Political coverage from Times Online.
Subscribe to a feed of this blog at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/rss.xml
It's difficult to remember hearing Alan Johnson, the health secretary, sounding so rattled on the radio before in the face of persistent questioning from Evan Davis. The new Today presenter effectively homed in on the problem, however. Today's element of the government fightback - re-examining social care for the elderly - is flagging up a problem (£6 bn funding gap) rather than a solution.
Gordon Brown will today talk about his desire help people to save for old age in a way which "insures them and protects their houses and their inheritance", while Johnson hinted that co-payment may be the answer. We are told this is very important for the Prime Minister.
But it's all very vague and all that's on the table is a six month consultation, leading to a Green Paper next year - the first stage in the legislative process. A solution is clearly a long way off. All very laudible, except the government is trying to use this consultation get good headlines now - to get it out of a short term PR hole. And it's hard to make this sticking plaster fit.
Even though he threw down the gauntlet to Tony Blair to sack Gordon Brown as Chancellor at the height of the pair's rows, what's fascinating about this morning's ST extracts from John Prescott's memoirs is that the ex DPM seems to have sided more with Gordon than Tony. With Tony, when he was moaning on about Gordon’s behaviour, I’d say, ‘Sack him. Find a new chancellor, if that’s how you really feel’. But neither could take the final step. They were caught in their own trap. Tony knew that sacking Gordon would tear the party apart.
I also think Tony was scared of Gordon. He didn’t want to take him on. Gordon is a very tough negotiator, doesn’t let things drop, keeps at something till he forces you into his point of view. That’s not Tony’s style. Gordon is a difficult character, but sometimes Tony exaggerated how difficult he had been, just to get sympathy.
I have no doubt that Tony was most to blame. He broke his agreement with Gordon, not once but several times. However, in Tony’s defence, most of his promises were ambiguous and on condition anyway.
Cherie Blair tomorrow vents her spleen in the Times, having brought forward the publication of her autobiography by six months. Gordon Brown, she suggests, would have got the keys to Number 10 much earlier if he'd helped her husband more along the way.
At the same time, her husband's former speechwriter, Peter Hayman, writes on The Times comment pages that Alistair Darling should be pushed aside and David Miliband should be made Chancellor. Is this all Hyman's own work or is he acting as a Blairite outrider to float an idea? A prime minister needs his strongest minister as chancellor, and Mr Miliband is currently the strongest minister. He has a feel for economic policy as well as wide experience of all policy development as a former head of the No 10 policy unit. He would be skilful, has spent time thinking through what a post-Blair agenda looks like more than most, and combines an appeal to middle and lower-income voters. ....
Mr Brown never needed a safety-first premiership. Rather, he had to perform an extraordinary act of renewal. He needed a chancellor to stand up in his first Budget and set out an agenda for both economic stability and reform. What Gordon Brown needed was a Gordon Brown as chancellor (minus the aggro). It may well be too late. But at least putting the right chancellor in place would provide a glimmer of hope. For there is nothing more important if Labour is to recover than to convince the public that the good times will return.
ITV's This Morning have already removed the footage of Gordon Brown "opening up" over his children's privacy from their website, in which he talked about this "struggle to have two young healthy children".
Far from being a deliberate strategy to humanise the Prime Minister, Team Brown are claiming Fern Britten ignored a specific agreement not to ask about his children. There is anger all round, it appears, even though Gordon appeared to come off quite well...
Not much activity by the Liberal Democrats in Crewe, apparently. While they are talking up their chances in Henley, the Boris Johnson seat - a by-election which is probably some months off - there is little sign of them getting stuck in further north. Only yesterday Simon Hughes was arguing in the Commons that the by-election should be delayed.
Party chiefs have privately suggests that they are too far behind their opponents to make it worth engaging in Sontaran battle mode (which resulted in its stunning mid-Parliament victories like Brent East) unless there are signs the Labour vote is collapsing completely.
This is an interesting tactical choice. Any attempts to engage more fully would presumably result in Labour defectors angry over 10p turning yellow rather than blue. But as it stands, the Conservatives are only having to fight on one front, making their job easier. Why has Clegg chosen this route?
Update: Woosh! A strong set of denials for Lib Dem Central, who have announced a Clegg visit this morning. The well respected Chris Rennard, the election chief, says: Simply not true. Just come to our HQ in Crewe and see us there for proof of our very serious intent! The Labour vote is very weak (as evidenced by our gains in Crewe South in the local elections) - so Lib Dems will aim to repeat earlier by-election successes. Mike Smithson, from politicalbetting.com, adds: "this sounds a bit like what everybody was saying ahead of Bromley and remember what happened there"
Court 2, 10.30am tomorrow on the Strand sees the next stage of the battle to get details of MPs' expenses released. The High Court is due to hear the House of Common's appeal against a ruling by the Information Tribunal that every receipt for 14 MPs' £23,000 Additional Costs Allowance should be made public. The Speaker is - inevitably - resisting.
The assumption had been that this ruling would create a legal precident and, in time, would apply to all MPs. Not so.
Apparently if they lose, the House of Commons Commission is considering publishing the details for the 14, but fight any FOI requests submitted about other MPs "from scratch". Apparently there is a belief that the legal team representing the Commission made such a hash of it that they could fight the same fight again - and win.
Seems unlikely - how can this not create a precedent. But what is clear is that details of how MPs spend public money on themselves must be protected at whatever cost.
 Apparently Paddick hasn't (and wont) claim any election expenses for the Mayoral race. A labour of love, it seems. (Apparently his Met Police pension is rather large). Huh.
Not ... yet, says Daniel Finkelstein, the man who experienced it the first time round from Downing Street, whose list of the indicators is well worth reading.
David Cameron was clearly pleased with himself at his press conference this morning, although at times he can come off a touch too self-congratulatory. There are still complications with Tory policy in some areas, and Benedict Brogan has charted the risks with the Tories' position on helping those affecting the 10p rate.
A second possible flank may open up. At the start of the press conference this morning, he pledged in his opening statement that the Tories would be working with Rolls-Royce as a beacon of British manufacturing, embedding his policy teams with the company. The Press Association has helpfully filed quotes below.
He didn't mention, however, that the (non-exec) Chairman of Rolls Royce is Simon Robertson, one of the main funders of George Osborne's office (see Register of Members' Interests and the Electoral Commission donees register) to the tune of £75,000 and has also given over £200,000 to the Conservative Party.
When asked about this, and whether Mr Cameron should have been upfront about the party's financial links to the Rolls Royce chairman, a party spokeswoman said in a message: "I honestly don't think you can make a story out of this on this occasion" (they may have scored big in the local elections but they don't yet own the media). She said that Robertson donates on a private level and has had nothing to do with negotiating this deal.
That may be true, but it is still perfectly acceptable to question who is funding the Tory operation and who benefits from it (as Rolls Royce surely will, by being championed by the Tory leader) . After the criticism for the lack of transparency over who funds Mr Osborne's office, surely this way danger lies...
Click below to see Mr Cameron's words in full...
Continue reading "Cameron could be more explicit about Rolls Royce link" »
If Gordon Brown wants to restore trust amongst the public, he is going to have to do better than this. Downing Street sources are saying that he will veto plans for councils to impose fines on householders who throw out too much rubbish. Recycling incentives will be allowed but penalties scrapped.
The Tories are absolutely right to point out Brown had already made this decision, again and again. Here's the piece in the Times from October saying the same thing. Brown's only hope lies in positive, new ideas, not re-abandoning old ones.
----------------------
Rubbish tax plan for homes that do not recycle enough is dumped
Philip Webster and Sam Coates
750 words
25 October 2007
11
English
(c) 2007 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved
* The Prime Minister intervened at 11th hour
* Pounds 30 payments were to be announced today
Proposals for councils to impose rubbish taxes on householders who do not recycle properly have been shelved after a last-minute intervention from Gordon Brown.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the results of a lengthy consultation on the plans yesterday and Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State, had been expected to announce today that the Government was "minded" to approve the new taxes of up to Pounds 30 a year.
Mr Brown ordered that the proposals be stopped because he was worried about the impact on families that produced large amounts of rubbish, and the practicality of imposing the taxes. His decision stunned Whitehall and Defra last night. Officials were preparing today's announcement and learnt at about 6pm that it was not going ahead. "A message came from Downing Street that they should not proceed," an informed source said.
Continue reading "Bin taxes were already in the bin" »
The arrival in Crewe of Eric Pickles, the mastermind and now hero of the Tories' local election triumph, is a sign of the party's high expectations at the impending by-election.
He has just been on Sky News claiming that the Lib Dem vote is turning blue and talking up his friendship with the Gwyneth Dunwoody - genuine, but also probably in the hope of Labour switchers.
Such expectation-raising may not be a wise idea - the Tories' misplaced optimism over last year's Ealing Southall by-election caused much misery for David Cameron, and the party hasn't won a by-election anywhere for nearly three decades. But Pickles is no Grant Shapps and knows this well, which is interesting.
There was one other stand out line in the interview. Pickles made a toxic charge against Gordon Brown, claiming that he was "tired.. and not looking well". Hinting that the Prime Minsiter is not physically or mentally up to scratch is a surprising and dangerous tactic.
It will be interesting to see if anyone else in the Shadow Cabinet repeats it.
In the final paragraph of a story in the Observer: The government is considering whether to impose greater scrutiny of a Johnson administration on critical issues such as the Crossrail project or the Olympics budget. It is unlikely to claw back powers already devolved to the mayor but while Downing Street was content to allow Livingstone to get on with big budget projects there is greater nervousness about allowing Johnson free rein.
Sour grapes?
- Rallings and Thrasher have calculated their own share of the vote from 1,350 wards in Thursday's elections which puts Labour back in second. Final scores: Tories on 43% (a three-point increase since last year) with Labour on 24% (down two points). The Lib Dems scored 23%, down a single percentage point from last year, according to Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher
- Tories spent a quarter of their £400,000 limit on Lynton Crosby, according to the Sunday Times: His four months of work cost the Tories £140,000 – but his decades of election-fighting experience down under proved well worth the money, turning Johnson from an entertaining outsider into a winner.
- Lib Dem HQ knew that Brian Paddick wasn't going to do very well, and were appalled his team were openly predicting he would get at least 15 per cent of the vote. In the even he got less than 10. Just as well that the heavyweights like Lord Rennard stayed away and concentrated on the national campaign, which went well.
- The most astonishing thing about Paddick was that his second preference vote - secret until after polling day - went to a hard left activist standing for Left List. Not something Nick Clegg will be keen to dwell on. Paddick wrote in Lib Dem voice today: "Apparently the best thing to do when you get thrown by a horse is get back in the saddle as soon as possible, although I wouldn’t know one end of a horse from another!" Whatever can he mean.
- Here's what Boris campaign workers missed when they were barred from the CCHQ victory party in favour of donors. "Party donors spared no expense on the lavish bash – with a grand ice sculpture of the Back Boris campaign as the centrepiece, an all-blonde girl band dressed in black ball dresses, and unlimited oysters and caviar. As a bashful-looking Johnson strolled into the room with his entourage, to clapping and cheering, there was laughter as the band struck up Jerusalem. In a brief speech, Johnson paid tribute to his campaign team, and to David Cameron. The Tory leader returned the favour. “There were no quips, even though everyone was elated,” said one who was present. “Both the speeches were serious and straight, with Boris acknowledging Cameron’s role in the night’s successes, and vice versa. Among the revellers were Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyricist; Lord Marland, the former Tory party treasurer; Johnson’s mother and father, and his children. The party continued until dawn."
 Just before the avalanche of Sunday papers begins, there are two must read piece from today's Times it's belatedly worth pointing out. One of Francis Elliott's brilliant piece on Boris Johnsons' route to power, well worth reading in full, which has already been picked up by the Drudge Report for this gem:
As a youngster, he once confided to a friend that he would like to be President of the United States. (His birth in New York made this possible, albeit ludicrous).
There there's Peter Riddell's essential column which makes authoritative but grim reading for Gordon Brown. No prime minister has ever recovered from as bad a set of local election results as Labour had on Thursday and won the subsequent general election. Gordon Brown has very few options, apart from waiting, and hoping, unless he wants to undermine his hard-won reputation for prudence and long-term stability. Often, with local elections, there are ifs and buts. Not this time.
A final point. Many have commended Ken's gracious concession speech for taking all the blame for defeat himself. In a funny way, this makes life more difficult for Gordon Brown. If Ken had criticised the PM last night, it would have allowed open season amongst Team Brown against Ken. But he didn't, denying them the opportunity to counter attack and distract attention from his woes.
Ken thanking his old enemy just makes life harder. Deliberately?
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice entered Downing Street at 4.30pm for talks on the Middle East with Gordon Brown, according to PA
Eric Pickles' stock has never been higher, not least for his masterful analysis over the last hour of last night. He has just offered a very cute analysis of the Labour wipeout, laying it at Gordon Brown's door.
He suggested that although there has been simmering discontent with Gordon Brown for several months, the row over 10p tax gave voters "a respectable reason to turn against Brown" because it showed the Prime Minister as "incompetent as well as unjust." He also said that while Labour assumed they had helped those affected, anger spread way beyond the individuals who would lose out. Sounds plausible.
And the news gets worse. As the broganblog revealed moments ago, David Pitt-Watson, Brown's handpicked choice as new General Secretary, has just resigned without even taking up the post. Another huge embarrassment.
Looking afresh this morning, what is striking is that most of the middle-of-the-night bullish talk from Labour about the London mayoralty being closer than everyone had assumed seems to have disappeared in the early hours. Why did they do it? Was it a temporary strategy to prevent panic? Did they believe it when they said it?
Also keep an eye on this excellent TimesOnline list of the council seats changing hands, by region. It shows the Tories making solid progress in the swing belt in the West Midlands as well as advancing in the south.
It's wrap up time here, but for those who live outside London here is the final edition of tomorrow's front page... A brilliant night for the Tories and full marks for the Tory spin operation. Few crumbs of consolation for the testy Labour ministers on the telly. The Libs look like they've just scraped home in Liverpool and across the country so no early crisis for Nick Clegg.
But after the last month - where Downing Street faced backbench revolts, dire polls and a humiliating U-turn, it's hard to see where the Labour Party can go now since everything that could be said has been said already over the last month. The danger is that Number 10 starting blaming Labour MPs for causing the 10p tax row, and the relationship spirals into violence.
We await the Today programme. By Philip Wester, Political Editor.
The Conservatives made sweeping gains across the country early today as voters gave Gordon Brown a huge rebuff in his first electoral test as Prime Minister. David Cameron chalked up important successes in the North, the Midlands and the South , securing his top target of Bury in Greater Manchester and taking control of Nuneaton and Bedworth, and Southampton. The Conservatives also took seats in Labour strongholds of Sunderland and Wigan. Labour suffered one of its worst electoral humiliations, with its national share of the vote dropping to 24 or 25 per cent.The Tory share was projected at 43 or 44 per cent, better than its most optimistic predictions. The margin was similar to the drubbing handed out to John Major in 1995 two years before Tony Blair entered Downing Street.
Labour faces worst local council result in 30 years, losing perhaps to 270 seats according to Times predictions. A stunning result for the Conservatives in Bury, where they have won David Cameron's top target. This is the first proper evidence of a Tory breakthrough in the north.
Tory say 200+ gains. Labour say they are heading for 25 per cent or less. Turnout large in London, small elsewhere. Biggest spectacular change so far is Tories taking outright Nuneaton and Bedworth in the West Midlands, which Labour have held since 1973.
 A reminder of what we're looking at. Click to enlarge
Further to the previous post about Labour talking up London, it transpires there is considerable irritation at CCHQ towards ConservativeHome.com for calling the mayoralty for London. CCHQ is being deluged with people wanting to know who Tim Montgomerie was talking to, and now fear they have handed Labour a temporary propaganda weapon. It's also messing up the Tory spin night because they want to concentrate on successes in the local elections and leave the Mayor for tomorrow...
Labour say London too close to call. After the close of polls, they are seeing some signs for optimism. We are post close of polls, so there's no point in them saying this unless they mean it at this stage. No sign of a tacit concession at 11.30pm then. But they need something to cling on to. They are repeatedly saying they have done very badly around the country.
For all the Blairite true believers, there is nothing to brag about in the ICM/BBC Poll filling the pre-results information vacuum. This puts the number of people who regard Blair as an asset to the Labour Party roughly comparable to Brown. So while some MPs might wish he was still in place, this isn't shared by the public...
At the close of polls, some Labour sources are suggesting that the Tories are doing extremely well - and could reach up to 47 per cent, up from 40 per cent last year. Tories reject this, say that's impossible but concede 43/44 is possible. We're heading for a good night for the Tories.
The Tories have upped their council seats benchmark in the last 24 hours. Whereas yesterday they predicted council seat gains in the "double digits", now they say a minimum of 120 and going up to 150/160. 200, they insist, is "very difficult". A number of Tory sources claim there is a high turnout in the outer-London donut, which would indicate good news for Boris (both Conservative Home, Betfair and betting website politicalbetting.com are calling London for Boris).
Both parties agree that Labour has lost Reading
Remember, the expectations game is still being fought and these suggestions may bear no relation to the final result.
It's all over. Polling stations close now and the agony begins. For the Mayoral teams, the pain is prolonged for another 18 hours. Counting at the four stations around London does not start until tomorrow morning, and processing ballot papers - even automatically - is not expected to finish until the evening. The BBC hopes to have a result for the 6pm news, but this isn't guaranteed.
The bad news for both camps is that if it's too close to call in London - or if there is electronic meltdown - it will go to a manual recount. And, with approximately 6 million ballot papers to process, that wont be quick.
So there's nothing for the campaign teams to do but go to the pub this evening. Both Team Boris and Team Ken will be celebrating this evening, though I'm assured BJ will not get too inebriated this evening despite ending his alcohol ban. Ken hasn't had any such restrictions. Update: A Frenchman Writes: As an interested frenchman I find it a bit strange that it takes 20 hours to get the results. Here when polls take place in Paris they close at 8pm and the official results are in by 12pm, with early estimates for insiders as early as 6pm and reasonable figures by 9pm. I'm curious to see who will get elected and will be back tomorrow!
More than a million of the Livingstone campaign's "don't vote for a joke" leaflets have gone out in the last 48 hours. Team Boris have received more than a million pounds in donations. So what's the betting that one or both campaigns breach the £400,000 spending limit - after all, the stakes are too high in this battle for political survival to bother with such trivialities.
Obviously the parties wont admit this automatically, so expect costs to be heavily underestimated when the returns are published. Even if they are found out, who cares about a slap on the wrist and a fine in a few months' time from the Electoral Commission.
The political classes are twiddling their thumbs waiting for news. We are in a fact free zone, amid suggestions of high turnout in London. So here's something to chew on in the meantime while we wait, very much buried in Kevin Maguire's New Statesman column. No 10 whisper is of how Alan "Mr Quiffy" Johnson rejected an uncunning plan by the Supreme Leader's newest consigliere, Stephen Carter, to anoint the Health Secretary as deputy prime minister. Perhaps the well-groomed mod couldn't take seriously a plot devised by a string-puller fighting a one-man war to rescue the tank top from Frank Spencer. Or maybe Mr Quiffy realised that Hattie Harperson and Jack "The Lad" Straw would kill for the post.
And here's Ben Brogan's tale of Labour whips losing their temper with "disloyal MPs" An MP calls to tell me about a curious incident he witnessed in the Commons chamber last night. He says Tommy McAvoy, stalwart of the Whips' Office, gave Diane Abbott a public dressing-down about her "disloyalty to the Government". Now, it is true that the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is a serial rebel who will vote against lunch it serves to annoy the leader of the day. But a hairdryer treatment is normally delivered in private, not at the Bar of the House.
There is no shortage of people offering Gordon advice in the countdown to E-Day. After the Fabian chief earlier, here is the Blairite ex-minister with a warning that Labour could "lose the South ... where the next election will be won or lost". If Reading goes blue tomorrow, is it already too late?
Wrapping it up as a call for discipline, the views of Stephen Ladyman - vice chair of Labour and ex minister in an article in Progress magazine do not make comfortable reading for Brown. Top of his to-do list is sacking those advisers whose infighting is hampering government and spilling into the media. If the people closest to Gordon can’t settle their differences, real or perceived, in private and curb their need to chatter with journalists then they have to go. If influential figures in the party can’t express their ideas in a constructive tone then we have to isolate them and make sure the public understand they speak for no-one but themselves. The private briefings and the bickering of recent weeks has to stop and stop now.
And former ministers bitter after losing their jobs should keep their mouths shut (pot?) If influential figures in the party can’t express their ideas in a constructive tone then we have to isolate them and make sure the public understand they speak for noone but themselves. The private briefings and the bickering of recent weeks has to stop and stop now.
There's going to be much more of this "advice" in the coming days. When Gordon does the big media interviews over the weekend, will he be able to prove he is "listening and learning".
Despite poll gloom, Gordon Brown is having a good day . He had the strength to admit "mistakes" on the Today programme. He stood firm on 42 days in the Commons. He tried out - succesfully - a new, more hostile technique at Prime Minister's Questions, calling David Cameron a "shallow salesman" and reminding MPs of "Cleggover".
All of which makes the outburst by the normally loyal Fabian Society more fascinating. Sunder Katwala, the general secretary, said Brown suffers “neurotic under-confidence” whose administration "risks being written off before its first anniversary”.
And to think Ed Balls was Chair of the Fabian Society just last year.
Since briefing his speech overnight to the Press Association, Katwala has clearly been thunked, saying he had been speaking in a personal capacity (meaningless - damage done) and was a “strong supporter” of Mr Brown (who would believe him now.) The people who attack before polling day will be the last to be forgiven.
Before elections, all three political parties give their predictions of what will happen. They frequently bear little reaction to what does happens on the night. That's because these briefings are part of the expectations game. Indeed, if a party's predictions have come true, that's likely because they've done extremely badly indeed.
Here is a round-up of what the three parties are currently saying about the 4,023 seats up for election in England and Wales this year.*
Conservatives say: "Modest two figure" increase in seats, though they admit this is on the low side. Aiming for 40 per cent share of the vote (which they got last time). Possible northern gains in Bury. Expecting to lose Coventry and do badly in Slough. Opponents: If Labour lose 200 seats that will be "meltdown" or "catastrophic". Lib Dems may make net gains or losses.
Liberal Democrats say: Net loss, possibly around 80-100 seats. They say 25 per cent share would be "quite hard" although they regularly poll six points above their national share in the opinion polls. Losses to the Tories in rural areas. Focusing on possible gains in Sheffield, Cardiff and Hull. Could lose Liverpool, with just two losses meaning it is a hung council. Opponents: Tories should make 300 gains, Labour around 160 losses.
Labour say: Net losses of 200 seats. Expecting to poll 25 or 26 per cent share of vote.
*NB This is the smallest of the four-year electoral cycle (compared to 10,500 last year when Tories gained 911, Labour lost 479 and Lib Dems lost 246)
Nothing immediately, it would seem. Even though Ken Livingstone was barely able to contain himself after the announcement Kate Hoey would be joining Boris Johnson's first administration as an unpaid sports adviser, should he win. He told LBC that Hoey has been: A sort of semi-detached member of the Labour Party in recent years. But I'm surprised he's going to take her advice on sport because I think the reason Tony Blair sacked her at the end of his first term was because she'd been involved in all the fiasco over Wembley. But I suppose she knows more about it than Boris does.
Hoey already is short on friends in the PLP: she has participated in revolts against the government over 200 times since 2001, easily putting her in the top 10. There is a strong case for dismissing her - she has allowed the announcement to be used as part of Boris's campaign, which breaks Labour Party rules about supporting another candidate. The move would rally the troops, who will not doubt be seething at the prospect of seeing a London Labour MP appearing to support a rival. And it would be a chance for Gordon to show decisiveness and impose discipline on a rowdy Parliamentary Labour Party.
But at the same time can he risk making Hoey a martyr, who will continue to sit on the backbenches until the next election as an independent? More importantly, Gordon himself set a precendent by creating a "government of all the talents" including backbench Tories and Lib Dem MPs, so wouldn't it be hypocritical for him to punish one of his own for doing the same?
At this stage it looks like Gordon will do nothing, presumably hoping the issue will go away. Is it the right decision?
A handy guide from PR Week to the teams behind the candidates. Click on the image to enlarge. On Ken's side this excludes Simon Fletcher, his Chief of Staff, who is a pivotal figure and should probably be in place of Phil Dilks (London Labour press office), while Team Boris also relies on Nick Boles as a link person with CCHQ.
 .... in the company of Ben Affleck, Colin Powell, Pamela Anderson, Henry Kissinger, Marcia Cross, Jenny McCarthy and other A-listers at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, the annual bash where the President and Washington press corps show Hollywood what self-congratulation is all about. Our man Geoff Hoon - and his special adviser - was representing HM Government.
According to one witness, they walked down the middle of the red carpet of the Washington Hilton, and about 200 teenage girls and boys behind police barriers started screaming. The informant claims Geoff thought this is for him and his special adviser, looks bemused and poses for the cameras. He fails to notice Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner right behind. Sadly the Hoon pictures haven't made the international wires...
Mr Hoon was due to be sitting at the same table as Ms Anderson, although this dream never ended up coming true. After his week, who can blame him for wanting to escape...
 Maybe Gordon will regret substituting Jack Straw for an appearance on Radio 5 Live (see Comment Central on Brown's no show). For as part of the Justice Secretary's full apologia over the 10p fiasco, he said:
"Sometimes even with the best brains available to government there are inadvertent consequences of changes."
Is that a dig at Gordon?
An Monday morning surprise for Gordon Brown...
Tony Blair is returning to Parliament, in front of the International Develpment select committee on May 8, according to the select committee forward diary. Wonder how much he's charging them.
In theory he will be there to talk about his work helping Palestinian economic development for the Quartet, but watch as committee members try to get him to say something about Gordon Brown. Which he wont. What he will do, however, is to flirt, joke and fool around with the MPs, no doubt reminding some what they are missing.....
Stepping back from the limelight is never easy, especially for a politician, and when Vince Cable's star continues to shine brighter than Nick Clegg's, tensions seem inevitable.
With characteristic candour, Cable has told the BBC Politics show this afternoon that things aren't going so well in the Liberal Democrats right now, and says people are coming to him (and pointedly not to Clegg) with the big issue of the day - the economy. This feels like a rebuke to Clegg. Here's the extract: We’re not doing as well as we hoped we’d be. I’m not complacent. We can do better and should do better. There is a big opportunity, we’re not doing badly, but we could do a lot better."
I think it's a question of us putting in more work, being credible on the issues that really matter to people. A lot of responsibility comes onto me because the thing people are worried about more than anything is the economy.
It's unclear what Lord Levy was trying to achieve with his autobiography, but the final result in today's Mail on Sunday frankly isn't very edifying. Consequently it won't do much damage to Brown (undoubtedly the reason he secured a large advance and allowed the serialisation five days before polling day.)
The book presents smears in place of facts in some kind of public quest for revenge justice. The only motivation seems to be a feeling he was let down by Labour, including fascinatingly, Tony Blair. But the details don't live up to the headlines.
"I warned Tony about long massages with Carole" gives the implication that something untoward was going on. But he says his decision to talk to Blair about this resulted from "gossip within No10 concerning visits Carole was making to Chequers to give an increasingly stressed Prime Minister long massages". Nothing further is spelt out. A blow below the belt.
The charge that Tony Blair told Levy that "Gordon can't beat Cameron" isn't well enough evidenced either. It wouldn't be a surprise if something like this was uttered - given the infinitely-documented personal animosity between Blair and Brown - but Levy offers nothing by way of corroboration or context to give it credibility - even before the inevitable Blair (quasi?) denials started to drop. Again, nothing proved.
The Cash for Peerages section is interesting. He explains that he did have views about who should get peerages and honours, and he did tell those responsible in Number 10 about them, but stresses he was never involved in the final peerage/honours selection meetings.
However some key details again lack full credibility. When he was accused by a donor, Sir Gulam Noon in The Times, of asking for them for secret loans rather than publicly-declared donations, he merely replies this statement was "the product of an impaired memory."
The lingering impression of Levy is of a bitter, unforgiving man. Not unlike Sir Menzies' Campbell's recent work, he charts every compliment but also records every snub.
He was - disproportionately? - offended when Blair asked Sir Ronald Cohen to help with fund-raising before the 2005 general election, and then again when Blair didn't name check him at a farewell Labour gala dinner. "Tony publicly praised and thanked a number of the people who had helped him [but] he made no mention of me. I said nothing though I'm sure I was not alone in noticing the ommission" (Blair of course did attend his own farewell party at Lancaster House however to make his own high profile public tribute.)
Levy undoubtedly suffered through the cash for honours affair because he was being tainted by rumours and innuendo. So it's nothing short of extraordinary that he chose to go down the same route himself and offer up smearing semi-facts about others.
As seen on Have I Got News for You, the London Mayor contest repackaged for kids. For those who thought it was a grown up contest in the first place. And below the fold, click to see a video about Hilary Clinton by the same group
Continue reading "London's Rainbow coalition" »
More bad news for Brown over the new General Secretary he went out of his way to recruit. From Tribune. Since his appointment, Mr Pitt-Watson has missed three officers’ meetings and at least two business board meetings and has communicated only to confirm that he had not given notice to his present employer. A rumour was started this week to the effect that he had now formally resigned, but this was greeted with scepticism and seen as just the latest of a series of devices designed to give the impression that Mr Pitt-Watson is still interested in the post.
Speculation is growing that he no longer wants the job because of the financial liabilities that would fall on himself and his family. One option under consideration is to turn the Labour Party into a public limited company. Gordon Brown is reported to be keen not to suffer the humiliation of losing Mr Pitt-Watson after championing his candidacy so strongly.
Hattip Guido
... read today's leading article on the London Mayor race....
Duuuuuuuuuuuck?
According to this morning's Telegraph, Gordon Brown is going to exact full revenge against the people who are really to blame for his recent problems. The Daily Telegraph can reveal that while Mr Brown is expected to make some minor Cabinet changes he will "clear out the dead wood'' in the junior ranks. Among those who are thought to be vulnerable are Gerry Sutcliffe, the Sports Minister, and Angela Eagle, a junior Treasury minister. Both have embarrassed Mr Brown over tax.
A commuter writes: I'm on the same train (8.45 from Paddington to Swansea) as both Brown and Cameron. David Cameroon struggled to find his seat reservation (in 1st) - as did a lot of us as they had closed a carriage off so moved everyone reservations around - then it turns out the reason they'd closed a carriage off is to allow Brown and 5 advisers to have the place to themselves. What's your carbon footprint if you take up an eighth of a intercity train?
Juicy piece of insider London Mayoral politics this morning. Apparently Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell are helping Tessa Jowell run Ken Livingstone's campaign, according to this morning Guardian. But those around Ken clearly aren't happy with the fact this has been briefed out (remember what Ken said about his pride at 'smashing New Labour' in 2000). Team Ken would appear to be so furious they have put out a statement condemning the Iraq war. According to PA: One source inside Mr Livingstone’s campaign said the support offered by Mr Blair and Mr Campbell did not mean the mayor had settled his policy differences with them over issues like the Iraq War. The source said: “Ken Livingstone welcomes the support he has had in his campaign from anyone, including Alistair Campbell, Phillip Gould and particularly the strong support he has had from Government Ministers. “At the same time, you only have to see the importance his campaign gives to issues like opposing the war in Iraq and bringing the maintenance of the Tube back into public ownership to understand the character of his campaign.”
 At the end of a bad day for the Prime Minister, it was astonishing to hear Peter Hyman, former Blair speechwriter, say on Newsnight that Labour party members are telling him that it's time for the party to spend some time in opposition. And that these people felt perhaps David Cameron wouldn't be such a bad Prime Minister. Not exactly helpful...
Daniel Finkelstein over at Comment Central has the transcript
Faster than a government U-turn, Ann Treneman has already insta-sketched today at PMQs Gordon Brown went on the attack today as only he can when he is, actually, doing the most spectacular climbdown.
It was he, as Chancellor, who announced that he would scrap the 10p tax rate to whoops of joy from his backbenchers in March 2007. How long ago that must seem! It has taken a sustained revolt by Labour backbenchers, lead by maverick Frank Field, who has loved every moment of his time in the limelight, to get Gordon to promise to take action.
Of course he never actually said he was wrong yesterday. He never said he was sorry. He never even admitted that anyone would actually lose out from the scrapping of the 10p rate. Instead he indulged in an almost shameless amount of bragging about how much he had helped people out of poverty. God knows what the poor people watching thought of it but, in the Chamber, it was enough for Labour members.
David Cameron, though, was on top scathing form. At every attack, Gordon smiled his weird stretchy lips smile. It got bigger and bigger. Who won? One hopes the poor, at least.
 It's hard to judge the impact of the 10p "climbdown" beyond defusing the immediate revolt.
Times Political Editor Phil Webster offers this view which looks at the impact inside Westminster: "It shows Labour MPs that they can get their way if they shout loud enough. Mr Brown succumbed, mainly to the press, over capital gains tax and non-doms. But here, he gave in to his party because it was telling him it did not like what he had done. Will those same MPs now scent that when it comes to rebellions Mr Brown can be a bit of a pushover?"
There is the BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson view which looks beyond the political square mile: "Before everyone starts to write the prime minister's obituary remember that the public care much less about U-turns than the political classes; voters care whether what's done is right or wrong, not whether it's different from what was promised before."
Then there is one more question: how far will the public believe there has been a full U-turn. They quickly grasped the problem - scrapping the 10p rate is a straightforward enough notion to comprehend. But the solution looks (and is) fiddly, and Gordon Brown is relying on Labour MPs "selling" it as a climbdown to constituents.
The compensation will come through the benefits system, using "direct payments" or the winter fuel allowance system. This isn't an easy fix to explain and compensation will arrive months after the additional tax was deducted. This still means while some workers wont lose out over the full year, they may be worse off at certain points along the way.
Meanwhile the opposition will undoubtedly try and muddy the waters and claim the u-turn is "unravelling" and "spin". Today's changes got Brown through PMQs, but will it get him through next Thursday?
 Here is the "Frank Field" rebel amendment, which calls for the scrapping of the 10p rate to be delayed (even though it's already been introduced). The Treasury says this is a wrecking amendment and asks for money that is not there. Undoubtedly support for it is changing hour by hour.
 But on a slightly different point, why is it so fiddly to get hold of the text of the amendment and the signatures? I had to pick up this piece of paper from the Frank Field's office, which I've scanned in. After some searching, I later found it was available online, though it is deeply complicated to track down what you want.
Tom Steinberg, of the TheyWorkForYou / My Society websites, is running a commendable campaign to get Parliament to release the text of amendments online in a format which can be easily reproduced by his group of websites and others. This would allow for amendments to be searched by author, and people interested in particular subjects will be informed automatically by e-mail when changes are proposed. This will undoubtedly aid transparency and help demystify Parliament, which everyone has agreed is A Good Thing.
Steinberg estimates it will cost £10,000 for the software to make this happen. Doesn't sound like a lot to me.
I asked someone senior in Parliament what they thought of the proposals. The reply wasn't overly encouraging: A project is underway which has already significantly improved the parliamentary website. Improving access to information on Bills is an important part of this. The pages on Bills have progressively been enhanced and the changes made have been welcomed by users of the site. Our priorities are guided by tests carried out with users and we are continually reviewing the list of future improvements we can take forward. More improvements to the information on Bills are currently being scoped and planned. The My Society proposal was not one of the ones we decided to pursue when it was sent to us.
So they think they've done enough. Oh dear. On days like today it seems absurd that important information is so hard to obtain.
The government may be staring into the precipice but there are more important matters at hand. Lembit, 43, is marrying the 25 year old Gabriela Irimia, singer of The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum). Miss Irimia, 25, told Hello! magazine that she was dreaming of a "lavish white wedding in a castle''. The fiance may have changed, but the magazine has not: he placed at least two interviews with his previous girlfriend Sian Lloyd in the well-paying magazine.
Watch here to see Lembit discuss his future mother in law on Northern Ireland tv
 The usually reliable Ann Black, a member of the Labour Party's National Executive has this account of last month's meeting where the abolition of the 10p starting rate was raised. It contains quite an astonishing challenge by Gordon Brown - which showed how far the Prime Minister who last night told the rebels he understood their concerns - has travelled. A second person at the meeting has verified this version of events.
I and others expressed concern about scrapping the 10p tax band, which would cut take-home wages for many low-paid workers. Gordon Brown said that tax credits had made the 10p band redundant, and pensioners would b e compensated by higher thresholds, the 2p cut in the basic rate, and extra winter fuel allowances. No-one would be worse off, and he challenged people to send him payslips which showed otherwise. However a treasury minister confirmed that single childless workers cannot claim tax credits, and early retirers would lose around £2 a week. (Since the meeting Stephen Byers has pointed out that billions of tax credits go unclaimed, and alarm is rising, belatedly, among MPs.)
 Martin Kettle, the Guardian commentator close to both Mr and Mrs Blair (and no friend of Gordon) has written about what happened when the former Chancellor told the former Prime Minister what was in the 2007 budget....
When Brown finally revealed the detail of his measures to Blair in private, just days before his speech on March 21, Blair naturally quizzed his chancellor about the changes in personal taxation. How many losers will there be from the abolition of the 10p rate, Blair asked Brown. My information is that Brown replied that there would be very few losers indeed - I am informed that he told Blair that the number would be about 25,000. Blair accepted his chancellor's answer. If so few were adversely affected, he believed, then the change was politically and economically sensible.
 A senior Labour backbencher MP - not at all a 'usual suspect' - has just given the government both barrels on scrapping the 10p rate. I was struck by how angry up he was. He claimed that over recess, "nine out of ten people" were raising this on the doorsteps and this is bigger than the row over the 75p pension rise.
Interestingly, he suggested Labour high command are making it worse. They have just sent out another briefing paper to MPs "defending the indefensible" by saying 80 per cent will be better off (what about the other 20 per cent who are all the lowest paid). This is the third such document this week, he huffed, yet there is no clear message coming from the Treasury and Number 10 about how they will help. He suggests a one off payment for those affected.
The only bright spot for the government is that many Labour MPs will be unable to support an amendment tabled by Frank Field (who says politics isn't personal). Something tabled John McFall, chair of the Treasury Select Committee and longtime Brown supporter, has the potential to prove much more troublesome.
Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, had agreed to turn up to a Boris Johnson campaign event at the Harriet Pickering ballet school in her constituency this morning, but pulled out at the last moment due to ill health. (Thanks to Rosa Prince for revealing this). Any suggestion she was backing a non Labour candidate would result in her explusion
Despite her protestations to the contrary, the ramifications of this -- at a time where party discipline appears to be faltering -- would have been large. I've just spoken to her (she sounded very croaky - I suspect the ill health claim is genuine - update: though she was lunching a guest in a Commons restaurant this lunchtime) and said she was supporting a gymnastics projects in her constituency and would have done the same had Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, asked to come down. She said: "Boris told me that he was going to visit a gymnastics project run by Harriet Pickering. It's a project in the building supported by the London Development Agency that I referred to the police (this story, I think), but that's a different story. I said fine, I will come down because I support the project and would have done the same for Brian Paddick. I'm now not going (because of ill health) but would have popped along if I was well because I see no reason for not going if any mayoral candidate was due to visit. This is you lot (the media) wanting to have a story. What about Gordon Brown appointing non Labour Party members to the Cabinet (he hasn't - just to the government). Are we not supposed to speak to people from other parties?
Clearly Hoey has issues with Ken - why else would she report LDA projects to the police. Asked whether she was backing Ken Livingstone, she said: "I'm a Labour Party MP. What more do you want." Doesn't sound to me quite like a full throated endorsement, but she hasn't done enough to be kicked out. Watch this space, as someone called Angela once said.
In Monday's Times, in the letters page Sir, Ed Balls’s extraordinary interview with you (April 18) is most revealing and provokes a response.
His injunctions about the “indulgent nonsense” of “private briefings against the Labour leader” certainly come from one who is well acquainted with this kind of activity. Such things do discredit politics and take us back to the days of faction and party-within-a-party that were so damaging in the 1980s. As he says, we’ve seen it over this parliamentary recess, as I know to my cost from the totally false briefing (to which he refers) that I am considering running as a “stalking horse” against Gordon Brown. I hope that he’ll do what he can to stamp it out.
His references to “disappointment” resonate. It’s certainly true that many Labour MPs, including myself, are disappointed by policy decisions such as the abolition of the 10p tax rate, the over-bureaucratic and insensitive nature of the post office closure programme, and the problems arising from lack of preparation for a Northern Rock-style economic challenge. These all stem from Treasury positions with which he is very familiar. It’s also true that many, including myself, are disappointed with many aspects of his education policies, of which the most serious is the absence of a coherent and focused reform strategy for the 14-19 curriculum, along the lines of Mike Tomlinson’s proposals.
As far as his remarks about “falling for false prophets” are concerned, I would advise him to examine himself and his own role. He should stop attacking others anonymously or in code and look to his own performance and record.
Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP
 Gordon's US trip (wheels down Heathrow 5.30am yesterday) was nothing short of surreal. The contrast was striking between his genuine overseas triumphs (meeting the candidates, smoothing things over with Bush, setting a strong lead on Zimbabwe) with the accelerating stream of bad news from back home over the Labour 10p revolt.
The benefits of these trips for the travelling media is the exposure we have to the Prime Minister for extended periods of time. And what is fascinating about Brown is how hard he finds it to disguise his emotions at any point of the day. Nowhere is this more true than when he smiles. By my reckoning, he has three types of facial manoeuvre in his repertoire which sadly for him betray too much about his state of mind. They are:
 The please like me smile: Painfully visible during the Good Morning America interview, just as it was the week before on American Idol. A widget inserted by aides into his brain has been activated, instructing his facial muscles to change position. It is a hopeless smile, one that doesn't believe in itself, makes him look most like a machine. It doesn't feel genuine, because there is also:
< |
