Uk politics

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The Cameroons are fleshing out the agenda which may come to define them

If you were going to craft The Most Exciting Speech Ever, then there’s a good chance it wouldn’t contain the phrase “Post-Bureaucratic Age,” and wouldn’t be delivered at the Technology-Entertainment-Design conference.  But – as James Crabtree points out in an great post over at Prospect – there are quite a few reasons to take David Cameron’s speech on post-bureacracy to the, erm, Technology-Entertainment-Design conference, last night, very seriously indeed.  Not least of which is this announcement: “A Conservative government will publish all government contracts worth over £25,000 for goods and services in full, including all performance indicators, break clauses and penalty measures. This will enable the public to root out

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Mandelson: Public sector will face cuts this year

Peter Mandelson gave the Dearing memorial lecture last night and in a section responding to the criticisms of the budget cuts for higher education said:   “Much of the rest of the public sector will receive similar constraints in the course of this year or soon after.” Mandleson has implied this before, most notably on Newsnight the day of the Hoon Hewitt plot. But it is a very different from the message Brown is putting out. We in the press should demand details from Mandelson about what these cuts in financial year 2010-11 might be with the same intensity that we did when the Tories said they would make in

David Blackburn

Lance Price: Brown became PM when his skills were declining

Gordon Brown is a creature of habit. Every morning at 7:30 he holds a telephone conference with his cabal of Shakespearean fools, who review the papers for him. I imagine a scene of domesticity, of coffee and muffins, an adoring wife and child milling about offering tactile affection – a hand on the shoulder, a kiss on the head. But then again Brown is a latter day John Knox and this morning he must have sat in pale fury as an aide summarised the extract from Lance Price’s latest book, published in the Independent. Price, Andrew Rawnsley and Peter Watt share the same lexicon. ‘Unforgivable’, ‘not a nice place for

David Blackburn

The White House is bluffing

The Atlantic reports that the White House is considering altering intelligence sharing agreements with Britain in the light of the Binyam Mohamed case. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt briefed: “The United States government made its strongly held views known throughout this process. We appreciate that the UK Government stood by the principle of protecting foreign government intelligence in its court filings. We’re deeply disappointed with the court’s judgment today, because we shared this information in confidence and with certain expectations.” I detect a bluff. Britain and the US share information on an hourly basis, providing an essential understanding in the combined operation against al Qaeda. The US would never compromise

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The separation of powers

If you want to understand what the Cameroon’s are thinking, Danny Finkelstein is essential reading. He used to work with them and he thinks like them, there is almost a mind meld between him and them.  His column today is all about why it would make more sense to actually separate out parliament and the executive and elect the head of state. I’m rather sympathetic to this point of view, but I don’t think the Tories will do anything this radical even if they talk about it in private.   One thing they might well do, though, is have ministers who aren’t members of either the Commons or the Lords.

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The death tax ads are the sort of hardball politics the Tories should play

I must admit to rather liking the Tory death tax ads. They are the kind of hardball aggressive politics that the Tories need to master if they are going to win this election. Are they dishonest? Well, I think in the grand political scheme of things they qualify as fair: Brown won’t rule this out and it is definitely an option Labour is considering so it is fair game. If this attack is out of bounds, then so is most of the dossier Labour produced on Tory spending plans at the beginning of the year. The other thing that really infuriates me about this whole debate is the idea that

James Forsyth James Forsyth

A comic tale with serious undertones

The Joanne Cash affair is the kind of story you couldn’t make up. But once you get beyond the comic details there are a few things worth taking seriously. First, CCHQ has not covered itself in glory during this episode. It was aware of the problem but rather than dealing with it, it attempted to massage the situation. If CCHQ had acted decisively, this problem could have been resolved a fortnight ago without all this publicity and damage to the party. CCHQ’s performance hardly fills one with confidence about whether or not it has done the appropriate due diligence on its candidates all around the country.   Second, it is

Peter Hoskin

Best served cold

Good spot by the FT’s Jim Pickard, who has picked up on these informal minutes from the last meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee.  He’s aleady rooted out some of the juiciest sections (including stuff about voting reform and the election date), so I’d suggest you head over to the FT Westminster blog for that.  But this deliciously sinister reference to the Hoon and Hewitt plot deserves repeating: “Two weeks earlier, members of the organisation committee had forcefully expressed grassroots anger at continuing outbreaks of indiscipline at senior levels and agreed that all members should be equally subject to party rules, but the NEC ended up adopting Dennis Skinner’s advice

Lloyd Evans Lloyd Evans

A perky PMQs<br />

The Tory graveyard poster – brilliant and shocking – cast a long shadow over PMQs today. The debate itself came down to fine judgements about the validity of the leaders’ arguments. Cameron demanded to know if Brown planned to introduce this grim levy or not. He quoted acidic comments from senior Labour figures who’ve called the tax ‘a cruel deception’, ‘badly costed’ and ‘poorly constructed.’ Brown’s response, which seems reasonable, is that the Conservatives ‘voted for this in the House and now they’re refusing to help us to give local authorities the resources they need.’ His plan was to turn the issue into a question of Tory inconsistency whilst taking

David Blackburn

The Tories’ dirty tactics are dispiriting but effective

This death tax levy is gutter politics at its most visceral and it’s thrilling drama. Brown’s and Cameron’s loathing for each other is pure soap opera, and they’re having a right old slanging match. I agree with Pete, it is dispiriting to see the Tories stoop to misrepresenting policies, the show-stopper in Brown’s repertoire. Together with Cameron’s personal attacks, the Tories have surrendered the high ground, but as Iain Martin notes is anyone really surprised? The Tories have been expecting, righty, Labour to fight a grubby election campaign and have decided to fight Brown’s mob with fire. Personal attacks appeal largely to those whose minds are settled, so I see

Peter Hoskin

PMQs live blog | 10 February 2010

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1200. 1200: And we’re off, bang on time.  First question on Labour’s elderly care plans.  Brown delivers a load of platitudes about how the government is committed to better care.  Even adds that he hopes for cross-party backing. 1201: Cameron now.  He leads on elderly care plans too – and how they will be funded.  With a nod to a letter in today’s Times, he adds that people who will have to implement it thinks its disastrous. 1202: Brown’s on fiesty, if typically disingenous, form.  He says that he “knows how [Cameron] likes personality politics”.  His substantial point, though, is that the Tories supported

Peter Hoskin

Has that Tory poster made Brown’s job easier in PMQs?

Yesterday’s Guardian story about a potential death tax would have been perfect material for Cameron in PMQs. Even after Andy Burnham’s denials, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about it. For instance, would the government say that they will never propose the tax? And, if not, how will they pay for their social care guarantees otherwise? Fired across the dispatch box, these enquiries could have put Brown on the back foot. But now that the Tories have jumped the gun, and released that poster attacking a Labour policy which isn’t actually a Labour policy, they’ve rather limited that line of questioning. If the death tax comes up, all

David Blackburn

Kraft’s betrayal is Mandelson’s failure

I don’t usually agree with the sage of Twickenham but he is right that Mandelson’s promise on Cadbury “melted away”. Kraft is a notoriously feckless corporation, loathed the world over. Reneging on promises is its modus operandi and the remaining 4,000 Cadbury workers are understandably concerned that the closure of Somerdale is just the trailer. Of course, government should not manage private enterprise in circumstances other than the extraordinary, but neither should it be submissive when jobs are at stake. Mandelson’s reputation as a demagogic strategist is deserved, when it comes to smooth tongued fixers he is unsurpassed. But that is his tragedy: his achievements are contained within partisan precincts.

Peter Hoskin

Cameron attacks tax-happy Brown

A strident interview from David Cameron in today’s Express, in which he touches on everything from inheritance tax to not, never, ever joining the Euro. It’s this passage that jumped out at me, though: “Middle Britain has had a wretched time under Labour. This Government has taxed mortgages, marriages, pensions, petrol and travel and raised national insurance and the top rate of income tax. We cannot keep squeezing hard-working families.” Why so noteworthy? Well, off the top of my head, this is the first time that Cameron has referred to the current system as a “tax on marriage”. In which case, you wonder if the Tories are planning to place

Tuesday

James Forsyth

The problem with that David Cameron ad

Labour’s new ad with David Cameron facing both ways highlights what was wrong with the Tories’ opening ad of the year, that one dominated by Cameron’s face. The Tory strategy for the election campaign has to be to try and make it into a referendum on this failed government. But that ad, which emphasised Cameron so strongly, gave Labour an opening to try and turn the election not just into a choice between two parties but into a referendum on David Cameron and Tory policy. Labour’s success in doing this is largely responsible for the Tory wobble. The contrast between Cameron and Brown does work to the Tories’ advantage. But

Peter Hoskin

The Tories’ new attack poster is Brownite politics at its worst

The Tories are keen to hammer the government over the £20,000 “death tax” story which appeared in the Guardian this morning.  And, to that end, they’ve produced the attack poster above.  According to their press release, it will appear in 18 sites across London tonight. At first glance, it’s a strong image with an equally strong message.  So what’s the problem?  Well, only the fact that Andy Burnham this morning denied the death tax claim with the words, “The Guardian story suggests a £20,000 flat levy. I’m not currently considering that as a lead option for reform.”  Sure, the Health Secretary has left himself some wiggle room – he could

David Blackburn

Some Tories are yet to repay their expenses

Bad news for David Cameron in the Standard this afternoon – several Tories have not made expenses repayments that were agreed seven months ago. After yesterday’s success, the last thing Cameron needed was a question over the effectiveness of his Scrutiny Panel, established to go “beyond the letter of the rules”, which he deemed too lenient to placate public anger. Bill Cash is the major culprit exposed by the Standard. He agreed to repay £15,000 for an unacceptable rent/mortgage arrangement, but Commons records disclose that he has only repaid the £429 he claimed on an antique desk. Although the non-compliance of Tory MPs is a problem for Cameron, this isn’t

Peter Hoskin

How should the Tories respond to those Labour guarantees?

If you’re going to take anything away from Andy Burnham’s press conference this morning – apart from his denials about a £20,000 “death duty” – it’s how heavily those Labour “guarantees” are going to feature in the election campaign.  Here we had social care guarantees, cancer treatment guarantees, waiting line guarantees, and even a new website and poster (see above) attacking the Tories for not signing up to the same guarantees.  So far as the government is concerned, it matters not that these pledges have been made before – what matters is the opportunity to draw more dividing lines across the landscape of British politics.  “Caring” versus “cruel”, as far

Peter Hoskin

Accountability on your iPhone

With Brown pitching his AV referendum as the solution to at least some of our political ills, it’s worth highlighting the quieter efforts of another Labour MP, Derek Wyatt, to fix the system.  Mr Wyatt, you see, has got involved with the MyMP iPhone app which helps voters track and converse with their MPs.  The first version was released on 15 January, but, I must admit, I’ve only just come across it thanks to the Telegraph’s report this morning. Sure, an iPhone app is only a small thing.  And, in this case, there’s certainly room for improvement, as well as for more MPs signing up to the service.  But it’s

David Blackburn

Plenty to encourage the Tories in the Populus poll

Well, the Populus poll isn’t all good news for the Tories. As James pointed out last night, they have shed another point and Labour have regained some ground. But, as both Peter Riddell and Mike Smithson note, the Tories can still secure an outright majority on the basis of these figures. The numbers which lead the Times’s frontpage coverage are more encouraging for Cameron & Co. They show that the public are attuned to the Tories’ broad narrative. 73 percent think society is broken; 82 percent think that now is the time for change; and 64 percent believe Britain is heading in the wrong direction. After 13 years in power,