Government

There are a couple of noteworthy snippets in today’s FT interview with George Osborne: the claim that the Tories may not take corporation tax as low as it is in Ireland; the outline of a “five-year road map” on business tax policy, etc.  But, I must admit, it’s this passage which jumped out at me:    “[Osborne] says his Tory conference speech in October, which included plans for a public sector pay freeze and an increase in the state retirement age, ‘was an important moment’ that showed a mental leap to being ‘an alternative government, not just an opposition’.” These self-bestowed titles – “alternative government,” and the like – are

Ed Balls has given an interview to The Times Educational Supplement which contains a comically audacious attempt to rewrite history. When asked about whether he really wants to be in his current job, Balls tells the interviewer, “I have resisted moving”. Now, I suspect this will come as a bit of a shock to Alistair Darling who fought off an effort by Balls to take his job. 

Another one for the Brown as Nixon folder, courtesy of Rachel Sylvester’s column today: “‘It’s about style of government,’ says one senior figure due to give evidence [to the Iraq Inquiry]. ‘Blair would have a war Cabinet, but a small caucus would meet beforehand. The civil servants were frustrated. Gordon is just as bad. He gives lots of time to Peter Mandelson and Shriti Vadera and ignores the officials. There’s a darker side to the Brown machine — he’s more suspicious. It’s cliquiness driven by paranoia rather than camaraderie, but it has the same result.'”

In the politics column this week, I write about how the Tories plan to hand over many of the traditional policy making powers of the Cabinet to a seven man policy board. The Cameroons are going to do this partly because it is a model that has worked well for them in oppoistion and that they are comfortable with but also because the Cabinet is just too large for effective, detailed discussions about policy. The shadow Cabinet currently has 34 members in it. In government, this number will have to drop by at least ten. But still, a 24 person group is, probably, too large to foster constructive and detailed

So far as Downing Street is concerned, this morning’s Sunday Times cover is a presentational nightmare. It reports that Peter Mandelson is calling on Brown to make him Foreign Secretary – a move which would create all kinds of internal difficulties for the PM. Sounds a little bizarre to me: we all know that Mandelson would, in theory, like the role which was once occupied by his grandfather, but would he really want it under such controversial circumstances and for what would likely be only six months? Perhaps not. But, true or no’, it still feeds into the idea that the government is divided and self-obsessed. It’s also the kind

Things never seem to go smoothly for Gordon.  On a day when the Telegraph carries details of his Whitehall savings programme, the FT has news that one of his closest allies, Ed Balls, is calling for relatively hefty spending increases elsewhere.  Apparently, Balls has asked the Treasury to grant his department – the Department for Children, Schools and Families – real-terms spending increases of 1.4 percent until 2014.  That’s an extra £2.6 billion in total – and goes beyond previous Labour commitments to “protect” schools spending. It’s a brassy move by Balls and one which is sure to aggravate his colleagues.  After all, remember when Labour called Cameron “Mr 10

Despite his pronounced Europhile views, a Politics Home insider poll suggests that Clarke can remain in the Shadow Cabinet and join a prospective Euro-sceptic Cameron government. As Clarke is signed up to the Cameron plan, I doubt that Europe is necessarily the problem. Concern arises from Clarke’s apparent unwillingness to fulfil the duties of his brief. One think tank supremo is quoted by Pol Home saying: “No. It isn’t just Europe, it’s his non-fondness to work hard, master a brief, do the hard slog. He likes being on television, but there’s more to being a Secretary of State than that, and plenty of current non-frontbenchers who would work.” This objection

Tim Montgomerie is right; Peter Oborne is at his best in the Mail today – a mix of relevant history and sharp analysis of current affairs. Like Callaghan and Major before him, Gordon Brown faces electoral defeat. Brown’s predicament is deep – consistently loathed by the electorate and the target of unhatched coups and constant intrigue. How does a prime minister defend a hopeless position? Does he govern in the best interests of the country, his party, or himself? Oborne remarks about the magnanimity of Callaghan and Major and notes that Brown has not followed their example. ‘The truth is that Gordon Brown is now governing Britain purely for partisan

Does Professor David Nutt’s dismissal concern the impossibility of relaxing drugs legislation, or the relationship between experts and ministers? David Nutt was sacked because he spoke the unspeakable and criticised the government for failing to acknowledge the self-evident scientific truth that horse-riding, especially after quaffing sherry, is more dangerous than taking ecstasy and dancing maniacally in a night club. As Bruce Anderson notes in today’s Independent, it is impossible to have a rational debate about drugs. The politics of narcotics always trumps evidence. Despite David Nutt’s eminently sensible view that classification must reflect quantifiable harm, for the benefit of proportionate punishment and effective education, disassociation from any leniency on drugs is a