A Minister of State in a department that many think has no real purpose is not high up the political food chain and is probably not even a household name in Scotland. Nevertheless, this latest resignation is more significant than a challenge from the former assistant minister of fish or whatever. It is another blow for Gordon Brown and keeps the media feeding frenzy going.
Apparently this particular minister was flushed out through his links with a minor rebel (Siobahn McDonagh) and as a former Catholic priest could not square defending Gordon with his conscience.
Ms McDonagh got star billing in the Sunday Times under the heading 'Will this woman bring down Brown?' The obvious answer is 'probably not', even though the article reveals that the devout Catholic MP is being compared to Joan of Arc. Burning at the stake in her suburban constituency of Mitcham and Morden is not on the agenda.
Senior Cabinet ministers feel that Gordon Brown should be given his chance to rally the party at what will undoubtedly be a ferbile conference. But he is unlikely to assuage the doubts and the poll numbers will not recover. So it's going to be a tough autumn for Gordon and he could eventually be pushed. But there is still no clear successor and it won't be the Cabinet minister who wields the knife (remember Michael Heseltine?)
Meanwhile, Dave Cameron can sit back and enjoy the mayhem, hoping that it will continue as long as possible before a Labour leadership contest is followed by a general election. Canada once had a woman prime minister who held office for some weeks before being defeated in a general election. Step forward Harriet Harman.
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Vince gives it large
In what sometimes qualifies as the Very Silly party of British politics, Vince Cable is a beacon of sanity not just within the Liberal Democrats but in British politics generally. The cheeky chappie told Britain to confront its 'national obsession with property' and stop using homes as 'gambling chips'.
The former economist urged the Government to resist 'propping up' the market so that prices could 'fall back to a sensible level which makes housing affordable to ordinary families.' Politicians had to find a new, more honest language better suited to times of economic hardship.
Ministers should avoid 'socialising losses' and financiers rattling their begging bowls and demanding help from taxpayers should be sent packing. In a sense that is what the federal authorities have done with Lehman Brothers, deciding that the US taxpayers should not pay for the mistakes of its senior management.
Vince and Nick Clegg also managed to get their tax cutting package through the conference. Unfortunately it focuses on the totem of cutting the standard rate, when raising allowances to take the less well off out of tax altogether might be more sensible. Higher rate taxpayers, an increasing number of people, may not yet have realised that they would be paying more because of a cut in pensions tax relief.
Interesting that Vince's endorsement of Nick Clegg was somewhat lukewarm. Perhaps the ballroom dancing maestro feels that he may yet shimmy into view as Lib Dem leader while Clegg fends off charges that he is 'Cameron lite'.
Economic and political events elsewhere have also take the sheen off the Lib Dems conference. No one is shouting: 'Global crisis. Send for Nick Clegg.' But they could send for Vince Cable and should have listened to his warnings in the past.
The former economist urged the Government to resist 'propping up' the market so that prices could 'fall back to a sensible level which makes housing affordable to ordinary families.' Politicians had to find a new, more honest language better suited to times of economic hardship.
Ministers should avoid 'socialising losses' and financiers rattling their begging bowls and demanding help from taxpayers should be sent packing. In a sense that is what the federal authorities have done with Lehman Brothers, deciding that the US taxpayers should not pay for the mistakes of its senior management.
Vince and Nick Clegg also managed to get their tax cutting package through the conference. Unfortunately it focuses on the totem of cutting the standard rate, when raising allowances to take the less well off out of tax altogether might be more sensible. Higher rate taxpayers, an increasing number of people, may not yet have realised that they would be paying more because of a cut in pensions tax relief.
Interesting that Vince's endorsement of Nick Clegg was somewhat lukewarm. Perhaps the ballroom dancing maestro feels that he may yet shimmy into view as Lib Dem leader while Clegg fends off charges that he is 'Cameron lite'.
Economic and political events elsewhere have also take the sheen off the Lib Dems conference. No one is shouting: 'Global crisis. Send for Nick Clegg.' But they could send for Vince Cable and should have listened to his warnings in the past.
Sunday, 14 September 2008
The need for a narrative
Plotters against Gordon Brown now have a tactic of a kind which is to ask for leadership nomination forms, hoping to create momentum for a contest. These efforts are reinforced by what appear to be carefully timed statements from dissidents. It is always amusing to see how these individuals are then billed as 'ministers' by the media when they are about as low as it is possible to be in the food chain. This applies even more to those who achieved junior ministerial status and were then let go.
Is this effort going to go anywhere? No. First, they are not going to get 71 signatures. Even more important they are not to get a credible candidate to put his or her name forward in a letter to the party. Although they have some recruits from the left, and Gordon Brown is being attacked from two sides, the core of the rebellion is made of ultra Blairites.
Nevertheless, the spectacle of the Labour Party tearing itself apart in public is not good for the Government and it is not good for Gordon Brown. Once again he appears to have made a mess of the extension of the 'Warm Front' scheme, hinting at a great deal of help for those in fuel poverty and then simply extending the scope of a scheme which has often been blighted by shoddy workmanship.
What Brown needs is a stellar performance at the party conference. However, on current form, he is unlikely to deliver it. The leadership row will then rumble on without resolution while the Conservatives benefit. What Labour really needs is a new narrative rather than a new leader. Of course, a new leader could help that search, but it is not as if that narrative is readily at hand. Like Thatcherism, New Labour has become an exhausted project. A Labour equivalent of John Major just might avoid electoral defeat, but would not resolve the underlying problems.
Is this effort going to go anywhere? No. First, they are not going to get 71 signatures. Even more important they are not to get a credible candidate to put his or her name forward in a letter to the party. Although they have some recruits from the left, and Gordon Brown is being attacked from two sides, the core of the rebellion is made of ultra Blairites.
Nevertheless, the spectacle of the Labour Party tearing itself apart in public is not good for the Government and it is not good for Gordon Brown. Once again he appears to have made a mess of the extension of the 'Warm Front' scheme, hinting at a great deal of help for those in fuel poverty and then simply extending the scope of a scheme which has often been blighted by shoddy workmanship.
What Brown needs is a stellar performance at the party conference. However, on current form, he is unlikely to deliver it. The leadership row will then rumble on without resolution while the Conservatives benefit. What Labour really needs is a new narrative rather than a new leader. Of course, a new leader could help that search, but it is not as if that narrative is readily at hand. Like Thatcherism, New Labour has become an exhausted project. A Labour equivalent of John Major just might avoid electoral defeat, but would not resolve the underlying problems.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Tories drop public spending pledge
The Conservatives are dropping their pledge to match New Labour's spending targets during their first three years in office. As an article in the latest British Politics makes clear, if one looked at the small print, the pledge was never that unambiguous anyway and probably only applied up to 2011.
Nevertheless, this is a significant development. George Osborne argues that public spending cuts are necessary to raise in 'shocking' public borrowing. But with the Conservatives enjoying a big lead in the opinion polls, perhaps he feels that the time has now come to give something to Tory activists.
Health, education and international aid are exempt from the cuts, so it is quite difficult to see where the cuts are going to come from. It would be difficult for the Conservatives to cut spending on law and order and defence would presumably also be exempt, given that they seem to be even more assertive liberal internationalists than Labour. Transfer payments (pensions and benefits) are difficult to cut. Scrapping the identity card scheme may not bring immediate savings given the contracts that Labour has signed and cutting back on regional development agency spending would not yield that much.
Osborne is also worried out being outflanked by Vince Cable from the Lib Dems who has called for £20bn of public spending cuts to provide tax cuts for lower and middle-income families. This has not gone down too well with some Lib Dem activists, but Cable probably has a better sense of the political pulse than they do.
Osborne is also not going to push ahead with environmental charges or 'green taxes', arguing that they can too easily become stealth taxes.
Osborne's move does give Labour a possible line of criticism of the Conservatives, although he has tried to cover himself by exempting the most popular areas of public exoenditure.
Nevertheless, this is a significant development. George Osborne argues that public spending cuts are necessary to raise in 'shocking' public borrowing. But with the Conservatives enjoying a big lead in the opinion polls, perhaps he feels that the time has now come to give something to Tory activists.
Health, education and international aid are exempt from the cuts, so it is quite difficult to see where the cuts are going to come from. It would be difficult for the Conservatives to cut spending on law and order and defence would presumably also be exempt, given that they seem to be even more assertive liberal internationalists than Labour. Transfer payments (pensions and benefits) are difficult to cut. Scrapping the identity card scheme may not bring immediate savings given the contracts that Labour has signed and cutting back on regional development agency spending would not yield that much.
Osborne is also worried out being outflanked by Vince Cable from the Lib Dems who has called for £20bn of public spending cuts to provide tax cuts for lower and middle-income families. This has not gone down too well with some Lib Dem activists, but Cable probably has a better sense of the political pulse than they do.
Osborne is also not going to push ahead with environmental charges or 'green taxes', arguing that they can too easily become stealth taxes.
Osborne's move does give Labour a possible line of criticism of the Conservatives, although he has tried to cover himself by exempting the most popular areas of public exoenditure.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Clarke's intervention backfires
Charles Clarke's criticisms of Gordon Brown leadership seem to have backfired, simply confirming his reputation as a maverick who has little broader support in the party. Even those in the party who are critical of Gordon Brown feel that the time is not yet ripe for a challenge, not least when a political re-launch is being attempetd.
The political re-launch seems to have faltered already. Hopes of some sort of payout to help with energy bills have been dropped, either because the energy companies won't provide the funds or because increasing the cost of their carbon permits would be incompatible with European Union rules.
Margaret Beckett appeared on Radio 5 this morning to steady the troops (she said at her own behest) and, typically, did an effective job. She should be brought back into the Cabinet in some kind of non-portfolio role.
Gordon Brown will have to get through the Labour conference and deliver an effective conference speech, although communication to a large audience is his greatest deficiency. Then there is the Glenrothes by-election, although Alex Salmond may have made his first error with his advocacy of a local income tax. He admitted that those in a household with a joint income of £64,000 would have to pay more under his scheme, but he seemed to think that someone on 32k a year was super rich, whereas two teachers living together could easily be earning that amount. People like that not be pleased about paying an extra 3p in the pound in income tax.
Talking of hapless, Harriet Harman has caused a storm by demanding that prostitution be criminalised. Given that there are already a number of measures dealing with the subject on the statute book, I think that what she had in mind was prosecuting men who purchase sexual services. Sex trafficking in women is clearly a serious problem, but in general the subject of prostitution attracts more hyprocrisy than almost any other in politics: indeed, it is an issue which only the Women's Institute has sought to tackle in a sensible and balanced way.
The political re-launch seems to have faltered already. Hopes of some sort of payout to help with energy bills have been dropped, either because the energy companies won't provide the funds or because increasing the cost of their carbon permits would be incompatible with European Union rules.
Margaret Beckett appeared on Radio 5 this morning to steady the troops (she said at her own behest) and, typically, did an effective job. She should be brought back into the Cabinet in some kind of non-portfolio role.
Gordon Brown will have to get through the Labour conference and deliver an effective conference speech, although communication to a large audience is his greatest deficiency. Then there is the Glenrothes by-election, although Alex Salmond may have made his first error with his advocacy of a local income tax. He admitted that those in a household with a joint income of £64,000 would have to pay more under his scheme, but he seemed to think that someone on 32k a year was super rich, whereas two teachers living together could easily be earning that amount. People like that not be pleased about paying an extra 3p in the pound in income tax.
Talking of hapless, Harriet Harman has caused a storm by demanding that prostitution be criminalised. Given that there are already a number of measures dealing with the subject on the statute book, I think that what she had in mind was prosecuting men who purchase sexual services. Sex trafficking in women is clearly a serious problem, but in general the subject of prostitution attracts more hyprocrisy than almost any other in politics: indeed, it is an issue which only the Women's Institute has sought to tackle in a sensible and balanced way.
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Oh dear, Darling
Alastair Darling's gloomy prognostications have apparently led to 'robust exchanges' between him and his patron Gordon Brown: in other words, there has been an almighty row. The Chancellor's position is said to be in question. The pound slumped against the euro and august bodies like the CBI rushed to say that things were not as bad as the Chancellor claimed while usually they are willing to pile on the gloom as a means of criticising government policy.
What the Chancellor said in an interview with The Guardian is that the present economic times - the combination of the global credit crunch and soaring international commodity prices - were as bad as they had been for more than half a century. Mervyn King said as much earlier in the summer, and it's not quite the same as saying as the economy is on the brink of a major recession.
However, these subtleties have been lost in the media row. It has overshadowed the Government's latest re-launch in terms of a package to help the housing market. These measures are open to criticism from a number of directions. On the one hand, they could be portrayed as insufficient, which is not surprising given the Government's fiscal position. On the other hand, they can be portrayed as using taxpayers' money to subsidise those have been feckless. Rather than tinkering with stamp duty, and then only for a year, there is a case for letting the market correct house prices until they are once again affordable.
Attention has now turned to who might replace the Chancellor and it is clear that, as with the prime minister, there is no leading candidate. Choosing David Miliband would give him a boost, making him look less like a sixth former on work experience and more of a serious candidate for prime minister. His brother, Ed, might actually be a better choice but that would mean too much Miliband at the top of government.
Ed Balls would seem like a case of favouritism. Alan Johnson would be a safe pair of hands, as would Jack Straw. One of the best choices would be John Hutton who is competent and would reassure business and the City whose confidence in Labour has been badly dented.
But then Hutton is against the windfall tax on energy companies which is gaining ground in popularity on the Labour backbenches. No doubt it would also be popular with the electorate, but it would also be a piece of economic illiteracy which shows little understanding of how a market economy works.
The relationship between the prime minister and the chancellor lies at the heart of government, particularly in difficult times. When prime ministers lose or sack their chancellors, it reflects badly on them: recall Harold Macmillan (Selwyn Lloyd) and Margaret Thatcher (Nigel Lawson). Alastair Darling has not been involved in the equivalent of a 1992 crisis and I think that he will survive.
What the Chancellor said in an interview with The Guardian is that the present economic times - the combination of the global credit crunch and soaring international commodity prices - were as bad as they had been for more than half a century. Mervyn King said as much earlier in the summer, and it's not quite the same as saying as the economy is on the brink of a major recession.
However, these subtleties have been lost in the media row. It has overshadowed the Government's latest re-launch in terms of a package to help the housing market. These measures are open to criticism from a number of directions. On the one hand, they could be portrayed as insufficient, which is not surprising given the Government's fiscal position. On the other hand, they can be portrayed as using taxpayers' money to subsidise those have been feckless. Rather than tinkering with stamp duty, and then only for a year, there is a case for letting the market correct house prices until they are once again affordable.
Attention has now turned to who might replace the Chancellor and it is clear that, as with the prime minister, there is no leading candidate. Choosing David Miliband would give him a boost, making him look less like a sixth former on work experience and more of a serious candidate for prime minister. His brother, Ed, might actually be a better choice but that would mean too much Miliband at the top of government.
Ed Balls would seem like a case of favouritism. Alan Johnson would be a safe pair of hands, as would Jack Straw. One of the best choices would be John Hutton who is competent and would reassure business and the City whose confidence in Labour has been badly dented.
But then Hutton is against the windfall tax on energy companies which is gaining ground in popularity on the Labour backbenches. No doubt it would also be popular with the electorate, but it would also be a piece of economic illiteracy which shows little understanding of how a market economy works.
The relationship between the prime minister and the chancellor lies at the heart of government, particularly in difficult times. When prime ministers lose or sack their chancellors, it reflects badly on them: recall Harold Macmillan (Selwyn Lloyd) and Margaret Thatcher (Nigel Lawson). Alastair Darling has not been involved in the equivalent of a 1992 crisis and I think that he will survive.
Monday, 1 September 2008
Not much hope for New Labour
The 'Year in British Politics' meeting at the British Politics Group of the American Political Science Association is always good value and this year's event in Boston Ma. was no exception. The reviewers were Sir Ivor Crewe, about to take up his duties as master of University College, Oxford and Phil Cowley, who will shortly be joining the Treasury on a secondment.
Both speakers saw little hope for a New Labour recovery. Sir Ivor saw an analogy with the situation John Major faced in 1995-7, although Major was more popular than his party while the contrary is the case for Brown. The economy did well in this period, and the economy could well experience a recovery by the next election, but it would be a voteless recovery for New Labour.
Phil Cowley suggested that if the plane was heading for the ground and the pilot seemed to have lost control, one might as well give the air hostess a chance (I do not think this was a reference to Harriet Harman). However, Phil went on to point out, this would mean a contest in which all New Labour's divisions would be exposed to public view, followed by strong political pressure for an early election.
Sir Ivor pointed out that Dave Cameron had accepted most of the New Labour settlement - well funded public services, the minimum wage and tax credits etc. - and in practice policies would differ little from those under New Labour. There would be changes in stamp duty and inheritance tax, and no doubt other changes in personal taxation.
One of the most difficult issues for Dave to handle will be relations with the European Union with Phil Cowley pointing out that Europhiles have virtually disappeared from the Conservative Party (there may be five left). The party is now divided between Euroscpetics who want to re-negotiate the relationship and 'better off outers'. Dave will be under pressure to get a better deal from Brussels for Britain and that will not be easy.
The Conservatives are unlikely to take many more seats in Scotland and will in effect have the English Parliament some of them call for. But wily operator Alex Salmond would no doubt make use of this situation to claim that the Conservatives had no legtimate mandate north of the border in an effort to boost support for his independence referendum.
Both speakers saw little hope for a New Labour recovery. Sir Ivor saw an analogy with the situation John Major faced in 1995-7, although Major was more popular than his party while the contrary is the case for Brown. The economy did well in this period, and the economy could well experience a recovery by the next election, but it would be a voteless recovery for New Labour.
Phil Cowley suggested that if the plane was heading for the ground and the pilot seemed to have lost control, one might as well give the air hostess a chance (I do not think this was a reference to Harriet Harman). However, Phil went on to point out, this would mean a contest in which all New Labour's divisions would be exposed to public view, followed by strong political pressure for an early election.
Sir Ivor pointed out that Dave Cameron had accepted most of the New Labour settlement - well funded public services, the minimum wage and tax credits etc. - and in practice policies would differ little from those under New Labour. There would be changes in stamp duty and inheritance tax, and no doubt other changes in personal taxation.
One of the most difficult issues for Dave to handle will be relations with the European Union with Phil Cowley pointing out that Europhiles have virtually disappeared from the Conservative Party (there may be five left). The party is now divided between Euroscpetics who want to re-negotiate the relationship and 'better off outers'. Dave will be under pressure to get a better deal from Brussels for Britain and that will not be easy.
The Conservatives are unlikely to take many more seats in Scotland and will in effect have the English Parliament some of them call for. But wily operator Alex Salmond would no doubt make use of this situation to claim that the Conservatives had no legtimate mandate north of the border in an effort to boost support for his independence referendum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)