Gordon brown

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

How Brown would get Darling out of the Treasury

After reading Brown’s claims in the Guardian today, this Kill A Minister mechanism in his speech today rather jumped out at me: “I will set out a clear and public annual contract for each new Cabinet Minister, detailing what I expect them and their department to deliver to the British people, and that their continued appointment is dependent on their delivery just as it would be in a business or any other organisation.” I mean, you can just imagine what Alistair Darling’s first “contract” would look like: You, the Chancellor, will undertake to deliver the following to the British people: i) Economic growth of 5 percent in 2010-11 ii) A

Peter Hoskin

Will anyone take any notice of Labour’s five pledges?

So the Labour pledge card is back – and, this time, it’s a good deal more nebulous than in 1997 or 2001, but quite similar to 2005.*  Here are the themes that Brown & Co. will be campaigning on: i) Secure our recovery ii) Raise family living standards iii) Build a high tech economy iv) Protect frontline services v) Strengthen fairness in communities There’s another key difference with previous elections too: one of trust.  Sure, voters have always been reluctant to take politicians’ promises and exhortations at face value.  But it’s a safe bet that they’re even more sceptical and uninterested this time around. *Although, as Alastair Campbell points out,

Friday

David Blackburn

The Tories are paying the price for Osborne’s mercurial political instincts

I’m at a loss. How can a government that will raise the national debt to £1.4 trillion be trusted to run the economy? The Daily Politics/Com Res poll shows that Labour is more trusted on the economy than the Tories; it indicts George Osborne’s political performance. As Fraser noted, Osborne blew an unprecedented opportunity on yesterday’s Today programme. The danger inherent in a £1.4 trillion national debt is not a difficult argument to make. Tax hikes, inflation and soaring interest rates will be the progeny of Brown’s continued borrowing binge. Yet Osborne confined his attack to valid but esoteric points about credit ratings and a list of acronyms. Ken Clarke

Thursday

Fraser Nelson

Labour’s spending cuts exposed

Darling has now exposed as false the Brown/Balls dividing line of “investment vs cuts”. If Labour were to win, he said, the cuts would be worse than anything seen under Thatcher in the 1980s. This is Darling’s problem: he’s a dreadful liar. The IFS today laid out the scale of the cuts that would happen whoever wins the election, and the below graph is worth reprinting. Overall spending falls 12 percent (once dole and debt interest are taken into account). So when Darling says this is worse than anything in the 1980s, he is simply stating a fact. You’d never catch Balls or Brown doing that, by the way, and

Peter Hoskin

The two sides of Alistair Darling

After delivering an insipid, insufficient Budget yesterday, Alistair Darling has now smuggled a little bit of honesty into the fiscal debate.  In interview with Nick Robinson, he has claimed that if Labour is re-elected its spending cuts “will be deeper and tougher” than Thatcher’s.  Needless to say, that’s a message which will not sit well with his Cabinet colleagues like Ed “investment vs cuts” Balls. And this is precisely why Darling is such a confusing figure.  Yes, he deserves some praise for being more upfront about the public finances than his predecessor ever could be, and for restricting the wilder excesses of Brown and Balls.  But it’s hard to forget

Peter Hoskin

Darling and Brown get away with it

Strange days, indeed.  While most of the frontpages today are unflattering for Labour – particularly, and unsurprisingly, those of the Telegraph and the Sun – I imagine that Brown & Co. will be quite pleased with the general tone of the Budget coverage.  Much of it mirrors the Independent’s view that Darling “played a weak hand well”.  Or, elsewhere, there’s a kind of detached indifference about what is described as a “boring” Budget. Yes, if you like, you can take that as proof that the Darling-and-Mandelson approach to the public finances is less politically toxic, and a good degree more sensible, than the Balls-and-Brown approach.  But, to my mind, it

Wednesday

Fraser Nelson

In defence of Alistair Darling

It’s unusual for Chancellors to stand with their wives on the steps of the Treasury on budget day, and to see the Darlings together this morning gives an indication of what they have been through. Brown doubtless thought him an automaton when he appointed him to the job – but I was wrong to say that he would be “no more a Chancellor than Captain Scarlett was an actor”. He has defied Brown, bringing moderation and much-needed dullness to the worst fiscal crisis in Britain’s peacetime history. In James’s political column last week he suggested that Darling calls his autobiography “the forces of hell” – that he would defy Brown

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

A reassuringly dull budget

This was a surprisingly subdued Budget, and for that Alistair Darling is to be commended. He must have resisted all manner of pressure from Brown to put in pre-election pyrotechnics. But the budget was what it should be: a punctuation mark on the sentence of the national economy. That sentence says “our finances are going to hell,” and the Budget’s high point is that we are doing so fractionally slower than we were expecting to last November. Personally, I forgive Darling all the partisan stuff in his speech – this is a pre-election Budget after all. There is no act of wanton vandalism, like the 50p tax. Stamp duty on

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

Not the main event

Cameron was scarcely trying at PMQs today. Show up, look a bit cross, slip in a joke or two, then sit down and wait for the Budget. That was his plan. When the PM offered his congratulations on BabyCam, the opposition leader quoted a text he’d received – ‘How do you find time for these things?’ Making this wisecrack seemed more important to him than attacking the PM. His tactics were odd, out of touch, retrospective. He asked about Brown’s attempts to conceal the evidence that, as chancellor, he flogged the nation’s gold too cheaply and blew vast sums in potential profits. Brown’s bungling over the bullion billions should be

Peter Hoskin

PMQs live blog | 24 March 2010

Stay tuned for live coverage at 1200.  A Budget live blog will follow at 1230. 1201: And we’re off.  Brown starts with condolences for the fallen.  The first question from Mike Penning is a punchy one: when did the PM realise he “mislead” the Chilcot Inquiry?  Before or after?  Brown responds by pointing out that defence spending has risen in real terms over the last 12 years, if not every year. 1203: A planted question gives Brown to opportunity to list Labour’s “fairness measures”.  He says they would never have been put forward by George Osborne. 1204: Cameron starts by saying that he’d “like to clear up a few issues”. 

Peter Hoskin

Spotting the Budget deceptions

There are, lest you need reminding, two levels of deception on Budget Day.  First, there’s the Chancellor’s Budget statement, which is pretty obviously spun to put the best light on things.  I refer you to when Brown triumphantly announced a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax in his final Budget statement, while somehow forgetting to mention that the 10p rate has been abolished.  And then there’s a Budget document itself, in which much of the most revealing content is tucked away in appendices and footnotes.  Even straightforward spending figures are hard to come by in the Red Book. In which case, we’ll be doing our best to

Peter Hoskin

All quiet on the Westminster front

If there’s one thing distinguishing this morning, then it’s just how placid everything feels.  The clouds are moving sluggishly across the sky; there’s little excitement about the measures expected in the Budget; and there are no stories about rifts between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.  Indeed, Downing St insiders tell the FT that relations between Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have been “pretty good” in the run up to the Budget, because both are “broadly agreed on the strategy of halving the deficit in four years while backing growth initiatives.” Many are taking this as a sign that Darling and Peter Mandelson have won out in their efforts to

Tuesday

Peter Hoskin

The Tories want you to help unpick the Budget

One of the best things about this Brave New Web World is how it helps you to draw upon the talents, knowledge and expertise of people around the world. We certainly had that in mind when we asked CoffeeHousers to help us track down the tricks and deceptions in last year’s Budget – and now the Conservatives are thinking along similar lines. Earlier today, David Cameron said that the Tories would “crowd-source” their Budget response tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt has since provided more details here. This kind of thing ties in neatly with the Tories’ powerful transparency agenda. But the real test is whether they would continue this approach in government

Peter Hoskin

Two things to bear in mind tomorrow

If, as expected, Alistair Darling reduces his borrowing forecasts tomorrow, it’s worth keeping two particular points in mind: 1) This government has always tended to underestimate its borrowing levels.  Ok, so you might argue that the government couldn’t have foreseen that public sector net borrowing would rise to £178 billion in 2009/10 when it predicted £38 billion in Budget 2008.  A recession has bitten, banks have collapsed, since then – that kind of thing.  But Brown & Co. certainly have a track record when it comes to underestimating borrowing totals.  In Budget 1999, they thought that borrowing would be at £3 billion in 2002-03 – it turned out to be

Peter Hoskin

The Budget is a bigger opportunity for the Tories than for Labour

Last night’s Dispatches programme was a concentrated double blow for Labour.  Not only did the limelight burn more unflatteringly on their party, but it has also undermined their careful Budget operation.  For the next few days, at least, it’s possible that broken politics may trump the broken economy in the public mind.  And Alistair Darling is going to have a difficult, if not impossible, task in bridging that chasm of “distrust and disbelief” with his prescriptions tomorrow. It doesn’t help the Chancellor’s cause that, by most accounts, we’re going to get an unconvincing and unspectacular Budget – some spin about lower borrowing forecasts; none of the tax rises that Peter

Monday

Martin Bright

Cab for Hire: Dispatches and the Moral Collapse of the Political Class

I am still reeling from Antony Barnett’s Dispatches investigation into MPs and lobbying. Truly brilliant TV. Horribly watchable. Exquisitely awful. I watched half of it from behind my hands. This was Curb Your Enthusiasm meets the Office: political Dr Who for grown-ups. Why is it always the Blairites who get themselves into these messes? Is it simply because they bought the New Labour compact with the market more fully than the rest of the party? Or is that they waded so far into unfamiliar territory that they lost their moral compass? None of this completely explains what is going on here.  There was something rather sad about watching Stephen Byers wade

Peter Hoskin

Byers, Hewitt and Hoon suspended from the Labour party…

…according to the Beeb just now.  And if you watched tonight’s Dispatches programme, you’ll know exactly why. Nick Robinson comments that the “Labour leadership” will delight in “taking revenge” on three figures who have ruffled Brown’s feathers on multiple occasions – so it continues to look like backbiting and politicking will take priority over geniune reform.  A grubby Parliament just got considerably grubbier.

David Blackburn

Both Labour and the Tories need to get stuck into Vince

The public remains infatuated with Vince Cable. A Politics Home poll reveals that 31 percent want Cable to be chancellor. It’s a crushing endorsement: Don’t Know is his nearest rival on 24 percent, followed by Ken Clarke on 16 percent. Cable’s reputation rests on his sagacious airs and an apparent contempt for party politics. His eminence is baffling. Fleet-footed fox-trotter he may be; economic guru he is not. Andrew Neil’s interview shattered Cable’s invincibility. The Sage of Twickenham admitted to changing his mind over the HBOS Lloyds merger and his constantly shifting position on cuts was exposed. Add to that the ill-thought out Mansions Tax and Cable begins to look

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Introducing the Nelson tax

In the News of the World today, I propose a new tax on the rich: specifically, on ex-ministers who go on to earn a crust advising companies how to avoid the regulations with which they have saddled the British economy. I proposed this before the news broke about Byers and Hewitt etc, but their appalling story makes it all the more pertinent. The Nelson tax should be above the top rate, and imposed on any activity such as giving speeches to the Chinese, lobbying, consultancy, etc. – anything which trades from contacts or reputation built up while serving the taxpayer. It would not be levied on activities which the ex-minister