An initial Parliamentary love in yesterday when all sides agreed to investigation and inquiries became partisan as dirty politics reared it's head again. Former PM Gordon Brown hit back at critics who claimed he should have done more when in power to investigate hacking.
Brown's searing attack on News International showed he feels emotion about what happened politically and to his family. Fair enough too. The speech showed that there is more to him than many people gave him credit for when PM. That he took the civil service advice not to investigate further perhaps shows that he wasn't always the decisive PM who would take a decision whatever anyone else said. We knew that anyway, but what is different is seeing a former leader show "regret" for something like this so quickly afterwards. They never do this. Can you imagine Blair or Thatcher doing the same?
Ed Miliband's requests for inquiries and investigations, together with the end of Murdoch's bid to buy back more of Sky have all been heeded. He has had a good couple of weeks.
David Cameron has accepted what has been thrown at him. Except when it involves Andy Coulson. He is still vulnerable here. He will continue to be so until the election as investigations and inquiries are going to take years to uncover what happened. The drip, drip, drip is likely to weaken and infuriate him as Labour and the rest of the media continue to question his judgement.
This is all Cameron's fault though as whether he knew what Coulson had really been up to he knew it was an avoidable risk in employing him and chose to take it. The price is getting dearer by the day.
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Tony Blair's Richard Bacon interview
I've been following the media reaction to the launch of Tony Blair's book with interest and some incredulity. According to today's Telegraph the "revelations" in his book have caused a "war" in the Labour Party. I'm sure the Telegraph would like there to be a war, though I've not seen any evidence of it (this story is no longer on the Telegraph site otherwise I'd link to it).
Blair is still big news and the book has been selling fast. I'm looking forward to receiving my own copy shortly. Not because I expect to learn anything new from it, most of the highlights have been heavily covered in the media already or have appeared in other books, such as those by Andrew Rawnsley, Chris Mullin and Peter Mandelson. I'm looking forward to understanding more about Blair and to remind myself, for sentimental reasons, what Labour in power achieved.
I listened to his interview today with Five Live's Richard Bacon. The focus was predictable: Iraq, Northern Ireland and Gordon Brown. On Iraq Blair expressed a human regret for the bloodshed but stood by his decision to go to war. Nobody could expect anything else. He also reminded us of how dreadful Iraq was when Saddam was in power. That is often overlooked in the revisionist analysis of the chaos in the aftermath. Listening also took me back to 9-11 and 7-7. When thinking about Afghanistan is is also often forgotten about the context and terrifying events that led to that war. Northern Ireland is undoubtedly Blair's biggest and most lasting achievement domestically. Iraq often buries it as the focus of this interview showed.
Much of the media coverage has focused on Gordon Brown. Today Blair said:
The media has focused on the negatives, but in the book and in his interviews Blair should be credited for admitting his troubles on working with Brown but also for painting a balanced picture. He was careful to meet every negative with a positive.
What I thought was very telling and quite revealing was that he strongly felt that Brown and his team didn't have the right answers to govern. He said to Bacon that he had no problem with people who think their plans are the right thing for the country to seek power. He had a problem with these ideas in the first place. I find that a little harsh because to suggest that Brown added nothing of value when PM would be wrong. The criticism that there was no clear agenda for reforming public services is valid.
Rather than focus on the negatives, which should be left to the media to fight over, Labour needs to remember how much progress was made with Blair as leader. While it is wrong to apply the same tactics and arguments that were successful in 1997 to 2010, it would also be wrong to forget what worked too. Listening to Blair and reading his book should provide support and guidance. He shouldn't be forgotten.
What does this mean for his legacy? It should serve as a reminder, as Alistair Campbell said today far better than I ever could:
How do you think that history will judge him? More kindly than most of the commentary in the UK. He was a winner, serving longer in office than any Labour leader by far … he presided over a decade of growth and prosperity, turned round investment in public services, got crime down, delivered on a major programme of devolution, the minimum wage … I could go on and on … and whilst many people like to pretend Iraq is his only legacy, don’t forget Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the leadership he showed after 9/11, Northern Ireland. He was without doubt one of the major reforming Prime Ministers in our history.
I listened to his interview today with Five Live's Richard Bacon. The focus was predictable: Iraq, Northern Ireland and Gordon Brown. On Iraq Blair expressed a human regret for the bloodshed but stood by his decision to go to war. Nobody could expect anything else. He also reminded us of how dreadful Iraq was when Saddam was in power. That is often overlooked in the revisionist analysis of the chaos in the aftermath. Listening also took me back to 9-11 and 7-7. When thinking about Afghanistan is is also often forgotten about the context and terrifying events that led to that war. Northern Ireland is undoubtedly Blair's biggest and most lasting achievement domestically. Iraq often buries it as the focus of this interview showed.
Much of the media coverage has focused on Gordon Brown. Today Blair said:
- "Gordon could be extremely difficult"
- "He was also somebody who made an enormous contribution to government"
- "He is also brilliant"
- "His personality is out of line with 21st century politics"
The media has focused on the negatives, but in the book and in his interviews Blair should be credited for admitting his troubles on working with Brown but also for painting a balanced picture. He was careful to meet every negative with a positive.
What I thought was very telling and quite revealing was that he strongly felt that Brown and his team didn't have the right answers to govern. He said to Bacon that he had no problem with people who think their plans are the right thing for the country to seek power. He had a problem with these ideas in the first place. I find that a little harsh because to suggest that Brown added nothing of value when PM would be wrong. The criticism that there was no clear agenda for reforming public services is valid.
Rather than focus on the negatives, which should be left to the media to fight over, Labour needs to remember how much progress was made with Blair as leader. While it is wrong to apply the same tactics and arguments that were successful in 1997 to 2010, it would also be wrong to forget what worked too. Listening to Blair and reading his book should provide support and guidance. He shouldn't be forgotten.
What does this mean for his legacy? It should serve as a reminder, as Alistair Campbell said today far better than I ever could:
How do you think that history will judge him? More kindly than most of the commentary in the UK. He was a winner, serving longer in office than any Labour leader by far … he presided over a decade of growth and prosperity, turned round investment in public services, got crime down, delivered on a major programme of devolution, the minimum wage … I could go on and on … and whilst many people like to pretend Iraq is his only legacy, don’t forget Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the leadership he showed after 9/11, Northern Ireland. He was without doubt one of the major reforming Prime Ministers in our history.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Poor decision making at number 10 leads to media storm
I've already written that Hoon and Hewitt's call for a ballot on Brown's leadership was careless and damaging. Much subsequent comment has focused on the delay of the cabinet in supporting the Prime Minister. This has been taken to be a sign that the cabinet is not behind Brown.
Rather than sinister I believe this was a tactical mistake from Brown's team. A massive mistake at that. Perhaps Brown's advisers thought it better not to comment on the attempted coup for fear of making news out of something they thought they could get away with. How they thought that the Tories and media wouldn't find out or make great play of this is unfathomable. Absurd.
If they came out in support in the end then why not come out earlier? It is rather perplexing. I've long suggested that Brown's major weakness is the poor quality of the team around him. He may have again received poor advice and unfortunately has agreed with it. Hoon and Hewitt have not, unwittingly, unearthed anything new here. Brown's advisers haven't helped him and he hasn't helped himself by taking so long to act on key issues, like MPs expenses.
Out of adversity comes strength and the level of positivity coming from all sides of the grass roots Labour movement since Hoon-Hewitt's letter has been heartening. The party is tired of infighting and is largely behind Brown in a manner that might not have been the case before this affair. As Labour List states, it is only Fiona Mactaggart who has come out in support of Hoon-Hewitt.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Labour needs unity - there is an election coming!
Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's letter to Labour MPs calling for a secret ballot on Gordon Brown's future is self indulgent and potentially destructive. Arguments are always best held in private and voters always take a dim view of political parties squabbling in public. That was the harsh lesson Labour learnt from the 1980s and many in the party seem to have forgotten this.
Less than five months before an election this only damages whatever credibility the Labour Party and Gordon Brown hold. It damages Labour because it shows that the party is more interested in itself than the country. Labour talks about internal issues draws a contrast with the Tories who are claiming to offer practical solutions for the country's problems. It damages Brown because any leader fully in command of his party is immovable. Hoon and Hewitt are saying to voters that not everybody in the part respects Brown. If the party doesn't, why should the country?
I'm happy for this letter to be a Labour suicide note for Hoon and Hewitt but not for the party. Labour needs to remember that the tough lesson of opposition was that only a united party is taken seriously by the public. Secondly Labour needs to remember that appealing to a core vote won't bring victory. Mandelson is right that the working class alone will not bring victory. It didn't in the 1980s and won't do today.
For Labour to appeal to anyone it needs to start talking to the country.
Facebook readers: please comment on the official blog: http://timmymc.blogspot.com/2010/01/labour-needs-unity-there-is-election.html
Less than five months before an election this only damages whatever credibility the Labour Party and Gordon Brown hold. It damages Labour because it shows that the party is more interested in itself than the country. Labour talks about internal issues draws a contrast with the Tories who are claiming to offer practical solutions for the country's problems. It damages Brown because any leader fully in command of his party is immovable. Hoon and Hewitt are saying to voters that not everybody in the part respects Brown. If the party doesn't, why should the country?
I'm happy for this letter to be a Labour suicide note for Hoon and Hewitt but not for the party. Labour needs to remember that the tough lesson of opposition was that only a united party is taken seriously by the public. Secondly Labour needs to remember that appealing to a core vote won't bring victory. Mandelson is right that the working class alone will not bring victory. It didn't in the 1980s and won't do today.
For Labour to appeal to anyone it needs to start talking to the country.
Facebook readers: please comment on the official blog: http://timmymc.blogspot.com/2010/01/labour-needs-unity-there-is-election.html
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Gordon Brown sets out voters' choice
Gordon Brown today set out his terms for the choice voters face at the next general election. He began strongly by ringing out Labour's achievements, the minimum wage, an end to NHS waiting lists and every school rebuilt. He stated clearly that the Tories would put this all at threat.
There were some new policy announcements such as the National Care Service, something that will extend the helping hand of the NHS to those needing full time care. Talk of tackling anti social behaviour was Brown attempting to talk to the mainstream.
What is clear is that there is a choice at the next election. A choice between a Tory party that would not have invested in public services, improving the NHS, education and regenerated our cities - and a Labour government that did. A choice between a Tory party that would have let the recession run its course and a Labour government that led the way in global action to re-energise our economies.
The Tories had no answers at the depth of the recession, a situation that has enabled them to bang their favourite drum - public service cuts. Brown made it clear today that this is the Tory ideology, it is in their DNA. Labour will ensure the market isn't left to itself and that those in most need will not be left to fend for themselves by an indifferent government. The Tories stand for change, but that is a change back to the 1980s.
Was today's speech the game changer that many commentators suggested it needed to be? Probably not. It was good enough. No general election has been won or lost on a conference speech. The real test of Brown's speech is whether voters will start listening to him again. Will Labour get a boost in the opinion polls? Crucially, will they be able to hold it after next week's Tory conference?
There were some new policy announcements such as the National Care Service, something that will extend the helping hand of the NHS to those needing full time care. Talk of tackling anti social behaviour was Brown attempting to talk to the mainstream.
What is clear is that there is a choice at the next election. A choice between a Tory party that would not have invested in public services, improving the NHS, education and regenerated our cities - and a Labour government that did. A choice between a Tory party that would have let the recession run its course and a Labour government that led the way in global action to re-energise our economies.
The Tories had no answers at the depth of the recession, a situation that has enabled them to bang their favourite drum - public service cuts. Brown made it clear today that this is the Tory ideology, it is in their DNA. Labour will ensure the market isn't left to itself and that those in most need will not be left to fend for themselves by an indifferent government. The Tories stand for change, but that is a change back to the 1980s.
Was today's speech the game changer that many commentators suggested it needed to be? Probably not. It was good enough. No general election has been won or lost on a conference speech. The real test of Brown's speech is whether voters will start listening to him again. Will Labour get a boost in the opinion polls? Crucially, will they be able to hold it after next week's Tory conference?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Gordon Brown and Andrew Marr
Gordon Brown today looked astonished as Andrew Marr asked him twice if he was using "prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through." Was this a valid question? Brown certainly thought not.
Marr's raising of this unsubstantiated rumour gives it, perhaps incorrectly, credibility. True or not, asking something like this invades the personal privacy that even the prime minister has a right to.
It will fuel reporting in Monday's press about whether Brown is losing control of his health together with the country. I'm sure may will speculate about whether there really is credence in the rumours by analysing every Brown mannerism for signs of weakness. Judging by the serious comments at The Times most agree that with this line of questioning Marr was overstepping the mark.
Marr's raising of this unsubstantiated rumour gives it, perhaps incorrectly, credibility. True or not, asking something like this invades the personal privacy that even the prime minister has a right to.
It will fuel reporting in Monday's press about whether Brown is losing control of his health together with the country. I'm sure may will speculate about whether there really is credence in the rumours by analysing every Brown mannerism for signs of weakness. Judging by the serious comments at The Times most agree that with this line of questioning Marr was overstepping the mark.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Where is Brown's team?
I am continually astonished about the lack of cabinet names appearing in the media to talk up the government. I mentioned it on Five Live last week, about a year after I'd first mentioned it there. Jonathan Freedland makes this point today, that Brown has no praetorian guard to defend his every move. This is either because Brown won't let them or because they are unwilling.
Every leader needs a strong team for support and to take some of the flak when things don't go well. Brown needs to do that urgently. He needed to do it some time ago, it isn't too late to avoid meltdown. Using the cabinet more might actually allow Brown himself to start presenting ideas to the country about his plans for the next five years, were he to win the election. Without doing so his plans will be lost and the election with it.
Every leader needs a strong team for support and to take some of the flak when things don't go well. Brown needs to do that urgently. He needed to do it some time ago, it isn't too late to avoid meltdown. Using the cabinet more might actually allow Brown himself to start presenting ideas to the country about his plans for the next five years, were he to win the election. Without doing so his plans will be lost and the election with it.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Is there anything Brown can do to save himself now?
David Blunkett's assertion today that Labour "has lost its political antennae" marks a significant juncture in the life of Gordon Brown's government. Even Peter Mandelson commented that "it never rains but it pours." Blunkett suggested that at present Labour is heading for the worst case scenario, a comprehensive defeat. I hope, like Blunkett, that we can plan for the best case and fight all the way to the election.
This has been a woeful week for Brown's government. In losing in the Commons over the right to let Gurkhas live in the UK and having to retreat over MP expenses, the government has shown that it is has lost the strength to stand by its convictions and also has lost touch with public opinion.
It is vital to the success of any leader that they pick their fights and battles wisely. Pick fights they can win and fights that are crucial. This week it would have been sensible to back public opinion over the Gurkhas and to seek a consensus over MP expenses.
I spoke on Victoria Derbyshire's Five Live discussion this morning with Michael White, Bob Roberts and Lance Price about this. I said that Brown needs to use his team more effectively. He takes too much on himself. It is rare to see other cabinet ministers given high profile media coverage (outside of their strict policy remits). Whatever good Brown might do, he has a poor reputation. He has handled the economic crisis well but his poll ratings remain the same.
I'd like to see others given a higher profile. Alan Johnson, James Purnell and Jack Straw have all been very quiet.
Brown has much to offer, shown by his handling of the banking crisis and the G20. Yet any good work by the government is never associated with him and has no effect on opinion polls. The handling of MP expensive is symptomatic of a government machine that is unable to communicate a good idea effectively. Much has been made of the unreasonable claims made by MPs and of Brown appearing on YouTube to announce his plans for reforming the system. This has meant there has been no mention of the fact that it was Labour's policy to open up MP expenses to public scrutiny in the first place.
I'm a strong supporter of Labour in government. The country and public services are in better shape than they would have been if the Tories had been in power - I firmly believe that we'd be in an even bigger financial mess had they been. I had to agree with White though that I don't see any way back for Brown and Labour at the next election. I agreed with Price, that the next 12 months shouldn't be abandoned. We have a year to show that we have a positive agenda and that if Labour does lose, for it not to be catastrophic.
Many of us have been waiting a long time for Brown to take the initiative. I'm preparing for the worst case scenario and hoping for the best.
This has been a woeful week for Brown's government. In losing in the Commons over the right to let Gurkhas live in the UK and having to retreat over MP expenses, the government has shown that it is has lost the strength to stand by its convictions and also has lost touch with public opinion.
It is vital to the success of any leader that they pick their fights and battles wisely. Pick fights they can win and fights that are crucial. This week it would have been sensible to back public opinion over the Gurkhas and to seek a consensus over MP expenses.
I spoke on Victoria Derbyshire's Five Live discussion this morning with Michael White, Bob Roberts and Lance Price about this. I said that Brown needs to use his team more effectively. He takes too much on himself. It is rare to see other cabinet ministers given high profile media coverage (outside of their strict policy remits). Whatever good Brown might do, he has a poor reputation. He has handled the economic crisis well but his poll ratings remain the same.
I'd like to see others given a higher profile. Alan Johnson, James Purnell and Jack Straw have all been very quiet.
Brown has much to offer, shown by his handling of the banking crisis and the G20. Yet any good work by the government is never associated with him and has no effect on opinion polls. The handling of MP expensive is symptomatic of a government machine that is unable to communicate a good idea effectively. Much has been made of the unreasonable claims made by MPs and of Brown appearing on YouTube to announce his plans for reforming the system. This has meant there has been no mention of the fact that it was Labour's policy to open up MP expenses to public scrutiny in the first place.
I'm a strong supporter of Labour in government. The country and public services are in better shape than they would have been if the Tories had been in power - I firmly believe that we'd be in an even bigger financial mess had they been. I had to agree with White though that I don't see any way back for Brown and Labour at the next election. I agreed with Price, that the next 12 months shouldn't be abandoned. We have a year to show that we have a positive agenda and that if Labour does lose, for it not to be catastrophic.
Many of us have been waiting a long time for Brown to take the initiative. I'm preparing for the worst case scenario and hoping for the best.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Pre-budget report
My first thoughts on Alistair Darling's Pre Budget Report are that it clearly presents the country with clear water between Labour and Tory.
Labour has put together a package that at the very least seeks to stimulate the ailing economy. This is set against a Tory Party that cynically states the solutions won't work. The Tory solution is minimal action because they don't believe in government as the answer to problems. The Tories have retreated to their ideological home ground of minimal government and laissez-faire economics.
It is simply not acceptable to allow banks to go to the wall or to leave the poor and low earners without any help when help is available. Labour is certainly trying. Peeling back the surface and starting to look at the details and the picture becomes a little murky. Clearly high levels of public borrowing will have to be paid for over many years. Borrowing increases to levels higher than in previous recessions. However after previous recessions, such as in the 1990s, the government of the day didn't seek to stimulate the economy like this. The economic threat globally was not as great. Darling has sought to make higher earners pay for the borrowing, in future years. This could work and is certainly fair, however is dependent on Labour winning the next election.
Brown and Darling have taken a huge political gamble. It was one worth taking because it offers a glimmer of hope at a time when the Tories have offered nothing.
Labour has put together a package that at the very least seeks to stimulate the ailing economy. This is set against a Tory Party that cynically states the solutions won't work. The Tory solution is minimal action because they don't believe in government as the answer to problems. The Tories have retreated to their ideological home ground of minimal government and laissez-faire economics.
It is simply not acceptable to allow banks to go to the wall or to leave the poor and low earners without any help when help is available. Labour is certainly trying. Peeling back the surface and starting to look at the details and the picture becomes a little murky. Clearly high levels of public borrowing will have to be paid for over many years. Borrowing increases to levels higher than in previous recessions. However after previous recessions, such as in the 1990s, the government of the day didn't seek to stimulate the economy like this. The economic threat globally was not as great. Darling has sought to make higher earners pay for the borrowing, in future years. This could work and is certainly fair, however is dependent on Labour winning the next election.
Brown and Darling have taken a huge political gamble. It was one worth taking because it offers a glimmer of hope at a time when the Tories have offered nothing.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Cameron's speech: "I am a fiscal conservative" .
Yesterday David Cameron came across well without wowing me. He comes across well because he is a natural speaker and PR man. Gordon Brown is not one of those. Brown's speech was as good as one could expect, likewise Cameron looked better.
Cameron's focus was very much traditional Conservatism. His focus was on the family and small government as the remedies to the so called "broken society." This was predictable and showed Cameron appealing to his core vote, socially and economically conservative with a big and a small c. Brown's speech was a similar appeal to his party who needed reassurance that he was up to the job. Cameron didn't need to do that, but still touched on the Tory hot spots.
By stating his priority to be low taxes and praising Thatcher's economic revolution Cameron was appealing to a Tory party that hasn't changed its values. The Tory part has changed, but only in that it now has the confidence to appeal to the country and behave like they expect to govern.
The lack of belief in government to enact positive change is the sort of Thatcherite mantra that dominated the 1980s of my childhood. "People create jobs, not government" stated Cameron. couple this with tax cuts and falling tax revenue in a declining economy and this signals severe cuts. Cameron won't say that now, but if the Tories win we'll see it happen. The Tories have shown this in local government in Hammersmith and Fulham.
The claim that the Tories are the party of NHS is laughable. However, t many in the Labour Party and on the left play into Tory hands and prepare the ground for Cameron to make that kind of claim by constantly complaining about details when the NHS is substantively better than it was ten years ago. When do you hear of patients left to die on trolleys each winter? That was commonplace when I grew up and simply doesn't happen anymore.
I was angered when Cameron claimed that Labour doesn't believe in community, that we only believe in government and individuals. By the end of his speech Cameron was aggressive and in his pomp. I've no doubt he'll rise to whatever challenge Brown sets. What is clear is that Labour has been divided and introspective, while the Tories are united and talking to the country.
Cameron's focus was very much traditional Conservatism. His focus was on the family and small government as the remedies to the so called "broken society." This was predictable and showed Cameron appealing to his core vote, socially and economically conservative with a big and a small c. Brown's speech was a similar appeal to his party who needed reassurance that he was up to the job. Cameron didn't need to do that, but still touched on the Tory hot spots.
By stating his priority to be low taxes and praising Thatcher's economic revolution Cameron was appealing to a Tory party that hasn't changed its values. The Tory part has changed, but only in that it now has the confidence to appeal to the country and behave like they expect to govern.
The lack of belief in government to enact positive change is the sort of Thatcherite mantra that dominated the 1980s of my childhood. "People create jobs, not government" stated Cameron. couple this with tax cuts and falling tax revenue in a declining economy and this signals severe cuts. Cameron won't say that now, but if the Tories win we'll see it happen. The Tories have shown this in local government in Hammersmith and Fulham.
The claim that the Tories are the party of NHS is laughable. However, t many in the Labour Party and on the left play into Tory hands and prepare the ground for Cameron to make that kind of claim by constantly complaining about details when the NHS is substantively better than it was ten years ago. When do you hear of patients left to die on trolleys each winter? That was commonplace when I grew up and simply doesn't happen anymore.
I was angered when Cameron claimed that Labour doesn't believe in community, that we only believe in government and individuals. By the end of his speech Cameron was aggressive and in his pomp. I've no doubt he'll rise to whatever challenge Brown sets. What is clear is that Labour has been divided and introspective, while the Tories are united and talking to the country.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Gordon Brown's speech
Now everyone has had time for reflection and I've had time to speak to other people across the Labour Party about Gordon Brown's speech to conference yesterday it is a good time to pass judgement.
He started well and themes of fairness and being on 'your' side worked well. Brown needs to keep on at this as a key differentiator between Labour and Tories. There is a gulf but nobody will know if Labour never make it explicit:
Gordon, where have you been? The rabble rousing, tub-thumping, robust policy laden speeches of the past seemed to have disappeared but there were glimpses yesterday of the Prime Minister we all thought we were going to get. Jonathan Freedland writes well about this.
Focusing on himself as the only person to steer Britain through troubled economic times was expected but important. This unique value proposition marks him against Cameron-Osbourne well. Brown took decisive action last week to allow Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS and for me, that was the start of the Brown fight-back.
BBC's John Pienaar, together with The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh on Five Live after the speech yesterday stated today that Brown's speech served it's primary purpose - to get the party back onside. Telling the party that"fairness is in our DNA" was an easy, but important point scorer. So far it appears to have broadly brought the party back onside. This was a stay of execution, Brown has more time now.
According to The Sun:
"This speech won Mr Brown precious breathing space. But his exhausted face revealed the strain this battle for survival is inflicting.
With a stronger team and (hopefully) showing the robustness of yesterday to the country, Brown needs to attack the Tories and to show the country why he said yesterday of the Tories:
"And when salesmen won't tell you what they are selling, it's because they are selling something no-one should buy."
For now, the challenge is with the Tories, but Brown will need to respond.
Yesterday the old Brown was back. I hope he stays.
He started well and themes of fairness and being on 'your' side worked well. Brown needs to keep on at this as a key differentiator between Labour and Tories. There is a gulf but nobody will know if Labour never make it explicit:
"Just think where our country would be if we'd listened to them. No paternity leave, no New Deal, no Bank of England independence, no Sure Start, no devolution, no civil partnerships, no minimum wage, no new investment in the NHS, no new nurses, no new police, no new schools.
"So let's hear no more from the Conservatives - we did fix the roof while the sun was shining."Gordon, where have you been? The rabble rousing, tub-thumping, robust policy laden speeches of the past seemed to have disappeared but there were glimpses yesterday of the Prime Minister we all thought we were going to get. Jonathan Freedland writes well about this.
Focusing on himself as the only person to steer Britain through troubled economic times was expected but important. This unique value proposition marks him against Cameron-Osbourne well. Brown took decisive action last week to allow Lloyds TSB to take over HBOS and for me, that was the start of the Brown fight-back.
BBC's John Pienaar, together with The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh on Five Live after the speech yesterday stated today that Brown's speech served it's primary purpose - to get the party back onside. Telling the party that"fairness is in our DNA" was an easy, but important point scorer. So far it appears to have broadly brought the party back onside. This was a stay of execution, Brown has more time now.
According to The Sun:
"This speech won Mr Brown precious breathing space. But his exhausted face revealed the strain this battle for survival is inflicting.
His ‘great clunking fist’ still managed to land a blow on David Cameron. Mr Brown portrayed the Tory leader as a carpet-bagger selling snake oil and patent cure-alls.
Mr Cameron must respond next week by filling the gaping holes in Tory policy — on Europe, taxes, spending and the NHS."
With a stronger team and (hopefully) showing the robustness of yesterday to the country, Brown needs to attack the Tories and to show the country why he said yesterday of the Tories:
"And when salesmen won't tell you what they are selling, it's because they are selling something no-one should buy."
For now, the challenge is with the Tories, but Brown will need to respond.
Yesterday the old Brown was back. I hope he stays.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Labour = mess
Labour has a few problems at the moment:
No political party will ever be successful if it is preoccupied with naval-gazing and in-fighting. The electorate only ever takes notice of political parties that offer solutions to their problems, look disciplined and cohesive. Labour offers none of these at the moment. Laying the blame for this might be fun but is futile. Labour would look even worse to the electorate by triggering a leadership election and engaging in even more naval gazing and blame laying.
In the 1970s and 1980s Labour tore out itself apart and the country wasn't interested. In the 1990s the Tories tore themselves to pieces and the country switched off. Why hasn't the Labour Party remembered this primal lesson?
However, both Labour and the Tories learnt to change their leader to make themselves more popular, but only when an alternative leader was more popular with the public. Labour switched to John Smith in 1992, then chose Blair. The Tories were quick to dump Thatcher when it looked like they would lose.
Conversely, there wouldn't be any of this bickering if people were happy with Brown's performance. He needs to start behaving like the political bruiser he was made out to be. He is meant to be an expert on finance and economics so it would be good to hear Brown offering solutions to the meltdown of our under-regulated financial sector. The economic woes fill the news at the moment but there is very little comment from Brown or Labour about what we are going to do about it.
"At our best when at our boldest" Blair once said. If only Brown would listen.
- Labour is unpopular, especially Gordon Brown
- Labour is bankrupt
- Labour can't afford a general election
- Labour can't afford a leadership election
- The economy is in turmoil, we don't need political turmoil too
No political party will ever be successful if it is preoccupied with naval-gazing and in-fighting. The electorate only ever takes notice of political parties that offer solutions to their problems, look disciplined and cohesive. Labour offers none of these at the moment. Laying the blame for this might be fun but is futile. Labour would look even worse to the electorate by triggering a leadership election and engaging in even more naval gazing and blame laying.
In the 1970s and 1980s Labour tore out itself apart and the country wasn't interested. In the 1990s the Tories tore themselves to pieces and the country switched off. Why hasn't the Labour Party remembered this primal lesson?
However, both Labour and the Tories learnt to change their leader to make themselves more popular, but only when an alternative leader was more popular with the public. Labour switched to John Smith in 1992, then chose Blair. The Tories were quick to dump Thatcher when it looked like they would lose.
Conversely, there wouldn't be any of this bickering if people were happy with Brown's performance. He needs to start behaving like the political bruiser he was made out to be. He is meant to be an expert on finance and economics so it would be good to hear Brown offering solutions to the meltdown of our under-regulated financial sector. The economic woes fill the news at the moment but there is very little comment from Brown or Labour about what we are going to do about it.
"At our best when at our boldest" Blair once said. If only Brown would listen.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Do we need a new captain?
Does Labour need a "captain" in charge to arrest the slide in the polls as most media comment suggests, or do we need to back the one we already have?
Writing at Labourhome, John Prescott claims that "it wasn’t the Captain that sank the Titanic – a ship they claimed was unsinkable - it was the iceberg. The best way to avoid disaster is to manage your way around the problem...For me, it’s all about setting the right course. That’s why I’ve always favoured policy over personality and why I believe Gordon’s the right captain."
Favouring policy over personality is a virtuous ideal but politics isn't ideal. New Labour's success was based on pushing a slick, well branded personality politics onto the country when politics had become tired after the Major years. In London recently Boris Johnson won a battle of personality politics over Ken Livingstone. This is the battleground on which political fights are won. Without the personality the policy doesn't matter.
Gordon Brown has become a victim of this. Media commentators have decided that the Tories are credible for the first time in a generation and that Brown is not. Once momentum is lost and is running against you it is impossible to regain. However, a new leader might not be the answer, as last week's polls showed that Labour would be just as unpopular with David Milliband at the helm. Labour cannot afford a leadership election financially, let alone a general election that would become impossible to resist if a new leader were elected.
Labour is faced with Hobson's choice. It would be far simpler if the party showed discipline. To backed a Brown leadership the party and country needs to see him offering strong leadership and fresh ideas. At the moment that isn't the case. I fear that the party could end up in the worst of all positions, new leader, new elections and yet the same result than if Brown stays = defeat.
This is likely because Labour feels rudderless with the party and country reacting to the media fervour for blood. Following the media rather than leading it, new Labour was once famed for doing the latter, is exactly what put Labour in this mess in the first place. The nonsense over the election that never was permanently damaged Brown's leadership credentials and he has never recovered. At the time I thought a general election unnecessary yet the speculation was only nipped in the bud when the damage was already done.
Writing at Labourhome, John Prescott claims that "it wasn’t the Captain that sank the Titanic – a ship they claimed was unsinkable - it was the iceberg. The best way to avoid disaster is to manage your way around the problem...For me, it’s all about setting the right course. That’s why I’ve always favoured policy over personality and why I believe Gordon’s the right captain."
Favouring policy over personality is a virtuous ideal but politics isn't ideal. New Labour's success was based on pushing a slick, well branded personality politics onto the country when politics had become tired after the Major years. In London recently Boris Johnson won a battle of personality politics over Ken Livingstone. This is the battleground on which political fights are won. Without the personality the policy doesn't matter.
Gordon Brown has become a victim of this. Media commentators have decided that the Tories are credible for the first time in a generation and that Brown is not. Once momentum is lost and is running against you it is impossible to regain. However, a new leader might not be the answer, as last week's polls showed that Labour would be just as unpopular with David Milliband at the helm. Labour cannot afford a leadership election financially, let alone a general election that would become impossible to resist if a new leader were elected.
Labour is faced with Hobson's choice. It would be far simpler if the party showed discipline. To backed a Brown leadership the party and country needs to see him offering strong leadership and fresh ideas. At the moment that isn't the case. I fear that the party could end up in the worst of all positions, new leader, new elections and yet the same result than if Brown stays = defeat.
This is likely because Labour feels rudderless with the party and country reacting to the media fervour for blood. Following the media rather than leading it, new Labour was once famed for doing the latter, is exactly what put Labour in this mess in the first place. The nonsense over the election that never was permanently damaged Brown's leadership credentials and he has never recovered. At the time I thought a general election unnecessary yet the speculation was only nipped in the bud when the damage was already done.
Friday, May 09, 2008
What Brown should do next: me on Five Live
I managed to record my appearance on Tuesday's Simon Mayo show on BBC Radio Five Live thanks to TV Eyes and Gareth Owens. Listen away. So far this year I've managed to feature on The World at One on Radio Four, so just the Today Programme to do now...
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Bold Labour
I wrote yesterday of how I spoke on BBC Radio Five Live of the need for Labour to be bold, mark its territory set out a clear Labour vision.
I am a big fan of James Purnell and in the latest New Statesman he argues the very same thing. It is another as to whether Labour will successfully do so. Set out a bold vision showing that Labour really wants to remove children from poverty to open up opportunity. Because we believe this to be morally right, not because we think it will make people vote for us, like Cameron's Conservatives.
Be bold, be Labour, then make a concerted effort to show why a Labour government will be better and different from a Tory government that pays lip service to social justice. It pays lip service because New Labour has shifted the centre of political gravity after ten years in power. Don't forget that. Otherwise, why would the Tories even be talking about poverty? When I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, they denied it was even an issue.
Marking out clear divisions between Labour and Tories might also help recapture voters who have become cynical of political parties and have ceased to engage in the political process. This is the challenge for Brown. He needs to meet it, otherwise I fear for the future.
I am a big fan of James Purnell and in the latest New Statesman he argues the very same thing. It is another as to whether Labour will successfully do so. Set out a bold vision showing that Labour really wants to remove children from poverty to open up opportunity. Because we believe this to be morally right, not because we think it will make people vote for us, like Cameron's Conservatives.
Be bold, be Labour, then make a concerted effort to show why a Labour government will be better and different from a Tory government that pays lip service to social justice. It pays lip service because New Labour has shifted the centre of political gravity after ten years in power. Don't forget that. Otherwise, why would the Tories even be talking about poverty? When I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, they denied it was even an issue.
Marking out clear divisions between Labour and Tories might also help recapture voters who have become cynical of political parties and have ceased to engage in the political process. This is the challenge for Brown. He needs to meet it, otherwise I fear for the future.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Election post mortem on BBC Radio Five Live
I admit to having spent the weekend out of London, which helped stave off the depression of defeat. My words here have been sparse after weeks of intensive campaigning. Finally, my life seems to be falling back into place. I'll leave Ken, BJ and Gilligan for another day.
Labour needs to avoid an internal massacre, now is not the time for root and branch change. The recent elections were always likely to be tough, being in the third term. However, Labour needs to take a few relatively easy steps towards salvation. I even find myself agreeing with Ann McElvoy on this.
I was asked to speak (as a follower of Progress) on Simon Mayo's BBC Radio Five Live show yesterday lunch time about where Labour should head from here. There was some common agreement between the guests, Graham Stringer MP, Khalid Mahmoud MP, Michael Meacher MP, Lorraine Davidson and Gavin Hayes (Compass) that Gordon Brown doesn't have much more than six to twelve months to show strong leadership. Views differed about how exactly Brown should improve his and Labour's fortunes.
Brown needs to communicate a clear and consistent message. At the moment I find it difficult to crystallise what his leadership is trying to achieve. The same couldn't be said for Blair, whether right or wrong.
Brown needs to make public services more responsive to peoples' needs, making their lives easier, not more complicated. This means simplifying the over bureaucratic (but redistributive) tax credits system and better communicating the changes to (particularly) the NHS. Longer opening hours for GP surgeries is a fantastic change, making the lives of many much better. However, like the Young Fabian mentioned in McElvoy's article, many of those potential Labour voters who I speak to, do not correlate changes like this, the minimum wage, or better buses in London, with Labour.
Labour also needs to talk about aspiration and talk to the whole country, not retreating to the core vote. This is dangerous and will only lead us towards the nadir or 1983, much as the Tories did in 2001.
Labour needs to rediscover under Brown the secrets of the success of the mid 1990s. There is a young team in the cabinet in Balls, Milliband, Milliband and Purnell who should be able to match Cameron's Tory team. The success of the mod 1990s was based on a young team, strong PR and communications focused on providing solutions to what people wanted. The young team needs to harness this approach. I also wonder what the PR experts recently appointed by Brown have planned. They need to act fast.
You can listen to my thoughts when I manage to upload the excerpt, or the whole debate (click on Tuesday, this will work until Tuesday 13 May 2008), I come on about 32 minutes in, after the sports news.
Labour needs to avoid an internal massacre, now is not the time for root and branch change. The recent elections were always likely to be tough, being in the third term. However, Labour needs to take a few relatively easy steps towards salvation. I even find myself agreeing with Ann McElvoy on this.
I was asked to speak (as a follower of Progress) on Simon Mayo's BBC Radio Five Live show yesterday lunch time about where Labour should head from here. There was some common agreement between the guests, Graham Stringer MP, Khalid Mahmoud MP, Michael Meacher MP, Lorraine Davidson and Gavin Hayes (Compass) that Gordon Brown doesn't have much more than six to twelve months to show strong leadership. Views differed about how exactly Brown should improve his and Labour's fortunes.
Brown needs to communicate a clear and consistent message. At the moment I find it difficult to crystallise what his leadership is trying to achieve. The same couldn't be said for Blair, whether right or wrong.
Brown needs to make public services more responsive to peoples' needs, making their lives easier, not more complicated. This means simplifying the over bureaucratic (but redistributive) tax credits system and better communicating the changes to (particularly) the NHS. Longer opening hours for GP surgeries is a fantastic change, making the lives of many much better. However, like the Young Fabian mentioned in McElvoy's article, many of those potential Labour voters who I speak to, do not correlate changes like this, the minimum wage, or better buses in London, with Labour.
Labour also needs to talk about aspiration and talk to the whole country, not retreating to the core vote. This is dangerous and will only lead us towards the nadir or 1983, much as the Tories did in 2001.
Labour needs to rediscover under Brown the secrets of the success of the mid 1990s. There is a young team in the cabinet in Balls, Milliband, Milliband and Purnell who should be able to match Cameron's Tory team. The success of the mod 1990s was based on a young team, strong PR and communications focused on providing solutions to what people wanted. The young team needs to harness this approach. I also wonder what the PR experts recently appointed by Brown have planned. They need to act fast.
You can listen to my thoughts when I manage to upload the excerpt, or the whole debate (click on Tuesday, this will work until Tuesday 13 May 2008), I come on about 32 minutes in, after the sports news.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
New Year, New Labour?
There is no doubt this is a big year for Labour. The biggest since 1996. Gordon Brown needs to re-take control of the political agenda otherwise he will be a lame duck PM. In the same way as one's boss is always asking one to be proactive at work, Brown needs to be proactive and pre-empting problems. He has taken a hit for things that haven't been his fault mainly because he hasn't looked strong enough or reacted in the right way.
How can he do this? Seeking to be firm and fair on party funding would be a start. It might not be that popular but state funding of political parties is the only way to stop accusations of cash currying favour. State funding would need to gain the support of the voting public by showing it to be fair and impartial. Democracy and politics has to be paid for somehow and this is the least bad option.
He also could do with looking at key posts in government and the civil service? Are all key personnel comptent? Ratings would tumble if another example of government incompetance arose.
Is Brown up to the challenge? I think so, but I'm not quite sure.
How can he do this? Seeking to be firm and fair on party funding would be a start. It might not be that popular but state funding of political parties is the only way to stop accusations of cash currying favour. State funding would need to gain the support of the voting public by showing it to be fair and impartial. Democracy and politics has to be paid for somehow and this is the least bad option.
He also could do with looking at key posts in government and the civil service? Are all key personnel comptent? Ratings would tumble if another example of government incompetance arose.
Is Brown up to the challenge? I think so, but I'm not quite sure.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Winning back the agenda
Listening to PMQs today, Brown is obviously trying to pain his government one one of substance over Cameron's focus on style. This has long been the big contrast between the two leaders but I worry that Cameron's lack of rigour isn't concerning the electorate while Brown is constantly reacting to negative events. These events are nothing like the cash for questions or arms to Iraq scandals of the mid 1990s Major government, yet they are not helping.
Labour is offering policies for positive change in Britain, like yesterday's announcement of the Childrens' Plan. This seeks to tackle the root causes of anti-social behaviour, crime (and the causes of crime?)and obesity and builds on the positive contribution of Sure Start.
Opinion polls have been better but they are sitting in the mid 30s and according to the Electoral Calculus (an amalgamation of all recent polls) the Tories are looking at a majority of 8 at present. There isn't an impossible mountain to climb, but we need to win back control of the political agenda otherwise nobody will be interested in our achievements.
Labour is offering policies for positive change in Britain, like yesterday's announcement of the Childrens' Plan. This seeks to tackle the root causes of anti-social behaviour, crime (and the causes of crime?)and obesity and builds on the positive contribution of Sure Start.
Opinion polls have been better but they are sitting in the mid 30s and according to the Electoral Calculus (an amalgamation of all recent polls) the Tories are looking at a majority of 8 at present. There isn't an impossible mountain to climb, but we need to win back control of the political agenda otherwise nobody will be interested in our achievements.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Britain backing Brown
So the polls show Labour still in the lead and the public backing Brown as the best leader by far. This makes great Saturday morning reading.
Cameron needs to respond and offer leadership and an eye catching policy that will attract voters. I'm still not convinced he has what it takes to haul the Tories out of their malaise. Tax cuts? Give me a break. Not a tax one though. Though this seems to be what he thinks will get Britain back on the Tories' side. I'm just waiting for a backlash in the Tory Party about Europe then the set will be complete, tax cuts and Europe. Will they ever learn that repeatedly beating the same drum in 1997, 2001, 2005 and now 2007 might not work?
£21bn of public service cuts would be a disaster at a time when investment is finally bringing services up to scratch. John Redwood's policy review claims that together with tax and regulation, poor infrastructure is a problem in the UK. How does he propose that we invest in new infrastructure with less tax revenue when what we have isn't enough?
Cameron needs to respond and offer leadership and an eye catching policy that will attract voters. I'm still not convinced he has what it takes to haul the Tories out of their malaise. Tax cuts? Give me a break. Not a tax one though. Though this seems to be what he thinks will get Britain back on the Tories' side. I'm just waiting for a backlash in the Tory Party about Europe then the set will be complete, tax cuts and Europe. Will they ever learn that repeatedly beating the same drum in 1997, 2001, 2005 and now 2007 might not work?
£21bn of public service cuts would be a disaster at a time when investment is finally bringing services up to scratch. John Redwood's policy review claims that together with tax and regulation, poor infrastructure is a problem in the UK. How does he propose that we invest in new infrastructure with less tax revenue when what we have isn't enough?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Gordie
Listening to Gordon Brown's leadership speech is getting me excited about the next couple of years in this country. The biggest issue facing the country is the lack of affordable housing. That Gordon prioritised this as the first policy area in his speech shows how important he sees it. I hope that involving the private sector, housing associations and local authorities can bring about the sea change we need. It is a matter of supply and the supply must increase for the price to drop and it remains to be seen who will be building these new eco towns. I'm not sure how building new towns will really help people like me though. I was born in London. I work in London and I don't want to live anywhere else. In London there has to be smart development, making the best use of land and it means increased density.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)