Gordon brown

George Osborne has been quiet these past few weeks, tussling with ministers desperate to preserve some of their budget from his spending review. Today though, Osborne will emerge from the Treasury’s recesses to launch a political attack on the ‘deficit denying’ opposition. Come on, Osborne will ask Darling et al, where are these £44bn of cuts you planned?   And answer comes there none, not even an incredible one. Labour’s refusal to countenance a spending review in government means it has very little to offer the spending debate in opposition. There is also a suggestion that ‘investment versus cuts’ dividing line that paralysed the Brown premiership has yet to be resolved: Ed

Frank Field, John Hutton and now Alan Milburn – the red tinges to the coalition mix are like a Who’s Who of reforming Labour politicians. Milburn, we learn today, is to return to government as an adviser to David Cameron on social mobility. It’s a role he should be accumstomed to, as he was tasked with writing a report on the issue under Brown. That time, his suggestions were buried by a government which didn’t want to face up to the sorry facts. This time, you hope they meet with a more constructive response. But why wasn’t a Conservative (or conservative) appointed? That’s the question which Iain Dale asks over

A poll in today’s Daily Mail might have the Tories down to 29 percent (in part due to a very large number of undecideds) but it is Charlie Whelan’s interview blaming Peter Mandelson for Labour’s election debacle that is getting all the attention. In a fit of campaign nostalgia, CCHQ has tweeted out a bunch of lines from it. But I suspect it is the last Whelan quote in the piece that has them smacking their lips.  Whelan says, ‘Labour has not fallen out of love with Gordon. Quite the reverse. If he tips up at the Conference – which I think he will – he’ll go on stage and

An eyecatching claim from Ed Miliband, interviewed by Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy: “I don’t think our spending was irresponsible.” And here’s a graph in response: I’ll let CoffeeHousers draw their own conclusions.

What became of the likeable lads, that group of New Labour politicians who seemed more decent than the government in which they served? Alistair Darling was one, and he has effectively retired from the frontline of British politics. Alan Johnson was another, and today he gives a frank and wide-ranging interview to Rachel Sylvester. In it, Johnson spends much time cheerleading for David Miliband, and criticising Ed Miliband quite harshly, but there are some points which are worth recording. So here goes: 1) What a drag. As Sylvester puts it, “The [leadership] contest has, in [Johnson’s] view, already gone on too long and should not have been extended until September.”

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

Westminster has rewound the tape today, in anticipation of Nick Robinson’s documentary on the coalition negotiations tonight. There’s speculation about what Nick Clegg did or didn’t say back in May; Anthony Seldon has a piece on Gordon Brown’s side of things in the Independent; and Robinson himself has a summary article in the Telegraph. Much of what’s revealed so far could already be pieced together from the Mandelson memoirs, as well as from Westminister chatter, but some of the new contexts are eyecatching. This, for instance, from Robinson, suggests just how important personality politics was during those days after the election: “Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer, nor

Oh look, Gordon Brown has continured his return to public life with a sizeable interview in today’s Independent.  It’s a generous portrait which seems designed to dispel any rumours about the former Prime Minister’s wellbeing. Apparently, he “looks healthy and fit … seems quite cheerful.” And we’re treated to descriptions of his face, “like a map of a man’s soul.” For those who can read any further, there are accounts of his constituency work and his aspirations to “do more on international development”. The world shudders. Despite his claims to the contrary, there are ominous signs that Brown is keen to impact upon our national politics. His clearest boast in

At last, Nick Clegg got his chance to pretend to be PM today and he used it to give a dazzling impression of Gordon Brown.  Opposing him, Jack Straw was off-colour. Hoarse of throat and hunched of stance, he did his best to bring some clarity to Britain’s new mission in Afghan – Operation Leg It. He asked if the exit date of 2014 was ‘absolute or conditional’. Keen to offer value for money Clegg responded to a single question with two answers. He expected ‘no troops in a combat role’ by 2015 – not 2014 – although our departure was dependent on the Afghans’s ability to secure their own

George Osborne has talked of simplifying the tax system for years, and today he launched the OTS, The Office for Tax Simplification. The OTS will be chaired by Michael Jack, s Treasury minister in the Major government, and John Whiting of PWC and Chartered Institute of Taxation. The OTS looks suspiciously like a quango, but some public bodies are necessary and welcome. The tax system is unintelligible, and, needless to say, Gordon Brown complicated it further with morass of stealth taxes, tax credits and new loopholes opened more by chance than design. This has particularly affected small businesses and the OTS will identify salient businesses taxes and recommend their simplification.

Why increase aid to Afghanistan by 40pc when troops are dying from a lack of body armour and helicopters? The pledge to not just protect but vastly increase the aid budget is one which, polls show, leaves the public puzzled.  I was on the Politics Show with Jon Sopel, who was putting to Andrew Mitchell some very sharp questions about all of this. Why build schools in Afghanistan, but cancel them in Britain? Worse, in fact, DFID has a habit of building schools but not finding teachers for them – its ideology states that teaching should be a job for central government, just like it is in Britain. The Afghan

Peter Mandelson’s decision to support Gordon Brown right to the end enabled him to cease being a purely factional figure in the Labour party. The multiple standing ovations he received at the last Labour conference were a recognition of that. As he put it, he was now the prince of stability not darkness. It was easy to see how Mandelson could become one of the elder statesmen of the party. But The Third Man has thrown all this away. Mandelson is once more a highly factional figure. He has admitted that he wouldn’t have stopped his Cabinet colleagues toppling Brown if they could have and that Labour would have done

Asks Jeff Randall in a pugnacious column for the Telegraph. The memoirs, Randall argues, have finally exposed the conceit that Mandelson was a tactical genius. Randall says that Mandelson was a devious and divisive backroom spinner. Well, he ain’t the Prince of Darkness for nothing. But Mandelson’s career and political persona were fashioned in a bygone era. Today, ambitious homosexuals climb the greasy pole out in the open – both in terms of their careers and their sexuality, (David Laws was an exception in the latter case). Mandelson’s modus operandi was determined by the conclusion that the 1980s were not an era for gays in politics, whether preening or discreet.

Reading Ed Miliband’s piece in today’s Times on how Labour can win back southern voters, I was struck by this section: ‘We need to be clear that part of the job of social democratic politics is to conserve those things in society that free-market Conservatism would destroy. Our communities are too precious to be dictated to by markets. Take the example of how our towns have changed. If you travel through the market towns of the South, too often you find them dominated by late-night bars, clubs and betting shops, even when local people want a more friendly place to live.’ Ed Miliband has made this kind of argument before,

Pat McFadden, the sullen-looking Shadow Business Secretary, has given an important speech to the Fabian Society. He said: ‘Fight the cuts is a tempting slogan in opposition, and there are indeed some that must be fought. But if that is all we are saying the conclusion will be drawn that we are wishing the problem away.’ He is the first shadow minister to recognise that Labour’s current approach is counter-productive, and Ed Balls’ philosophy is suicidal. He notes: ‘In fact, that is the position the Tories and the Lib Dems would prefer us to adopt. They want Labour to retreat to its comfort zone and allow them to say that