I know most CoffeeHousers have more than had their fill of Peter Mandelson stories, but it's worth reading the quotes from an interview with him in today's Times. Why so? Well, because they distill some of the main attacks Labour will aim at the Tories over the coming months. The central charge is that - while Cameron and Osborne are, in Mandelson's words, "crowd-pleasers" and "good image-makers" - they have not "changed the thinking of their party".
Osborne's interview with the Guardian is mostly getting coverage for his attack on "unacceptable" banking bonuses. But I reckon a passage about the Tories' commitment to ring-fence the health budget from spending cuts may be more significant: "Only health and international development have been ring-fenced – though today, when it comes to health spending, [Osborne] says only that 'we will work hard to protect it'." This idea of "working hard" to "protect" the health budget is a good deal more ambiguous than the solid pledge to offer real-terms spending increases that we've heard so much over the past couple of days. As I suggested yesterday, it's also a more sensible position for the Tories to adopt.
I do enjoy reading Alastair Campbell's blog – he's a snappy writer and, whatever his mistakes during the Blair years, he generally offers a thought-provoking leftist slant on the issues of the day. But this passage in his latest effort is pretty low stuff: "American politics can be brutal, and as I remember Bill Clinton once saying, the right are far more brutal and aggressive in their arguments than the left, basically because progressives tend to be nicer people." He's attempting the same trick that Peter Mandelson used in his response to George Osborne's "progressive politics" speech earlier in the week: blindly equating "progressive" ends with Labour means, as though no-one on the right could possibly want - or, what's more, deliver - good outcomes.
I wrote in my last post that Cameron's reponses to the Alan Duncan gaffe and NHS Twitter campaign have been "well-judged" – by which I meant that the Tory leader had stepped in swiftly enough and delivered exactly the kind of quotes to defuse the situation. But there's an element to the Tory response which as frustrating as ever: namely, the emphasis on real-terms spending increases for the health service. The Tories' Head of Press, Henry Macrory, makes the point bluntly in – what else? – a tweet: "Someone should ask Andy Burnham if he will match the Conservative commitment to real-term increases in the NHS budget?" Now, I know this is current Tory policy – so why shouldn't they shout it out from the rooftops?
There's plenty to be sceptical about with this #welovetheNHS Twitter campaign - not least the manner in which it's falsely polarising the debate into "lovers" or "haters", given that 140-character "tweets" hardly allow for nuanced arguments. But, as Fraser pointed out last night, there's little doubting that it's a spot of good luck for Gordon Brown: a campaign by the left, for the left, which he managed to seize on with uncharacteristic speed. Indeed, Brown beat David Cameron to the punch for perhaps the first time in months, and has put the Tory leader on the defensive. Hence Cameron's blog post last night, which set out his own #reasonsforlovingtheNHSbutstillwantingittoimprove, so to speak.
The Tory grassroots have spoken, and they want Alan Duncan out. Here are the main results from a poll which has just been published over at ConservativeHome: "A ConservativeHome.com poll of 1,622 Tory members carried out today finds 65% want Alan Duncan to resign and 55% think he should be sacked. A massive 91% think he should be moved from his current job where he has a role in deciding Conservative policy on MPs’ expenses and allowances. 61% are dissatisfied with Alan Duncan's performance. 31% are satisfied. This makes him the least popular member of the shadow cabinet. 38% agreed that 'Alan Duncan was telling the truth - the antagonism toward MPs has gone too far.' 52% disagreed.
So Mandy's brought up the idea of a public debate between Brown and Cameron again, claiming – in interview with Sky (see footage above) – that the PM would "relish" the opportunity to "take the fight to the Conservatives". If you remember, the last time Mandy mentioned it, Downing St quickly moved to dampen all the speculation - the rumour was that Brown was going to challenge* Cameron to a series of debates in his conference speech, and was irritated at the PoD for giving the game away so early. But now that Mandy has made the same point again – indeed, even more forcefully this time – I reckon it near confirms that Brown's challenge will come soon enough. * The word "challenge" is used in the loosest possible sense here.
It's noteworthy enough when David Blanchflower - a member of the Bank of England's MPC until May this year - says that the government "isn't doing enough" to stem the unemployment crisis, as he does in an article for today's Guardian. But his more specific points about the "lost generation" of unemployed young people are also worth highlighting. As Fraser blogged yesterday, this recession is taking a particular toll on those aged under 25. Partially, this is down to school and university leavers being unable to find work. But, as Blachflower points out, there's another effect at play - young people with jobs are the first in line to lose them, as firms make redundancies: "A policy of last in, first out is also operating.
Oh dear. Another blow to Brown's economic credibility this morning, as France and Germany announce that they've come out of recession already. Both economies grew by 0.3 percent in the second quarter of the year - in contrast to the UK economy, which shrank by 0.8 percent. Whatever the factors behind it, this spells trouble for Brown. A poor performance in the race to recovery not only calls his management of the economy into question, but it also undermines his anticipated "green shoots strategy". The PM will find it hard to brag about our "green shoots" when other countries already have full-grown plants.
Further to my post earlier, Sky have now produced an embeddable copy of Don't Panic's Alan Duncan video. The offending remarks come around 04:30 in: I know I said before that I'm inclined to believe Duncan's excuse - that the comments were made in jest - but the more I watch the clip, the less convinced I am. Intentional hyperbole - perhaps. A joke - hmm. Either way, it's a stark error of judgement on the shadow leader's part.
Right, I know I keep banging on about Osborne's speech, but - Alan Duncan's loose lips aside - it's certainly the topic du jour in Westminster. Yesterday evening, I noted a couple of qualms I had with what I thought was - on the whole - an important and effective address. Today, I've got another concern to add to the pile; one prompted by Osborne's article in the Times. The headline to that article reads thus: "The new dividing line: radical reform or cuts". And the sub-head runs: "Sceptics argue that reform is a luxury we cannot afford. Without it, money for schools and health will inevitably be slashed." Now, there are some major problems with that argument.
...Alan Duncan saying on video that MPs are treated "like sh*t", and that they're forced to live on "rations". He's just apologised, saying that the remarks were meant in jest. And I'm inclined to believe him: he was, after all, in conversation with the political pranksters over at Don't Panic (although he didn't know he was being filmed). But, either way, it's easy work for his opponents to take these things out of context. And many will argue that the expenses fiasco isn't a laughing matter in the first place.
Whatever you might think of George Osborne's speech on progressive politics yesterday - and I have some doubts of my own - it's hard to take Peter Mandelson's Guardian article about it particularly seriously. As Tim Montgomerie says over at ConservativeHome, there's little in there beyond personal attacks on Osborne and a caricature of the Tory position, all underpinned by the insistent claim that progressive ends can only be delivered by Labour means. For someone who lambasted the media for not "not talking about policy" in his interview with the Guardian on Monday, it's a rather poor show. But, worst of all for Labour, is that Mandy's position is confused and inconsistent.
Earlier, I wrote that Osborne's speech today seemed to be a significant moment for Project Cameron. Having attended the Demos event a few hours ago, I still think that's the case. Sure, there wasn't anything particularly new in it - and the delivery didn't quite zing - but its central point that Brown's approach to the public finances is regressive, while spending cuts and the right reforms could deliver better services for all, is a necessary refinement of the Tory message. Come election time, Brown is going to deploy all kinds of attacks on the "nasty Tories" and their "cuts in frontline services", so it's important for Cameron & Co. that they counter this in advance.
I gave it a passing mention in my last post, but it's worth highlighting Michael Gove's mischievous comment piece in the the Guardian today. Why "mischievous"? Well, because its purpose seems to be to rile Ed Balls and mobilise his internal opponents: 'In a series of not so subtle signals to the grassroots, Ed has been emphasising, whenever the opportunity arises, that he is the socialist candidate for anyone in the party who wants to move away from the sullied compromises of Blair era. In a recent interview he explained that the battle for the leadership would be a struggle between David Miliband and himself - setting up the contest as a choice between the clearest heir to Blair and the key opponent of Blairism.
It's a big day for George Osborne. The Shadow Chancellor is using his new platform at Demos — the think-tank which is credited with much of the brainwork behind the initial New Labour project, but which is now turning to the Tories as well as to the Purnellite wing of the Labour party — to deliver a speech on progressive politics. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the snippets which have been published in the papers make it seem like a significant moment in Project Cameron: when the Tories extrapolate their attacks on Brown's fiscal legacy further, and perhaps more resonantly, than they have done before. Here's a key passage, to give you the idea: “...
My old colleagues at Reform have put together a very useful analysis of the Canadian spending cuts programme - which got that country's debt-to-GDP ratio down by 20 percent during the late 1990s - over at Centre Right. I'd suggest you read the whole thing, but this point deserves repeating: "The key lesson from the Canadian reforms is that, as Andrew Haldenby recently argued, getting the public to support tough measures requires them to feel part of the process.
When Brown comes to weigh up his prime ministerial legacy, maybe he'll be satisfied that - if nothing else - he seems to have enshrined the idea of a "zero percent rise" in political discourse. Here's a passage from the Times article today on how the Tories plan to freeze the pay of local government workers: "Conservative town hall employers told The Times that 'a zero rise' for workers next year would be the 'maximum' that Tory councils would support." More seriously, the Times article indicates a toughening of the Tories' stance towards the unions, and perhaps even over public spending cuts more generally (although Andrew Lansley does rather undermine that point).
The FT report on how Labour MPs aren't putting themselves forward to be parliamentary private secretaries - or "ministerial bag-carriers", as they're known around Westminster - says a lot about the party's confidence in Gordon Brown. After all, as one source tells the newspaper: "Why would you bother if you know that there is no chance of becoming a minister in the next government?" But it's this snippet from the FT's analysis which could be more noteworthy: "One Downing Street insider said the prime minister was more relaxed because he now realised that he was certain to lose the next election and was powerless to defy political gravity." Sure, another insider goes on to deny the same in the following sentence.
...Richard Nixon announced his resignation as President of the United States.