Gordon brown

Mandelson is tiring of his ‘toy’

Patrick Wintour’s piece on Peter Mandelson in today’s Guardian is the most thorough explanation that we’ve had yet of Mandelson’s ‘Garbo-esque silence’ since the PBR. Mandelson was clearly intensely frustrated and disillusioned by the PBR, and the presentation of it, backing away from his smart cuts strategy and instead returning to the crude investment versus cuts dividing line. One also gets the impression that Mandelson was irritated by Brown’s fundamental failings as a politician. Wintour writes that those who spoke to Mandleson before Christmas “heard a man frustrated by the prime minister’s lack of focus, decision-making capacity, and strategic guile.” One thing that jumped out at me is that Ed

Labour’s imminent bloodbath

The latest instalment of the Labour leadership saga is available at a newsagent near you. Writing in the Independent, John Rentoul argues that Labour must avoid the ‘Oyster Card Error’. That is, ‘the gate beeps and the sign says, “Seek Assistance”. But do they? No, they try again.’ Loyal as ever, Rentoul believes that the party can only be renewed by the heir to Blair, David Miliband; Gordon Brown’s politics must be consigned to the footnotes of history, and Amen to that. However, whilst defeat at the polls will remove Brown it may not break his dedicated parliamentary support. The plans, plots, schemes and ploys against the PM have been

The Tories are frustrating, but Labour is unelectable

Ok, Coffee House has given the Tories short-shrift in recent weeks, but this is a reaction born of frustration. The election should be a walkover. At their best, the Tories have the radical policies, and to a certain extent the team, to rescue Britain from its current Labour-inflicted quandary. Yet the party remains tentative, fearful of its own shadow. It should not be. Labour deserves to lose, and not only in retribution for its record: the governing party has embarked on an open internecine war and is completely unelectable in consequence. Rachel Sylvester describes the paralysis: ‘Lord Mandelson is advocating a campaign based on aspiration, public service reform and fiscal

Brown and out?

Whether anything comes of it is a different matter altogether, but this insight from the Standard’s Joe Murphy deserves pulling out: “A senior minister is said to be close to quitting in a move to destabilise Mr Brown, the Standard has been told. There is speculation among MPs that a big beast such as Chancellor Alistair Darling, Lord Mandelson or Justice Secretary Jack Straw might be willing to tell Mr Brown to go if the party falls into fresh turmoil.” Paul Waugh and Channel 4’s Gary Gibbon have more on the story, here and here.  As I pointed out at the weekend, it looks as though the rumblings about Brown’s

Is this Labour’s election slogan?

I wouldn’t be surprised if this Gordon Brown snippet gets deployed ad nauseam between now and the next election: “[Brown] described Labour as the party of ‘prosperity not austerity'” If so, it’s worth noting that it’s a phrase that Ed Miliband used in several speeches last year (e.g. here, here and here).  But, whoever its author, it’s hard to imagine it working for a governing party which has presided over one of the most spectacular busts in our history.

Oh dear, Gordon’s done it again

The knicker-bomber must love this. Twice Gordon Brown has jumped on the bandwagon and bounced straight off on both occasions. Sky News reports that the UK did not pass vital information to the US, despite the claims of a Downing Street spokesman. Here’s the key section: ‘During a briefing to journalists today, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “There is no suggestion the UK passed intelligence to the US that they did not act on.” But Sky’s political correspondent Joey Jones said it had been an “awful” briefing. “He tried to clear things up but only succeeded in muddying the waters still further,” Jones said. “After he read Downing Street’s statement,

Is Cameron cowering in the face of Labour attacks?

Say what you like about the Cameron project, but at least they are strongly committed to marriage. Aren’t they? Well, it seems, not now. I always suspected that the wonderful strength of Cameron’s rhetoric on marriage was not really matched by his policy – a rather paltry tax break. Now, it seems not even that is certain. “It’s something within a parliament I would definitely hope to do,” he said today. “We’re not able to give people absolute certainty on everything.” Well not on everything – but what about on the few hard pledges that have actually been made? Or is Cameron really cowering in the face of Labour attacks

Brown’s troubles are returning at just the right time for Cameron & Co.

First she loved him.  Then she hated him.  Then she seemed lukewarm towards him.  And, today, she’s gone back to hating him more than ever.  Yes, Polly Toynbee’s latest column is another marker stone in her oscillating relationship with Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t contain any minced words: “Cancel new year, put back the clocks and forget the fireworks. There is nothing to celebrate in the dismal year ahead. The Labour party is sledging down a black run, eyes tight shut, the only certainty the electoral wall at the bottom of the hill. In five months David Cameron will be prime minister and Gordon Brown will be toast. Remember him?

Thinking the unthinkable

Woah, hang on there. A Labour and Conservative coalition in the event of a hung Parliament? Crazy talk, surely? But that’s what Martin Kettle devotes his column to in today’s Guardian. It’s only unthinkable, he writes, “until you start thinking about it.” Hm. So rather than dismissing the prospect out of hand, I thought I’d register one particular complaint against it. While many of Kettle’s arguments about the fracturing of the party system and the blurring lines between the main parties make sense, the idea that they might coalesce in the aftermath of this year’s election ignores one crucial factor: the Labour leadership. Let’s just say, for the sake of Kettle’s argument, that Gordon Brown achieves

The year in cuts

As we’re still in that period of the year for looking back as well as forward, I thought I’d share with CoffeeHousers a political timeline I put together. It’s not everything which happened in the political year, mind – but rather the important events in the debate over spending cuts. This debate has, at very least, been in the background to almost every political discussion in 2009, and it will dominate the years ahead – so this kind of exercise probably has some posterity value. But, aside from that, you can also draw a couple of conclusions from the timeline (and I do so below). Anyway, here it is, starting a bit before

What a difference two years makes

“Did he know who you were? I mean, not to be disrespectful, but he has been away for two and a half years…” So Five Live’s Phil Wiliams asked David Miliband who was talking about his conversation with Peter Moore who has just been released from Iraqi captivity. Brilliant image. The guy gets out of prison, then there’s a call from this nerdy Blairite bag carrier claiming to be foreign secretary. Yegawds, he’d say, what’s happened? Worse, Gordon Brown had become Prime Minister and irreparably trashed the British economy in the space of 24 months. Britain has now joined Zimbabwe in printing money to fund state spending. At the end

Brown kicks off 2010 with dividing lines aplenty

Clear your diary, invite the relatives over, and huddle around a computer: Gordon Brown will be delivering his New Year’s message – via podcast, on the Downing St website – this evening. Just in case you’ve got other things to be doing, this article in the Telegraph gives you a good taste of what to expect. In summary: dividing lines and optimism. There’s plenty on how the Tories are planning for “a decade of austerity and unfairness” – in contrast to our glorious PM, who predicts falling unemployment, more new businesses and prosperity for all. Indeed, the snippets that the Telegraph carries indicate just how eager Brown is to deploy a green shoots

It’s not just the bankers who will be hanged

Oh, Darling, what hast thou done?  There are few more pertinent, or more damning, examples of what the government’s soak-the-rich policies could mean for the country than the news that JP Morgan is having second thoughts about developing a £1.5 billion European HQ in Canary Wharf.  Of course, the bank may still go ahead with it.  But just imagine if they don’t: the work lost for construction workers and a thousand other contractors; the tax revenues lost for the public finances.  The damage won’t just – or even mostly – be to the financial sector. Thing is, I imagine that Number Ten will be fairly happy with the story.  As

Identifying Brown’s culpability in Iraq

The Tories have missed a trick in responding to the predictable news that Gordon Brown won’t be giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry until after the election. William Hague has just said that it stinks. He should have followed up by listing the questions Brown should be asked – highlighting the extent of his personal culpability in our defeat in Basra and treatment of the troops: 1) Did you ever ask yourself why Britain came to be fighting two wars on a peacetime budget? 2) During the 2007 Tory Patrty conference you went to Iraq and said that 500 troops would be home by Christmas. This decision stunned the Ministry

James Forsyth

What happened the last time Gove played Cameron’s opponent in debate prep

One of the surprises of the Tory leadership campaign in 2005 was how David Davis bested David Cameron in the TV debate between the two men. Those involved in Cameron’s preparations for that debate blame Cameron’s poor performance on how Michael Gove knocked Cameron’s confidence in the run up to it. Gove was Davis in debate prep and played Davis as a ferociously clever, Oxford Union-style debater and kept leaving Cameron tied in knots. So it is interesting that the Cameron camp have again chosen Gove to play the role of Cameron’s opponent in the run up to a TV debate. This time Gove will, of course, be playing the

Those split stories just won’t go away…

A hefty one-two punch in the continuing “Have Gordon and Peter fallen out?” story, this morning.  The Telegraph has quotes suggesting that Mandelson is “upset” and feels “disposed of” by Brown.  And Sue Cameron of the FT details a specific rift between the pair, ending with the observation: “I hear Lord M is not happy, telling friends that he does not have the influence he was promised.”  For his part, Mandelson has since dismissed the reports as “complete tosh”. Problem is, for Downing Street, the truth of the stories is almost immaterial.  After a relatively stable few months, Brown is once again mired in rumour and speculation concerning his own

Will this be the game-changer that Brown needs?

So there we have it.  There will be televised election debates between the three main party leaders during the next election campaign, after all.  The first will be on ITV, then there’ll be one each on Sky and the BBC.  Talk about good TV for political anoraks. Like Tim Montgomerie and Mike Smithson, I suspect that Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be happiest with the news.  Both of them, particularly Brown, need potential game-changing events like this to make some progress in the polls.   As for Cameron, he’d probably be better off not giving his opponents a chance to make inroads into the Tories’ poll lead.  But he

I blame Bono for the Copenhagen failure

So who or what is to blame for the failure of the Copenhagen gathering to achieve what most people hoped for? Polly Toynbee says that the nature of politics is to blame. Personally I blame U2’s Bono. I don’t blame him for the failure of world leaders to agree a legally-binding agreement, of course. But I do blame him for the unrealistic expectations that were raised in the run-up to the meeting. Issue-based campaigning, of which the climate change movement is the latest example, came into its own with the debt-relief campaign of Jubilee 2000, which the Irish singer spearheaded. Since then, every global issue has been approached in much

Slightly surprising stat of the day

According to a YouGov poll in tomorrow’s People (reported by the paper’s political editor, Nigel Nelson, on Twitter): “1% more people would rather have G.Brown than D.Cameron round for Christmas dinner.” There’s better news elsewhere in the poll for the Tories: the gap between them and Labour is back in double digits.  It’s the Tories on 40 percent, Labour on 28, and the Lib Dems on 18.

Cutting the deficit sooner won’t risk the recovery

Would cutting spending “risk the recovery?” This claim is, literally, Gordon Brown’s re-election manifesto. He is hoping that the Tories haven’t learned to use numbers as weapons – so any economic message he has will not be effectively countered. In fact, his claim is very easily exposed as being bogus by a simple look at recent British economic history. Bloomberg’s Chart of the Day shows that economic growth in the past two recessions (white line) was not at all threatened by fiscal tightening (green graph). Even Goldman Sachs – which is acquiring a reputation as the Labour Party’s house broker – is conceding the central point.  I hope Bloomberg won’t