in his own defence" - mainly because he hasn't identified a position to defend:  "If he was a 'change' from Blair, what had he changed to? Brown himself made a telling mess of answering that question on the BBC's Politics Show last weekend. 'The changes that we are making are to recognise that the world has changed over the last 10 years. We didn't have the environmental problems we have now. We didn't have the global restructuring; we have got it now. We didn't have the sense of rising aspiration.