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

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

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,

So Sir Richard Dannatt has departed the Tory fold almost as curiously as he entered it. Sure, have been no gaffes from Chris Grayling this time around – but when it was announced last October that the former head of the Army was advising David Cameron, it was widely expected that he’d graduate to become a peer and a minister in any Tory government. But today he announces his “retirement” as neither. The Tories are downplaying all this, eager to avoid a repeat of the speculation that surrounded Sir Alan Budd’s departure. And, to be fair, there are few signs, as yet, that this is a viciously unamicable split. But

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

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

A fundamental shift has quietly taken place in Britain’s approach to Afghanistan: the focus is now on leaving, not winning. Con Coughlin asks if we are seeing the return of the politics of appeasement It is difficult to pinpoint the precise moment that David Cameron gave up on the war in Afghanistan. But the Prime Minister’s indisputable position today is that the Nato campaign is unwinnable, and that the sooner Britain withdraws its 10,000-strong combat contingent the better. Mr Cameron reached this depressing conclusion before the current furore over the leaking of 90,000 pages of low-grade intelligence and situation logs by the Australian anti-war campaigner Julian Assange through his website

How could I have forgotten to mention this in my last post? In that YouGov poll on the Labour leadership race, Ed Balls finished in a resounding last place. Yep, the former Schools Secretary is stuck on 11 percent of first preference votes – behind both Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham, who are tied on 12 percent, as well as both Miliband brothers of course. And the news has got Jim Pickard and Mehdi Hasan wondering: just what will Balls do next? Has he given up on winning? Will he drop out of the race and concentrate on becoming shadow chancellor? I know plenty of Tories who wouldn’t know whether

One thing’s for sure: the Labour leadership contest is a lot more uncertain than a lot of people expected. Polls such as that by YouGov today, and analysis by Left Foot Forward last week, suggest that the Brothers Miliband are pushing each other all the way to the finishing line – particularly when second preference votes are stirred into the mix. Which is perhaps the main reason why even the smallest interventions could have an influence on the result, and are worth tracking if you’re minded towards that kind of thing. In which case, I point you towards Jon Cruddas’s article for the latest New Statesman in which he makes