Nick Robinson reports on a flurry of interest in Jacqui Smith as Prime Minister. And the picture he paints is quite convincing: Who better, goes the theory, than a straight-talking Midlands mum, an Aston Villa season ticket holder, who still holidays in a caravan in North Wales to take on the Tory toff Cameron.
Labour's electoral system tends to favour women. Look at Harriet Harman's surprisingly good performance in the deputy leader contest.
It was exactly this sort of thinking that led me to speculate about Harman as leader a week or so back. Smith is a better guess in theory. She is more widely liked and is even less easy to pin down ideologically than Harman.
Her other advantage is being Home Secretary. But this is a disadvantage too. She is very vulnerable to the ups and downs that those holding high office experience. Timing will be everything.
There are any number of potential leaders whose bids were spoiled by the timing of the contest - from Denis Healey to, arguably, Gordon Brown himself.
In Rachel Sylvester's hypnotically good column this morning she writes: I am reliably informed that, after one recent Cabinet meeting, Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls during a row about who was responsible for youth crime. The Justice Secretary came back to his department fuming that he had never been spoken to so rudely by a colleague in public and that he was not going to put up with it.
Downing Street has totally denied this. But I wonder.
I suspect they are denying that Jack Straw confronted Ed Balls and said he would punch him. That is not, however, what Rachel claims.
What she claims is that, after a Cabinet meeting Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls. She does not say that he made this threat to Balls merely about him.
So what might have happened is that Straw, fuming, told a colleague something like "if he does that again I'll punch him" or "I feel like punching him". Perhaps this colleague is Rachel's source, hence the use of the words "reliably informed".
And if it's true, it is hardly likely that, assuming he remembered it, Straw would admit the exchange - one that perhaps took place with just one person - when asked by the Downing Street press office. And Balls wouldn't have known about it.
Just a theory.
The two missing computer discs were put in the post on the 18th October.
Just four days earlier, National Identity Fraud Prevention Week came to an end.
It was sponsored by the Inland Revenue.
Further words are unnecessary.
(Hat Tip: Hugo Rifkind)
Can someone explain this to me?
Here is the Prime Minister's description of his view of equality: In the new Britain of this generation, we must unlock all the talents of all the people.
Not the old equality of outcome that discounts hard work and effort.
Not the old version of equality of opportunity - the rise of an exclusive meritocracy where only some can succeed and others are forever condemned to fail.
But a genuinely meritocratic Britain, a Britain of all the talents.
What does this nonsense mean? If you have meritocracy that means that some succeed and some don't. What other meritocracy is there?
Equality of opportunity is one of the central new Labour ideas and Mr Brown has revealed himself shockingly incoherent.
 Anatole Kaletsky's column this morning describes the new Chancellor's interview with the Financial Times as a "genuine surprise" and an important one. He thinks it puts to rest the idea that Prime Minister is going to head off to the left.
So I thought I'd link to the full transcript of the encounter, which is now available online.
There is a spectacular attack on Tony Blair tucked away in the middle: It is a pleasure that the Cabinet now is actually so much more businesslike today than what I’ve experienced for the last ten years.
Ouch.
 In her defence of Harriet Harman, did Polly Toynbee really call affluent people "the filthy rich"? Did she really dismiss Hilary Benn as "born a millionaire"?
She couldn't have, could she? Wouldn't she be making herself look completely ridiculous? She's hardly a claimant of working families tax credit, after all.
But, dear reader, I fear very much that she did.
Tim Worstall (once described by Polly as "a pendant") makes the necessary point: Harman is a niece of Elizabeth, Countess of Longford
Polly Toynbee: Her descent is as follows: 9th Earl of Carlisle -> Lady Mary Murray md Gilbert A. Murray, Regius Professor of Classics -> Rosalind Murray md (div) Arnold J. Toynbee, historian -> Philip Toynbee, literary critic -> Polly Toynbee,
So, niece of a Countess supported by g-g grandaughter of an Earl.
Hilary Benn is, of course, merely the second son of a Viscount.
Further, the Harman connection is to a title from 1677, the Toynbee one to a title from 1322, revived in 1660.
The Viscountcy dates only from 1942.
Easy to see what's happening here, the ladies are simply ganging up on some unspeakable arriviste.
As Dizzy points out, this quote from Team Blears to its supporters is remarkable: Remember if you're a member of a Trade Union or any other socialist society - you can vote for Hazel more than once! A list of affiliated socialist societies can be found here
Iain Dale gives the message the fisking it deserves. But it reminded me of this post from Danny where he worked out that you could get up to 34 votes in the Labour leadership ballot. He's still offering a prize to the Labour supporter who can acquire the most amount of votes - so come on Blearites, let us know what your final total is.
Murad Ahmed
 Got £10,000 burning a whole in your pocket? Well Harriet Harman, speaking on last night’s Newsnight debate on the Labour deputy leadership, has some spending tips for you.
We are not just worried about where the bottom is in terms of poverty. We are worried about the gap with rich and poor. You can’t have proper equality of opportunity with a huge gap between rich and poor. Do we want to be a divided society where some people struggle and others spend £10,000 on a handbag?
Now I have to profess to being something of a soft-left, surrender-monkey, bleeding-heart, namby-pamby liberal – but even I think this kind of rhetoric against the rich is ridiculous.
Can we have a look in your wardrobe, Harriet? Maybe you could have spent a bit less on that nice ministerial suit? Do you really need that many pairs of shoes? While we’re at it, maybe we should trawl through the spending of poor people too? You know, you could have got two tops from Primark for the cost of that nice one you got at M&S, don’t you? Oh, I forgot, it’s not OK to tell poor people how they spend their cash. But we can get all moral about the wasteful rich.
Really now, so what if someone spends £10,000 on a handbag? Whatever you tax people there will always be people that can afford to spend £10,000 on a handbag. Suggesting that rich people, heaven forbid, actually spending their money is wrong is pathetic.
There are political and economic arguments either way on whether we should raise (or indeed lower) the top rate of income tax – fine. Last night, Jon Cruddas was honest about it. At some stage, we’re going to have to square up to whether we have enough finance to carry on this progress over the next ten years, and at some stage we’re going to have to get back to whether all people should make a valuable contribution based on their ability to contribute.
He admitted that the “David Beckham’s of this world” would have to pay more for increased spending. It’s redistributive politics. His leftist credentials are there for all to see. But unlike Harman he didn’t resort to the politics of envy.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that the 22 per cent of the revenue raised by income tax comes from the wealthiest one per cent of taxpayers. When the super-rich are already contributing such a high proportion to the public purse compared to the rest of us, it’s distateful to tell them how terrible they are for spending so much, especially when you’re essentially asking the rich to give up more of their earnings. It’s like taking their money with one hand, and slapping them in the face with the other.
Harriet Harman, an alumna of St Paul's Girls School, should know better than play to the crowd. Maybe it's because the polls show she’s well behind Benn, Johnson and Cruddas who for various reasons (the Benn name, an ex-trade unionist and a bona-fide Left-winger) have a lock on Left-leaning grass-roots of the Labour party.
As Tim Hames wrote, anybody but Harriet, please.
Murad Ahmed
 Not so long ago, Alan Johnson was being touted as the "Blairite" alternative to Gordon Brown. So complete his sentence, delivered during the contest for deputy leader.
On the NHS, he said, the Government had: listened a bit too much to the BMA [British Medical Association] and not enough to.....
Patients? No.
The experience of other countries? No
Innovative doctors? No.
Click here to discover the much-celebrated Mr Johnson's view of the voice we need to listen to in order to improve the health service.
Let's just suppose you actually want to know what the various Labour deputy leadership candidates are offering as a platform. Allow me to link you up.
Hilary Benn: BBC, The Independent Q&A, New Statesman
Hazel Blears: BBC, New Statesman
Jon Cruddas: BBC, Independent Q&A, Facebook interview, New Statesman
Peter Hain: BBC, The Independent Q&A, New Statesman, Progress
Harriet Harman: BBC, The Independent Q&A, New Statesman
Alan Johnson: BBC, The Independent Q&A, New Statesman, Progress
When John Smith died, Margaret Beckett became leader of the Labour Party until a leadership election could be held. But, of course, Labour was in opposition.
If Gordon Brown were to be run over by the Dunfermline omnibus, would his deputy become prime minister? I'm only asking because there is talk that the victorious candidate in the deputy leadership campaign would not be appointed deputy prime minister.
If Jack Straw became Deputy Prime Minister instead, would it be him or the deputy leader who would be called upon by the Queen?
While the constitution wonks among you ponder that, you might enjoy some of the deputy leadership websites.
Harriet Harman has the endorsement of Geraldine Ferraro, Neil Kinnock and the head of the Grunwick strikers. Don't let that put you off or anything.
Peter Hain has the support of the singer Beverly Knight who says: I have always felt you would be the right man for the Deputy PM job
Which is, if you think about it, a little on the insulting side.
Hilary Benn doesn't appear to list his endorsements.
All the core Cabinet Blairites have endorsed Hazel Blears, making her clearly the faction's candidate. It will be instructive to see how she does.
 Nick Robinson advises us all to put our money on Alistair Darling becoming Chancellor. John Reid's retirement removes the one serious barrier to Mr Darling's promotion - the fact that he is a Scot.
So who is Alistair Darling? He is widely regarded as a safe pair of hands, perhaps a little colourless, perhaps more an administrator, but an inoffensive figure.
Can I beg to differ?
Strange though it may seem, I've always had a bit of a thing about Alistair Darling. I think - I say this rather diffidently - that he does not always tell the truth.
Now personally he may be charming, a delight, a person of honour. But when asked to defend his politics on television, Mr Darling is happy to use the first argument that comes to hand, whatever the truth might be. I realise that many politicians do this a little, but my experience is that he is far worse than most.
It is a trait I first noticed more than a decade ago when Mr Darling led Labour's campaign to suggest that the Tories would put VAT on food.
I was intrigued when Mike Smithson noticed the man doing the same thing after the Scottish elections.
Up until now, this weakness of his hasn't really been noticed. After all, who cares about him, right? But if he steps up to Chancellor, I think he will get found out very quickly.
Tim Hames this morning had some fun at David Miliband's expense. But it really is worth reading the Environment Secretary's article in The Observer because it shows why he doesn't have the qualities to be a leader.
His peroration was this: We need to work on that vision, hone its components, put it into more accessible language and show the public that we can build on the start we have made. I think we can and will succeed.
Well, I've had a look at his article with high-powered goggles and I reckon over 1,200 words he manages not to express this vision or say anything at all. Plenty of wonkish verbiage and stock-in-trade rhetoric about empowerment and reform and "I can" but not much else. I mean what does this mean? We have only just begun the massive project of turning political ideas into a long and enduring process of social and economic reform.
or this? It is about thinking through how political parties can become agents of social and economic change in communities and not just electoral machines.
But more accessible language? Let's see. a housing market increasingly unequal in its rewards and increasingly difficult for some people to access
Only a wonk-politician could say "accessing the housing market" when a handy, accessible phrase like "buying a house" does for most people. But what does he mean by "increasingly unequal in its rewards"? I'm genuinely mystified - does he mean that it's a bad thing that in some places house prices shoot up quicker than others? Or that some people inherit houses?
It's a depressing that a bright man like Mr Miliband - remember he's supposed to be the future of the Labour Party - speaks this strange, content-free language. Pushing random phrases around a piece of paper isn't visionary.
Robbie Millen
 Ed Miliband.
With so much coverage of whether David M would run against Gordon Brown, it strikes me that remarkably little has been written about the role of his brother.
Ed is one of Gordon Brown's key lieutenants, and has been working on a Brown Premiership for years. It is unthinkable that he would back anyone else. At the same time, he is close to his brother and it is unthinkable that David would run without his support.
I suspect that these very simple facts will, in years to come, emerge as among the main reasons that David decided not to go for it.
Personal embarrassment plays a much bigger role in politics than is usually understood. It might be that Ed directly persuaded David to wait. Just as likely is that David, who might have fancied a run, had at quite an early stage assured his brother that he wouldn't go for it. And he never found it within himself to let Ed know that he was having second thoughts.
Either way, I think that the Ed factor will have been more important than many of the more widely canvassed reasons for David's non-candidacy.
Ooo, fancy. Is a US-style netroots campaign starting over here for David Miliband? It seems some bloggers have set up a pro-Miliband blog. Check it out here.
Murad Ahmed
The thrust of Irwin Stelzer's piece in the Telegraph this morning is that David Miliband's willingness to grapple with intellectual issues is what makes him an attractive prospect as Prime Minister.
Well, it certainly makes him an attractive person. But Prime Minister? That's a different question.
I like and respect David Miliband, but I think someone who has been a outspoken free market neo-con as Irwin has should be more critical of Miliband's confused view of the relationship between the state and the individual.
I commend to you the Environment Secretary's recent New Statesman article. Here is what he had to say about Margaret Thatcher: In the 1980s, "I need" was replaced as the dominant philosophy by the politics of "I want". A political philosophy emerged which, again in its ideology and its methods, understood the times. The Thatcher government licensed this materialism, encouraged aspirations and captured a new constituency. Its method was simple: get out of the way. The revolution was never completed. The state actually grew in size.
Then he says: Millions of people, every bit as aspirant as those who had been rewarded, were left behind. Some communities missed out altogether.
The government stood by. The helping hand of the state had been scorned, replaced by the invisible hand of the market. We are still living with some of the consequences of those times.
So he argues that the state grew in size and then says that the helping hand of the state had been scorned. Uh?
Guido has been on David Miliband's case, mercilessly ribbing the Miliblogger.
The blog should be hosted by the Labour party and the assistant's salary should be paid by the Labour party. Miliband should concentrate on sorting out Defra's serious problems rather than profile raising, partisan propaganda blogging. My view is slightly different.
I agree that the blog should be hosted by the Labour Party, but for an entirely different reason. I think it is unfair to argue that his current blog is improper. A fairer criticism is that it is too proper. I'd like the blog to be more expansive, more partisan and less departmental.
A typical Miliband entry is this screaming headline: Progress on Rural Development Funding
The piece was useful and worthy but hardly fulfills the function of reconnecting citizens and politicians. I'd love to see him freed from the stifling constraints of a departmental blog and, say, linked to articles and books that influenced his thinking (as he hints that he will, but doesn't).
David Miliband isn't going to run for the leadership of the Labour Party. That is the construction that some papers, including my own, have put on this statement by the Environment Secretary: I’ve been saying the same thing for three years with boring consistency. We’ve got an excellent prime minister and an excellent prime minister-in-waiting in the Chancellor. He’s extremely well qualified. What more can you say?
Well, actually, there's plenty more you can say. He could try: Under no circumstances would I ever run against Gordon Brown.
or: If I'm nominated I will not run, if I'm elected I will not serve.
or: No, no, no, no. I'm not running, so why don't you all just shut up.
The formula Miliband has been using has not closed down the debate because saying that Gordon Brown is an excellent prime minister-in-waiting is entirely consistent with running against him.
It's as simple as that David, if you were wondering.
The Milburn-Clarke website is up and the layout is goooood. But what about their central contention?
Here it is: Renewal cannot happen behind closed doors. It requires an open participatory debate in the Party, amongst our supporters and with the wider public about the future direction for New Labour.
This isn't true at all. Traditionally renewal in political parties does take place behind closed doors. It results from a small group of people breaking away from the established view and providing the party with a new story.
Open, participatory debates with your own supporters has not proven a very fertile source of renewal in the past.
I rather like the idea of an open, loose political federation full of independent people and agree that such participation would produce better policies. But I rather doubt that's what Milburn and Clarke have in mind.
What they really mean is that they don't think much of the renewal Gordon Brown is planning. And they would prefer something else under someone else, although they are not quite sure what or who. Hence this web based think tank.
One way of challenging for the leadership when you haven't a candidate is to find a Stalking Horse. I've never heard of a Stalking Tank before, but who knows it might work.
 Nick Robinson comments interestingly, as always, on the Milburn-Clarke initiative first reported in this morning's Times.
But he accepts their premise and I am not at all sure he is right to.
Milburn and Clarke say that they believe that Labour's deficiency is the lack of fresh policy thinking and the lack of debate about the future. Nick accepts this idea.
But the real problem for Labour, and particularly for Gordon Brown, is not a lack of policy ideas. It is the lack of a narrative, of a story that links who they are to what they will do.
And this will not emerge out of a debate organised by two former ministers. It will be forged by a leader who understands how to relate his or own story to their ambitions in office.
I think Clarke and Milburn understand this. Which is why they are not really organising a debate about policy. They are putting out a job ad and hoping a leadership candidate will apply.
 So the Home Office is useless is it? Entirely, hopelessly, laugh-until-you-cry useless?
During the last hilarious episode I commented as follows: The crisis at the Home Office doesn't just damage the Government on an important issue, it threatens a central plank of what makes new Labour new.
This explains the alacrity with which the Government has been prepared to accept the charge of gross incompetence. In fact, so enthusiastic are they about being seen as incompetent, they've even begun making the charge themselves. The Home Secretary cancelled an important speech in order to rush to the House of Commons so that he could make the accusation in person.
You see, it is far better for new Labour that the administration of government policy is seen as a slapstick comedy of errors than for anyone to question the policy itself. Better still would be if they could blame maladministration on civil servants, rather than shouldering it themselves. But that is not essential.
It is preferable to be seen as a clueless bunch of buffoons than it is to be seen as repeating an old Labour failing - not being tough enough on crime and immigration.
The real problems at the Home Office are the result of policy errors made by ministers.
The most important errors? The failure to build enough prisons, the focus on asylum and the constant introduction of small scale initiatives designed to manage the media rather than crime. These have resulted in a system impossible to administer and has left officials making hard choices about priorities. The released prisoners and ignored files are the result.
We should not let the government get away with describing itself as utterly useless. That, ironically, is a cover-up.
Following my revelation that it is possible to vote up to 34 times in Labour's leadership election, a reader comments: Oi Finkelstein - don't I get a vote for being a member of the Co-op Party? And presumably the AMs [Welsh Assembly members] and MSPs [Members of the Scottish Parliament] also get a vote.
Well, no, you do not get a vote for being a member of the Co-op party. The Co-op party is a sister to Labour, not an affiliated organisation. It is possible to be a member of it without being a member of Labour at all (although you have to join Labour to run for office as a Co-op candidate).
However, after a bit of digging, I discover that you do get a vote if you are a member of the Scottish or Welsh Assembly.
Assuming that you are not able to be a member of both of these bodies, that takes the number of times you are allowed to vote in the leadership and deputy leadership elections to 35.
The Labour Party has a new recruitment campaign. It is telling supporters that if they join, they will have a chance to choose the next Prime Minister.
What an offer. A chance to choose between Gordon Brown and, er, perhaps no one else. Where do I sign?
But if you really want to have a say in this thrilling contest, why stop at joining the party? I suggest you also:
- Join all the levy-paying unions you are eligible for (there are at least 16 and you may be able to join more than one)
- Join the Black Socialist Society
- Join the Christian Socialist Movement
- Join the Fabian Society
- Join the Jewish Labour Movement
- Join the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights
- Join the Labour Disabled Members' Group
- Join the Labour Housing Group
- Join the Labour Party Irish Society
- Join the Labour Students
- Join the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs
- Join the Scientists for Labour
- Join the Socialist Education Association
- Join the Socialist Environment and Resources Association
- Join the Socialist Health Association
- Join the Society of Labour Lawyers; and if you can
- Become an MP and
- Become an MEP
As far as I can work out you don't actually have to be Jewish, for instance, to be a member of the Jewish Labour Movement or a scientist to join Scientists for Labour. It appears that you can join all these organisations at the same time.
And all of them offer you a vote as part of Labour's electoral college.
So the Labour party offers you one vote, but if you are canny you can have up to 34 votes.
I think I'll offer a prize to the Labour supporter who manages to acquire the largest number of votes.
Can Gordon Brown change?
That is the question raised by Anatole Kaletsky's spirited column in this morning's Times. Those who repose faith in Brown based on his performance as Chancellor still accept that he will need to raise his game in order to be a good Prime Minister. But can he?
A clue to the answer is given in Michael Lewis's excellent book, (and I regard it as compulsory reading), Moneyball.
Baseball scouts continually purchase players with flaws that they believe will be eradicated by good managers. But in the vast majority of cases this doesn't work, the flaws remain. The Oakland Athletics baseball manager prefers an alternative strategy - he buys players later, so that he can take proper account of their shortcomings. He has a clear-eyed view that such shortcomings do not disappear with good training.
In selecting Brown in the hope that he will be a different man in Number 10, Labour is making a similar error to that of traditional baseball scouts.
 This morning's suggestion that government ministers are canvassing a Brown-Miliband dream ticket, uniting Brownites and Blairites prompts two questions:
The first is this - is David Miliband a fool or a coward?
Running for Deputy Leader is risky. He could lose. He could even be humiliated. And if he won, what would he gain? I don't think Gordon Brown is a caring, sharing kind of guy, so I doubt the deputy leadership would significantly increase his clout.
The leadership itself, however, is winnable. Miliband is (probably) a more electable Prime Minister than Gordon Brown. And it is at least possible that this could allow him to win a shock victory in the same way that Cameron did. Even if he lost, it would be seen as brave.
I like and respect David Miliband very much. But he will only settle for a run at the deputy leadership if he is a fool or a coward.
I said there was another question and it's this:
Is David Miliband a Blairite?
I've never really been convinced that he is. I know he worked for Blair, but that's really not the same thing at all.
Words fail me. Tom Watson's review of Tony Blair's conference speech is hysterically funny. It includes this extraordinary sentence: More than anything, he [Blair] deserved a good send off
Er. Hello?
 That is the conclusion of Anne Perkins watching Alan Johnson for the Guardian. She does, however, think that he has:
A better back story than any Labour leader since Ramsay MacDonald.
I am not convinced that the back story matters anywhere near as much as is commonly believed. What matters is to be able to tell a story of your premiership.
Daniel Finkelstein
is Chief Leader Writer of The Times and writes a weekly column. Comment Central is his rolling guide to the best opinion on the web. Click
here for more information on the blog. Alice Fishburn, the Online Comment Editor, will also be posting.
Send us an E-Mail
|
