Gordon brown

The worries behind falling unemployment

Expect Labour to make much of today’s employment figures, which show that unemployment fell by 7,000 in the three months to last November.  Already, Yvette Cooper has claimed it as a success for “government investment”.  While Gordon Brown will surely repeat that message in PMQs. But is it really testament to government action?  Or is it a result of a naturally improving economy (which, let’s not forget, is taking longer in the UK than most other developed nations)?  Well, a study commissioned by the Spectator from Oxford Economics found that Brown’s “investment” would “save” around 35,000 jobs in 2009 – but then destroy considerably more jobs from this year on. 

The Brown brand

How do politicians achieve that “unspun” look?  Why, by emulating the spin of a soft drinks company, of course.  This from Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian: ‘[The Labour campaign team have] taken a look at the branding of Innocent smoothies, hoping the authentic, unspun look might fit their own ‘unairbrushable’ product, G Brown. They were heartened by the reaction to the retouched Cameron poster, which suggests people are sick of the slick trickery associated with the age of Blair.’ In which case, here’s the Innocent website so you can get an insight into the Brown brand (although I doubt he’ll provide two of your five-a-day).  If Labour persist down this

Geoff Hoon, silent assassin

And so it came to pass that nothing came to pass. Geoff Hoon gave evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on the same day as a convention of anaesthetists visited the QE Conference Centre. Perhaps their presence contributed to the somnolent proceedings. Beneath the apparent narcolepsy, Hoon made two important points. First, he was convinced that the intelligence contained in the two dossiers established the threat of WMD “beyond doubt”, which will assist Blair when he gives evidence, especially after Alastair Campbell’s recent ‘clarification’. However, Hoon claims that the 45-minute claim was the only piece of evidence that he had not seen prior to publication, adding that he was on ministerial

Fraser Nelson

Rompuy wants the EU to slither onto the world stage

Well hello there, Rompuy. We haven’t heard much from the new EU president so far – he was upstaged by Barroso at the Copenhagen conference, showing that the EU stage only has room for one super-ego*. But with the Lisbon Treaty ratified, in defiance of public opinion in Britain (and Labour’s manifesto pledge), he now has powers to advance the EU project further. His idea today: the possible development of a “humanitarian rapid reaction force” for the EU. This rung a bell with me. When I did my tour of duty in the Scottish Parliament, this was a goal of the SNP. They want to creep on to the world

Burning bridges

A noteworthy point from Tim Montgomerie in ConservativeHome’s latest general election briefing*: “The Daily Mail continues to blast Labour for neglecting marriage, as in an editorial today. It accuses Labour of being ‘deluded’ and ‘opportunist’. The Conservative policy is praised as ‘creditworthy’. The family is one of the top concerns of the paper’s Editor, Paul Dacre. Brown is undermining the last hope he had with Dacre by allowing Ed Balls to trash the Tory plan to save the two parent family.” Of course, no-one really expects the Mail to turn out for Labour come the election, but – after the attack they launched on Cameron before Christmas – the Tories

Me? Sleight of hand?

Two weeks ago, Barry Sheerman opened a second front against Brown’s premiership by attacking Ed Balls’ appointment of Kathleen Tattersall to Ofqual without a pre-hearing before the Schools select committee. Brown had introduced a requirement that recommended appointments to offices that reported to Parliament be scrutinised by legislators prior to confirmation of their appointment. Sheerman, with characteristic venom, referred to a “sleight of hand”. This afternoon, Balls defended himself and his permanent secretary, arguing that the committee did not object to the appointment when it was made in July 2008, and any rate the pre-hearing was not operational then. I don’t know whose memory is accurate. If Balls is correct

A matter of trust

Oh dear.  Seems like Labour supporters don’t have too much faith in their party of choice.  A new poll for PoliticsHome finds that only 47 percent of “natural Labour supporters” believe that their party is either “fairly likely” or “very likely” to fulfill its manifesto pledges.  That’s against 77 percent and 75 percent for Tory and Lib Dem supporters, respectively. Of course, you’d probably expect this kind of result for a party which, thanks to 13 years of government, has had plenty of opportunity not to deliver on its promises.  But it still demonstrates just how difficult Brown will find it to convince the public about his “guarantees“.

Three steps to cleaning up our toxic banks

Fraser outlined the problem with the British banks in his earlier post, but I’d like to suggest a three-step solution.   1. To deal with the problem, you have to admit to the problem. This is the First Step for Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step plan but holds true for politics. Say it out loud: the banking system is still broken. It needs fixed, and the process won’t be pretty. There will always be a political temptation to turn a blind eye, as there was in Japan during its ‘lost decade’. 2. Use an objective and credible third party to analyse the ability of banks to withstand losses, and to go

Labour’s policy is a hostage to their internal struggles

So Gordon is selling himself as a champion of the middle classes.  There is, as various commentators have pointed out, more than a little bit of hyposcrisy about that.  But the thing that strikes me most about our PM’s change of tack is how similar it is to Darling’s honesty over cuts last weekend.   Like Darling’s admission, it represents some sort of progress for Labour: on paper, the politics of aspiration should play better – and have wider appeal – than the crude class war that they’ve engaged in recently.  But, also like Darling’s admission, it highlights just how inconsistent the government have been over the last few months. 

The insiders bite back

Another weekend, another set of embarrassing revelations for Gordon Brown.  The Mail on Sunday continues its serialisation of Peter Watt’s Inside Out; this time focusing on what Watt wryly describes as Labour’s “plans … for swapping the most electorally successful Labour Prime Minister in our history for Gordon Brown.”   Ok, so the Blairite-Brownite wars are nothing new, but this alleged Brown quote, made at the time of the cash-for-honours scandal, deserves adding to the notebook: “Later, rumours swirled in No10 of a furious bust-up between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. ‘I’ll bring you down with sleaze,’ the Chancellor was said to have yelled.” Although, to my mind, this

Gentlemen interrupt their lunch for no one

Why did it take Peter Mandelson so long to support Brown on the afternoon of the snow plot? Well, his lordship was taking luncheon. His interview with the Telegraph contains the disclosure: ‘As the scheming by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt unfolded, the Business Secretary ate haddock with an old friend. “We had a good talk which did not focus on events back at Westminster. When I got back, I put out a statement suggesting that it was a very minor storm in an even smaller teacup. I called it right. By teatime it had become a two-hour wonder.”’ Mandelson must eat at a Gladstonean pace. The Business Secretary is

Will faith prove Cruddas’ undoing?

What intrigues me most about the Cruddas/Purnell axis is their commitment to faith in public life. Many politicians discuss faith carefully and define its role in society as essentially passive – remember David Cameron’s recent interview with the Evening Standard. Cruddas and Purnell envisage faith and the civic mutualism it engenders as an active ingredient to renew both party and country. Writing in the Guardian earlier this week, Purnell wrote: ‘The Labour movement was built upon organisation, the practices of reciprocity and mutuality that, if successful, led to a shared responsibility for one another’s fate… There are deep conservative elements in the Labour tradition, and we should honour them –

Burnham’s exocet misfires

The sword of truth is working overtime this afternoon. First, Andy Burnham writes a letter to David Cameron demanding answers about a £21,000 donation from John Nash, chairman of CareUK, to the office of, oh dear, Andrew Lansley. As Paul Waugh notes, a conflict of interest scandal looms here because CareUK is a private firm that makes £400m running GP surgeries and so forth for the NHS. But the truth will out as they say. It turns out that the Chairman of BUPA, Lord Leitch, wasted £5,000 on Gordon Brown’s unopposed leadership campaign. BUPA also does rather well out of the NHS. The indefatigable Waugh has dug up this gem from a

Fraser Nelson

Surprise, suprise, inflation’s on the rise

Oops! Britain’s inflation is heading back to 4 per cent territory ­ as you’d expect with the Bank of England printing money and using the debt to finance government spending. If you create more money, you reduce the value of the money. Citi has done another brilliant research note, which it is putting online, laying out the implications. The punters are facing pay freezes, or settlements below 2 per cent. The cost of living is soaring. Result: misery. Here are the two graphs from Citi that spell it out. First, inflation (much affected by the VAT hike ­ in the same way that it was artificially reduced by the VAT

Labour put “guarantees” at the heart of their campaign

Does Gordon Brown look like the kind of guy who can keep a promise?  Because that’s the main question which stands in the way of Labour’s election strategy, if Andrew Grice’s revelations in the Indpendent are anything to go by.  According to Grice, Labour are going to repeat their trick from 1997, and focus on five or so pledges – what Downing St now calls “guarantees” – during their election campaign.  It’s not certain what they’ll be yet, but Grice reports that Labour MPs are being instructed to concentrate on the following policies in their constituencies: — Training or further education will be provided for all school-leavers and a job

Guilty as charged

Dreadful news, Douglas Alexander has been the victim of a cynical paraphrase. Talking to James MacIntyre, who’s given Paul Waugh a sneak preview, Alexander said that it’s really Peter Watt who’s responsible for that quote.   “Listen I have said that was not my view. It seems that Peter Watt himself does not seem certain what he claims I said. I would just ask you to weigh 20 years of working with Gordon against 20 words that were apparently paraphrased. But listen, he’s got a book to sell; there are bigger and more important issues that we are focused on.” Hmm… 20 gruelling years versus 20 cutting words? It’s a no-brainer Douglas.  

Lloyd Evans

An energetic contest

At last, Cameron’s got it. He finally varied his tactics at PMQs today. Brown had no warning. That made the change doubly effective. First Cameron asked two easy-peasy questions about salt which the PM answered in his favourite strain of complacent pomposity. At one point I think I heard him say the nation’s supplies are so crucial that he may create a ‘salt cell’ in the middle of Britain so we never again run low on this vital condiment. Cameron then tossed aside the salt-pot and declined to ask a further question. Brown was unsettled by this. Realising the worst was yet to come, he waffled nervously through an answer

What a difference 13 years make

Hearing Cameron joke, in PMQs, that Labour would airbrush Gordon Brown out of their election campaign, I couldn’t help but think of Labour’s 1997 manifesto.  As you can see to the left, it proudly featured Tony Blair’s face (and not much else) on its cover.  So: what chances that Labour use Brown’s face on the front of this year’s manifesto?  And, more importantly, how long before someone makes a spoof version of the 1997 cover with an image of the current Labour leader?

James Forsyth

PMQs is a contest again

Well, well another PMQs where Brown holds his own. He struggled for a long time after the election that never was, but in the past couple of months Brown has found some form. For the second week in a row, he had the best line: “He’s getting much redder than he is on his photograph”. Cameron did have one particularly effective moment when he asked Labour backbenchers whether they were putting Brown on their election literature. Only a handful did. In some ways this is all Westminster Village froth, few voters watch PMQs. But Cameron’s failure to win these clashes is bugging him. While Brown’s performances must be boosting his