Political coverage from Sam Coates on Times Online.
Subscribe to a feed of this blog at:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/rss.xml
Gordon Brown is going to spend the week on the world stage. Tomorrow he goes to Evian for a summit with President Sarkozy, then at the end of the week is the G8 in the earthquake-hit Italian town of Aquila (providing there are no more aftershocks). "Close allies say, however, that he is
looking forward to a week on the world stage", we reported on Saturday. Here are the plans for the week released by Downing Street. They include warning of potential economic troubles ahead, coupled with a declaration by Brown that "now is not the time for a fiscal contraction". He should have heard Alistair Darling on the Boulton show this morning.... Here is the document in full (cut and paste with original font and punctuation irregularities):
- Brown to set out five point plan at g8 for
boosting growth that includes increasing bank lending, action on oil prices,
action against protectionism, increased investment and preventing a generation
of young people lost to work.
- CX to outline Financial Services WP that will
leave no stone unturned to reform financial sector and ensure the largest Banks
are regulated effectively.
In Particular:
We are at a pivotal
point for economies around the rest of the world.
There are many voices
saying that the worst of the downturn is over. But there is no room for
complacency.
The warning signs are
there around the world:
–
as banks continue to
unwind impaired assets lending remains affected.
–
Oil prices have risen by
75 percent this year
–
World trade is down
almost 20% on last year, could fall 10% this year and protectionism is growing.
The WTO report that of the 119 measures introduced in the last three months 83
were restrictive.
–
Private investment is
falling; and
–
Unemployment is rising,
the UN predicts that global unemployment could rise by 38 million by the end of
the year.
These are the warnings Britain will take to the G8 in Italy . We want the G8 to heed these
warnings and sound a second wake-up call for the world economy. The G8 and then
the G20 in September must ensure we remove barriers to growth to aid recovery.
GB will say: “The world
can not stand by and let events take their course. The need for coordinated
international action to implement the decisions we have taken has never been
more crucial”.
“If we do not take the
necessary action now to strengthen the world economy and put in place the
conditions for sustainable world growth we will be confronted with avoidable
unemployment for years to come”.
Dramatic action by
governments so far has helped to stabilise the banking system and blunt the
impact on domestic growth. In the UK , business failure and
unemployment would be far higher had it not been for the govt’s interventions.
But there is continued need for vigilance and we need to step up our actions to
remove key barriers to sustained recovery both nationally and internationally
in the following 5 areas.
Banking
First, in total around the
world trillions of dollars have been committed by governments to the banking
system.
But, as banks around the
world retrench and look to repair their balance sheets, they are not doing
enough to lend. For example overall bank corporate loans in Europe
this year were $199bn compared to $674bn in 2008 and $1.1trillion in 2005.
Large companies appear
able to draw on finance but small and medium size companies remain constrained.
In return for state
support banks we must continue to insist that lending to customers is
increased. The danger is that complacent
banks return to old practises in their boardrooms and fail to service their
struggling customers. That’s why in the UK we have signed lending
agreements worth £70 billion.
At an international level,
we need to take forward the G20 reform programme for financial markets,
vigorously, with banks’ balance sheets cleaned up and strengthened so that they
can resume lending to the non-financial sector. We should support the newly
formed Financial Stability Board and ensure it has the resources and
credibility to implement the common principles we need.
Oil prices
Second we need to be
vigilant about commodity prices which could threaten to derail the recovery.
Oil prices have risen by 75 percent in the last 4 months. While the world is
right to worry about deflation which remains very much a concern, we saw only
too recently the impact of rapid oil price rises which, without concerted
action threaten to bring recovery to a halt. We must look at a range of measures
to address volatility, market transparency and
coordinated consumer/ producer investment in more sustainable energy of the
future.
Trade
Third protectionism is
on the rise. World trade has fallen by
almost 20 percent in the last year. World trade could fall by a further 10%
this year – and 14% in developing countries. The latest WTO report still shows
that too many countries are responding to the recession by turning inwards. We
must learn from the lessons of history. Trade has been the engine for world
growth in recent years, but protectionism is a significant threat to the
recovery. We need further action to kick start trade and roll back barriers to
trade, and concluding the Doha Round must be our top priority.
Investment
Fourth investment is the
key to future growth. According to UNCTAD, global FDI may have fallen by
15 per cent last year, and preliminary data for the first quarter of 2009
suggest a sharp fall in both industrialized and developing economies, with
dramatic slumps in flows to China .
Investment is falling globally, for example by 17.9% in the USA and 11.4% in Germany compared to last year.
While public finances
need to be sustainable in the long term, now is not the time for fiscal
contraction, but for ensuring that public investment can encourage private
investment to grow. So countries need to address the issues of
private investment which is falling across the world.
That is why we have set
up this week a new innovation fund to help lever £1bn of investment in new
technology driven industries of the future.
Jobs
Fifth jobs lost now may
not be recovered. The ILO's recent release of world unemployment
figures projected an increase in jobless numbers of between 39 million and 59
million people in 2009, which will create additional downward pressure on world
demand.
In the recessions of the 1980s and
1990s, long term unemployment became all too prevalent and turned to
persistent inactivity. A generation of young people were lost to work. So the effort being made to keep people in work and
to keep people in the labour market is essential and has to continue. That is
why we have guaranteed every young person a job or training. And if adults loose their jobs we will help
them back into work quickly. Numbers leaving unemployment each
month remain high - at over 300,000 people last month. 50% of people move off Job Seekers’ Allowance
before 3 months and 75% within 6 months and those unemployed for more than 12
months is four times lower than it was during in 1997.
The action taken by the
British government, it is estimated by the treasury, has resulted in 500,000
fewer people out of work than would have been the case if government had not
intervened.
Conclusion
At the G8 the world
needs to make sure that the G20 strategy for recovery is being implemented and
not frustrated. That the conclusions agreed at the London summit are being delivered.
The focus must be on the
choices we must make now to remove barriers to growth. By failing to make
difficult choices now things will only get worse in year to come.
That’s why in Britain on Monday we set out our plans to build Britain ’s
future. a strategy for growth and prosperity coming out of recession to harness
the dynamic new technologies and industries that will create jobs in the low carbon
economy, the digital economy, the bioscience sector, the creative industries, a
resilient and world class financial services sector, enabling our open and
flexible economy to adapt to the huge new opportunities of an open and
globalised world economy.
The G8 must heed the
warning signs and work now to deliver our future prosperity.
Just returned for Norwich North, where three weeks today voters will select a replacement to Dr Ian Gibson, who quit Parliament forcing a by-election last month. This held a number of suprises amongst the fiesty, independent voters of Norwich North. The first was that they showed little sign of anger at Dr Gibson over his expenses - he was barred from standing after selling his taxpayer-funded flat at to his daughter cut price. "He did it for his family", said one voter, reflecting the views of several who said that - at worst - his behaviour was no worse than any other MP. Looks like the Labour party got that one wrong. There is plenty of fury, however, at Labour for ejecting him from the party - Dr Gibson is much loved locally, and gained a huge personal following amongst the Tory inclined voters. The Tories have selected a 27 year old management consultant Chloe Smith, who works for Deloitte and trots out the party line adequately enough (she will be a "fresh voice", she says) but unavoidably has none of the stature of her predecessor - unsurprising given her age. The pressure on her must be enormous - two trips from Cameron already, the Ashcroft target seats campaign are in place. Labour are a bit of a shambles - the candidate Chris Ostrowski, 28, wasn't around the two days I was there. He wasn't big in the party before, being number 6 on the east of England regional list in the European elections. Nor was it entirely clear who is running the campaign (Downing Street said it was Suffolk MP and whip Bob Blizzard but by 5pm yesterday he still hadn't turned up in the campaign office, according to the local party). There is a sense amongst some Labour MPs - who also largely support Dr Gibson - that they have already thrown in the towel on this one. The Lib Dems have selected a more charismatic choice, April Pond, but the party didn't do that well in the June county council elections. The Greens are the big unknown, and are talking up their chances of coming second. Looking at the last two election results, this by election would appear to be a tightly fought two horse race between Labour and the Tories - Gibson's majority was little over 5,500 in both. But a new analysis by the Eastern Daily Press, whose by-election coverage is excellent, is much more telling. This analysed the results from the June elections in the same wards that will vote again on July 23. Although the overlap is not exact, it gives a pretty good idea of party allegiance once the personal Gibson vote is stripped away. The (unbylined) analysis found: An approximation would give a line-up based on the June 4 results of:
Conservatives 10,656 (40.1pc);
Labour 4,953 (18.6pc);
Lib Dem 4,371
(16.5pc);
Green 4,251 (16.0pc);
Ukip - standing in only four seats -
2,106 (7.9pc);
BNP 228 (0.9pc). A more recent poll, based on a smaller sample and unusual questioning, gave the Tories a 4 per cent lead. But at the moment, we look on course for the seat turning blue.
Lots of MPs are upset about the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but few have been willing to moan about it in public. They are worried about criminalising MPs for misdemeanors - although many would argue that the expenses scandal has proved mere rules are not enough. And will the new body really call in the police for the slightest breach? Now three Tory frontbenchers, Alan Duncan, Dominic Grieve and Patrick McLoughlin, have put down an amendment to remove the three remove the three new offences (on declarations, expenses fraud and advocacy) completely and water down the powers of the new authority to the point that it would be "virtually toothless". I wonder what David Cameron, who made a lot of his party's progressiveness on expenses this morning, thinks of this...
There are plenty of things about the government at the moment that suggest they don't quite have a grip on things.
On Tuesday, the government said that the committee looking at strengthening Parliament wouldn't be allowed to look at the timetabling of government business.
Today the Lib Dems appear to have persuaded Harriet Harman otherwise.
This is significant because most of the Commons business is examining government legislation.
This is what happened according to the Lib Dems......
David Heath put down an amendment to the motion yesterday to allow Governmental business be looked at by the Wright Committee. The motion was due to be debated today but has been moved to future business. Harman called David this morning to tell him that she would re-write the motion to include his amendment and allow the Wright Committee to include govt business. By my count that's three climb downs by the Government since Monday.
According to Labour MP Graham Allen, a temporary select committtee asked by Gordon Brown to look at reform of Parliament has been somewhat hobbled at birth, as predicted in Monday's Times, by preventing them from looking at the issue of whether to give MPs the power to decide when governmnt business should be debated. The Wrght committee deserves close attention, so here's his comments in full: Blacking out all government business from consideration by the Wright Committee on reform of the House of Commons contradicts the Prime Minister’s intention for authentic Parliamentary reform. The creation of a Parliamentary Business committee, interacting with, but independent of, Government is the beating heart of serious sustainable reform. How much time Bills get, ensuring effective debate of Government proposals,pre-legislative and post legislative scrutiny are the guts of real accountability.
Government talking the talk then undermining its credibility by the way it actually does things is unnecessary. In this case highly restricted terms of reference put to Parliament to be slipped through on a “one line whip Thursday” is not the new start many Parliamentarians had hoped for. If the public rhetoric is about change and the strengthening of Parliament , the private agenda cannot be of government control being retained.
The Labour members of the committee elected yesterday are: Tony Wright, Graham Allen, Clive Betts, David Clelland, David Drew, Natascha Engel, Chris Mullin, Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, and Phyllis Starkey
The Conservatives and Liberals ballot today for their members.
More depressing reflections on the caliber of our MPs over on the excellent Crime Central blog who just witnessed the grilling given to Sir Stephen Lander of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. The confused picture of organised crime in Britain emerged even more
confused. SOCA, it seems, is happy with ACPO's assessment of 2,800
criminal gangs active in the UK but it prefers to use its own figure of
4,000 individuals involved in organised crime. Even by our maths that's
fewer than two people in every gang.
Sources I trust suggest that as many as 20 Tories backed Bercow, much more than the two (Julian Lewis and Charles Walker) that his opponents were trying to suggest. Other names backers are said to include Nigel Evans, who had helped Ann Widdecombe (not a Bercow fan) with her campaign. The chances of a challenge to Bercow in the new Parliament by the Tories, who looked rather graceless and bulling yesterday, are slightly receding.
The Times has just taken a phone call from a computer boffin who said MPs' staff members
are already deleting details of MPs' expenses from Wikipedia. He said he tracked IP addresses to HoC.
Mother of parliaments the poor relation - MPs pay.
By Jill Sherman, Political Correspondent.
388 words
16 July 1992
English
Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd, 1992
British MPs' office expenses have lagged behind most of their counterparts in
Europe, America and Australia over the past decade.
In spite of Tuesday's vote which will give them nearly #40,000 in office
allowances, they still fare badly against MEPs who get #74,952 a year. A
comparison of allowances published by the Top Salaries Review Body shows that
British MPs' staff allowances are less than half those in 12 other developed
countries. The MPs are certainly worse off than their colleagues in Canada,
Australia, France and Greece, New Zealand and the Belgian senate.
In the US, Canada, Australia and Germany legislators have suites of offices,
while British MPs are lucky if they get a single room in Westminster. The
American allowances are so great they are dismissed as "deviant".
French MPs get a staff allowance of #29,420 plus #27,998 for research
assistants. A single room is provided for each deputy, but no room for staff.
MPs get free calls to their constituency, free postage and headed
notepaper, a first class rail pass and half-price rail travel for spouses, 60
return flights to constituencies and taxi fares.
In Germany there is a general allowance of #22,368 tax-free, covering
secretarial and research staff, subsistence and constituency expenses.
Secretarial help is met from the general allowance, with shared research
assistants provided free. Basic office equipment is provided and German MPs get
free railway travel, free telephone calls and unlimited stationery.
MEPs are given #1,824 a month for office management costs, telephone and
travel, a secretarial allowance of up to #4,320 a month, and a communications
allowance of #725. They get #126 a day for attending a meeting with the EC,
plus #63 for overnight accommodation, and are entitled to a mileage allowance,
air travel to meetings and #1,813 a year for other travel.
At present British MPs get up to #27,166 office allowances plus #2,717 for
staff pension contributions. They get shared or single office accommodation,
free telephone calls for parliamentary business from Westminster, free
postage, and envelopes and headed paper. They are entitled to first class
travel to their constituencies or home, and mileage ranging from 13.8 to 61.9
pence a mile.
Mike Ellam, the smart, diffident, wry official spokesman for Gordon Brown is returning to the Treasury. He will be a sad loss, having been extremely courteous and helpful through difficut times. Ellam had only meant to be in the job for a year: when Stephen Carter left Downing Street in a mess last year he stayed another. His departure was, apparently, agreed in April with Mr Brown. Inexplicably, Mr Brown has appointed another outside Westminter to replace him. Conducting the twice-daily lobby is one of the most difficult, and high profile, civil servant jobs in government. And it will now be just one of the many pleasures for Simon Lewis, ex Centrica, ex Vodafone and Buckingham Palace PR and brother of Will Lewis, Daily Telegraph editor. He is part of the Roland Rudd - Robert Peston axis. Here is a precis of the cuttings file on Lewis. Lewis, the early years and Natwest
[From the FT] Lewis, an Oxford graduate and Fulbright scholar, is well regarded as a City PR man. However, managing the public relations of a high street bank which has had more than its fair share of bad publicity will be a far greater challenge than handling the image of Britain's most successful merchant bank, whose record speaks for itself. 'All the banks have had a difficult time but the pr challenges now are greater than at any time in the cycle,' Lewis says. 1982: Fulbright scholar
In 1982 when, as a Fulbright Scholar from Oxford, Lewis worked in Washington for Senator Bill Bradley. `I saw lobbying for the first time and got very interested in the connection between business, politics and the media,' he says. `That to me is what PR is all about - the nexus between those three areas.' In 1993: Lewis, Mandelson and a difficult conversation
John Smith, leader of the Labour Party, is pressing the banks that control 54 per cent of Mirror Group Newspapers' shares to sack the group's chief executive, David Montgomery, the former editor of Today and the News of the World. The message from Mr Smith was delivered by Peter Mandelson, MP for Hartlepool and former head of communications for the Labour Party, at a recent meeting with Simon Lewis, the head of external affairs at National Westminster Bank, which has a claim to over a third of MGN's shares. Then in In 1996
Politics, banking and now gas for Simon Lewis, blue-eyed boy of the adoring public relations fraternity. Lewis, 37, has resigned as head of corporate affairs at NatWest Group after nearly five years to take on a similar role at British Gas Energy. He starts in September, leaving time to settle in before a general election Lewis represented the Social Democrat Party in 1988 and his investiture as president of the Institute of Public Relations. Lewis was seconded to the SDP from Shandwick, and later surfaced at the former SG Warburg. NatWest signed him up in March 1992 a week after the group unveiled its worst results since 1975. "I never shirked hard work," says Lewis, who supports Arsenal and says he has given up on politics. Also in 1996, he cites Peter Gummer - Lord Chadlington, who part funded David Cameron's leadership campiagn - as a big influence
From PR Week: Quickly realising that his interest lay in financial PR, he decamped to Shandwick Consultants. As well as meeting his future wife there, Lewis encountered Peter Gummer, whom he still cites as a formative influence. `He's a great motivator of people and was very good at giving young people the opportunity to prove themselves,' he says. `I also think he's one of the few people who has made the successful transition from PR practitioner to businessman.' PR Week puts the boot in 1996
Lewis is less comfortable with the hands-on business of dealing with journalists. `He doesn't like to wing it,' says one observer. `He likes to be very well briefed on an issue and consider every word.' Others describe him as risk averse and claim he is careful not to endanger his professional reputation.... Best known for sorting out the Cedric the pig aftermath... He was director of Communication at Centrica plc (formerly British Gas plc) 1996-98
[From the Evening Standard in 1998] Simon Lewis, head of communications at Centrica, British Gas's
supply arm, is reported to be almost certain to clinch the appointment,
with an announcement expected in the next month. Buckingham Palace regards a head of communications as critical for
"repositioning" the monarchy to make it more sensitive to public
opinion. But Lewis could draw the Queen into controversy. He has a track
record of defending highly-paid executives against charges of being
"fat cats". In 1995, as NatWest Group corporate affairs chief, he
robustly shielded top directors over their pay. On one occasion, he
defended a £914,000 bonus for a bank employee on Pounds 1.5
million, and claimed such pay packets were a reflection of "market
conditions". Simon Lewis IS a member of the Labour Party, according to the Observer - his political links in full
Whitehall insiders say that Centrica will continue to pay Lewis's £150,000 a year salary while he is seconded to the Palace for three years. The Palace will top up his earnings with at least another £70,000 a year, plus a car and driver.Lewis is said to be on good terms with Peter Mandelson, the Minister without Portfolio. His wife, Clare, became a close friend of Cherie Blair through their work for a breast cancer charity. The children of both families attended the same school in north London. Lewis and his wife are a regular fixture on the Islington social circuit and live near the Highbury ground of his favourite football team, Arsenal. Clare is the niece of the Labour MP Tom Pendry. Lewis, a Labour Party member, helped the party raise funds for its election campaign. His dalliance with politics began when he was a founder member of the Social Democratic Party, and he was appointed its director of communications in 1986, aged 27.
Bold plans for the Monarchy - that never happened
[From the Observer] Friends say he is eager to modernise the monarchy's stuffy image. His radical plans include ending the Palace's anonymous briefings to handpicked journalists, and himself giving televised briefings, similar to the method used by the US president.
Sir Alan Haselhurst came suggesting he thought MPs should have a bigger salary. John Bercow championed large staffing budgets. Sir George Young called for a ban on Ann Widdecombe hosting Have I Got News For You if she was elected Speaker. None of them thought, in principle, that 80 days' summer recess was too long. There was something rather depressing about the performance of the ten candidates for House of Commons Speaker, who have just faced the public and their peers for the first time, courtesy of Hansard Society hustings. [Bless Margaret Beckett, by the way, for confusing the Hansard Society (a not for profit charity dedicated to the promotion of democracy) and Hansard (the name of the official transcript of Commons proceedings) at the start. And one of her boasts is experience - she used to be Leader of the Commons.] There was more than a touch of naked self interest about their pitches. Widdecombe promised to be a force against "too much" reform. Patrick Cormack said many MPs had been unfairly attacked over their expenses when "many just obeyed the rules" and that he opposed a quango to oversee MPs' expenses. Sir George Young said the Speaker should be more referee than catalyst. Ann Widdecombe argued strongly that 80 days recess wasn't too long - it just wasn't defended robustly enough. John Bercow called for privy councillors not get get automatic preferment in debates. Douglas Carswell, who ousted Martin and sat in the front row, summed it up best. “I rebelled against Michael Martin but I’m not sure any of them are particularly inspiring. They say ‘we’re all reformist now’ but it’s not clear how. But what was depressing wasn’t so much the candidates, as the questions from the MPs in the audience. Are they choosing a shop steward for MPs or a Speaker for the country’s legislature. All the questions were about recess, length of holiday, sympathy on expenses and the allocation of offices and creches.”
Rumbustious former foreign office minister Kim Howells vents his spleen against, in so many words, David Miliband and James Purnell.
Sir, The remaining recipients of the Assisted Places Scheme for Cabinet
members should consider seriously the advantages of putting a sock in it for
the next eleven months.
I know how difficult it must be for these youngish adults who have done little
in their lives but walk the moderately risky tightrope strung between
university Labour clubs and Cabinet positions. I am vaguely aware of some of
the pressures contemporary life places on them: the sheer toil of blogging,
twittering, trying to balance the competing attractions of exuding gravitas
and fashion chic at the same time as running government departments.
I even have some notion of the nature of their nightmares: that they will wake
up to discover that their obsession with Self has caused them to be cast out
of the Assisted Places paradise. No longer would they be able to count on an
audience, breathless with anticipation, waiting to hear whether or not they
contemplated resigning before or after their former Assisted Places
colleagues.
The past month or so has been as disastrous for Labour as any I can recall.
The next months will be worse if these people, my esteemed colleagues, don’t
begin to understand that feeding their egos is not the same thing as
nourishing the Labour Party. Their apparent inability to resist leaking to
their old university chums in the media their frustrated ambitions may be a
consequence of having experienced only the barest of lives and careers
outside the House of Cards.
Time to stop gazing lovingly into the political mirror and get on with making
the most of the leg-up they’ve received over the past decade. Use it to help
the Prime Minister make the world a better place.
Kim Howells, MP
(Labour, Pontypridd)
House of Commons
Alastair Campbell's riposte
He probably shouldn't have written it, as whilst intended to call for
an end to division, it rather opens a new divide, as he urges the
younger members of the Cabinet ('Assisted Places Scheme') to 'put a
sock in it.' But it is funny, even if he takes a pop at blogging and
tweeting. Off to tweet about the blog now, then call Kim. People say
there are not enough characters in politics. Kim Howells is a character.
David Miliband's bizarre confessional in this morning's Guardian - which I would summarise as "yes, I too thought Brown was rubbish enough to nearly resign" - contains half a good idea, right at the end.
In an oblique reference to the Damian McBride briefings, he also calls
on the media to abandon unattributable briefings, saying all
politicians' spokesmen should be named, or not quoted by media outlets.
"The gotcha culture of politics is not in anyone's interests," he said.
To suggest a ban on unattributable briefings is plainly unworkable. But his idea of naming senior spokesman who brief the press - both civil servants and special advisers - in official quotes would be a positive and significant step towards greater transparency, and make those individuals think more carefully about their response to stories. If they want to brief anonymously, that's fine but their quote will carry less significance. Names quoted always carry more weight than unnamed ones - but at the moment heads of press and special advisers request permanent anonymity in the media, shielded by the catchall, blame-all "spokesman" tag. Naming happens in America. Why can't it happen here.
A fantastic piece of journalism by Allegra Stratton in this morning's Guardian, about how the plot to overthrow Gordon Brown failed. One rebel said: "We got one email from brownn@parliament.uk [the
email address of the chief whip]. It might be that they were hoping
we'd publish a list and not notice his name was in it and then he could
show all the names were ridiculous." Instead, the rebels adopted
a tactic favoured by organised criminals and bought an untraceable pay
as you go mobile, encouraging sympathetic colleagues to get in touch
that way. It became a text message plot. and On Monday at 3pm the rebels met. All their info was collated on a
five-page spreadsheet across which names, mobile phone numbers, "other
telephone numbers" and personal non-parliamentary email addresses were
set out horizontally along with the initials of the rebel MP who had
brought them on board and vouched for them. Zealots who wanted
Brown out were given the number zero and those newly persuaded the
number one. Zero zealots made up most of the first page; ones extended
onto the second and together they came to 54. Short of the 71 crucial
figure but over the 50 they had briefed journalists would trigger
publication. But they decided that evening to perform a u-turn and announced they would not go public. All
that was left to do was go to the parliamentary Labour party meeting.
The rebels say the PLP assumed import mostly because of serendipity
rather than the suitability of occasion, since it came at the end of
the first Monday back after the European elections. PLPs are always
intimidating affairs and though seven rebels spoke, including Charles
Clarke and Fiona MacTaggart, the plot flopped. But there were
other categories on that spreadsheet. Number four indicated friends of
Brown and category three were people whose opinions were not known. The
category that was by far the longest, stretching to about 120 was
number two (yesterday one rebel rang to say: "I've just seen that two
of our number twos have got jobs with the government. Patronage is a
big problem for plots".) The number two denoted: "Possibles, if..." The
"If" being David Miliband, the foreign secretary. Something that many
got wrong this week, including media commentators, is that the majority
of Labour MPs on the list wanted Alan Johnson to take over. David
Miliband would have been closer to the truth. But the inescapable conclusion of the piece is that the Guardian's decision to publish details of the plot when it did - at Noon on Tuesday - was one of the defining moments that undermined the rebellion...
From Mark Henderson, Times Science Editor, on our excellent new Science blog, Science Central:
Yesterday, it emerged that Lord Drayson has been given new ministerial responsibilities in the Ministry of Defence,
in addition to his science brief, to the consternation of many
researchers who worry both about the effect on his time, and about the
prospect of military demands calling the tune for science. Some, such
as the astronomy writer Colin Stuart (@skyponderer) and the critic
Peter D Smith (@pdsmith), aired their concerns on Twitter -- and
@lorddrayson decided to respond...
Smith's blog, the 2020 Science blog, and the Scientific Activist have good accounts today of the exchanges that followed. Here are a few of Drayson's tweets:
"Science deserves a minister at the cabinet table. Thats key. Tick. Sci desrves a cabinet committee. Thats key too. Tick."
"But, many ministers have dual roles.. it really helps departments work together better. Silos in whitehall are not helpful."
"Many science issues are cross-departmental. Take GMES as an
example. MOD / DECC / BERR / DIUS all had a view on earth observation"
"Re ethical issues. You have a point. I have to be absolutely clear on the separation between the 2 roles. Civil service r key."
It's refreshing to see a minister using social networking
to engage with people like this. But his press handlers must hate it.
Twitter's 140-character format is by definition stripped of context,
and tailor-made for imputing meanings that were not intended. How long
before we are reporting the first ministerial tweet-gaffe...?
On the radio this morning, Andrew Lansley suggested this morning that the Conservatives planned real terms growth in
the NHS after 2011, and added that in that period there would have to
be a three year 10% cut in "departmental expenditure limits" for
departments other than health, education and international development.
BBC: So where's the money going to come from? Lansley: We've
made very clear: unfortunately what this means is there's going to have
to be very powerful spending constraint elsewhere across government. BBC: I'm sorry but you haven't actually made it very clear ... Tell me where all those billions and billions are going to come from. Lansley: We
have not done a spending review for 2011 and beyond. Neither have the
Labour party. But we have made it clear where our priorities are. We
are going to increase the resources for the NHS. We are going to
increase resources for international development aid. We are going to
increase resources for schools. But that does mean over three years,
after 2011, a 10% reduction in the departmental expenditure limits for
other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed. Two hours later: A spokesman for Andrew Lansley said, "I think what Andrew was saying
is that if you look at spending past 2011, according to the Labour
government's spending proposals, there will be a seven per cent cut in
total spending.
"If you ringfence Health and DfID, as we are proposing, that would mean a ten per cent cut. It's common arithmetic.
"These are Labour's spending cuts - that's what they're not being honest about."
"These are the facts, which Gordon Brown won't admit to, and they
show that the Prime Minister's claim last Thursday that spending would
rise year on year is simply untrue."
They're awful. But they are a big sign of confidence that he's through the worst. He looks much better than he did on Friday.
According to this morning's Observer... It also emerged last night that Margaret Beckett, the veteran
housing minister, was summarily sacked by Gordon Brown after also
making clear that she wanted to become a full cabinet member. One former colleague said there
was shock at the way Beckett, one of Labour’s most senior and
well-respected women, was treated: “After Gordon begged her to come
back last year, it is astonishing. It just seems so unnecessary.”
Dear Gordon
I believe the
achievements of the Labour Government to date have been monumental and you have
played an immense part in the creation of those achievements.
However, I am extremely
disappointed at your failure to have an inclusive Government.
You have a two tier
Government. Your inner circle and then
the remainder of Cabinet.
I have the greatest
respect for the women who have served as full members of Cabinet and for those
who attend as and when required.
However, few are allowed into your inner circle. Several of the women attending Cabinet –
myself included – have been treated by you as little more than female window
dressing. I am not willing to attend
Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.
In my current role,
you advised that I would attend Cabinet when Europe
was on the agenda. I have only been
invited once since October and not to a single political Cabinet - not even the
one held a few weeks before the European elections.
Having worked hard
during this campaign, I would not have been party to any plan to undermine you
or the Labour Party in the run up to 4 June. So I was extremely angry and disappointed to
see newspapers briefed with invented stories of my involvement in a “Pugin Room
plot.”
Time and time again
I have stepped before the cameras to sincerely defend your reputation in the
interests of the Labour Party and the Government as a whole. I am a natural party loyalist. Yet you have strained every sinew of that
loyalty.
It has been
apparent for some time that you do not see me playing a more influential role
in the Government. Therefore, I have
respectfully declined your offer to continue in the Government as Minister for attending Cabinet.
I served six years
as a backbencher and, therefore, I am not unhappy to be able to devote myself
to promoting my constituency’s interests and to support the Labour Government from
the backbenches.
This is a personal
decision, which I have not discussed with colleagues.
Yours
Rt
Hon Caroline Flint MP
There is anger among disillusioned Blairites over the behaviour of David Miliband and much praise for James Purnell. According to one well-connected MP: David Miliband has never shown any political risk. He's never attempted to take any risk.... [However] If James leads the attack then Gordon will follow. James is the best option for the future Prime Minister.
Gordon Brown is limping on. But five huge signs of his weakness this morning, which put a real question mark under the Prime Minister's ability to continue in office. 1. It looked clear earlier this week Brown wanted to install Ed Balls as Chancellor. Now, following Darling's determination to stay on, Brown's weak position and a revolt by MPs including Stephen Ladyman, this appears to have been scrapped. Alistair will stay in place. 2. He loses another Cabinet minister. John Hutton, once the most prominent Blairite, is standing down. On the surface it's for family reasons. But everyone knows his views on Brown. And it's not a vote of confidence in Brown in his hour of need. 3. Brown conceded a massive costly cock-up over the way he was running government. When he came in, he created a new department, DIUS combining universities, science and skills. Now it looks likely to be killed off and the components going back to their original departments. "Reverse Ferrett!" Universities and further education will go to children's department and science and skills will go back to the business. It was just a massive pointless waste of money. There are rumours that the department was only created in the first place to provide an easy Cabinet berth for Ed Balls when he wasn't considered experienced enough to become Schools' secretary. Then Jacqui Smith, (who had been penciled in for Schools but then given Home Secretary when Brown arrived in Number 10 in 2007) and he was promoted and Denham got the Dius role. 4. Following up his public expressions of concern for Susan Boyle and his intervention in the Jade Goody tragedy, Gordon "I don't do celebrity" Brown has given bossy TV celebrity Sir Alan Sugar - whose chequered business past has largely been forgotten in his new-found fame - a peerage and a new "enterprise role" in government. 5. The decision to keep Lord Mandelson in place means Gordon Brown will have to try and push through the part privatisation of the post office. This will cause a hugely damaging row with his own party and undermine him yet further. And all this before the European elections...
Dear Gordon
We both love the Labour Party. I have worked for it for twenty years and you for far longer. We know we owe it everything and it owes us nothing.
I owe it to our Party to say what I believe no matter how hard that may be. I now believe your continued leadership makes a Conservative victory more not less likely.
That would be disastrous for our country. This moment calls for stronger regulation, an active state, better public services, an open democracy. It calls for a government that measures itself by how it treats the poorest in society. Those are our values, not Davide Cameron's.
We therefore owe it to our country to give it a real choice. We need to show that we are prepared to fight to be a credible government and have the courage to offer an alternative future.
I am therefore calling on you to stand aside to give our party a fighting chance of winning.
The party was here long before us, and we want it to be here long after we have gone. We must do the right thing by it.
I am not seeking the leadership, nor acting with anyone else. My actions are my own considered view, nothing more. If the consensus is that you should continue, then I will support the government loyally from the backbenches. But I do believe that this question now needs to be put.
Thank you for giving me the privilege of serving,
Yours
James Purnell
Actually, one reality could be far worse. This is a picture of Sir Alan Sugar taken in Downing Street this morning. Could Gordon Brown be looking to employ his own Apprenctice in the government? Brown has form. When he first came into Downing Street he approached Fiona Phillips, the GMTV presenter, to ask whether she would accept a peerage and become his public health minister. Could he be about to do the same with Sugar? The two are well known to one another, and Sugar serves on Brown's business council. However there are downsides for Brown. It smacks of desperation: reaching out to a celebrity (whose business track record isn't exactly unblemished - unreliable Amstrad hard discs? the Emailer?). There will be lots of 'you're fired' mockery. And there is a chance that Sir Alan may not want to take the job because it would (presumbaly) mean parking all his business interests while he is a minister, meaning bad headlines.
Prime Minister nowhere to be seen (voted by posted, apparently). What time will the plotters' ' Gordon must go' e-mail is sent? Rumours of 10.01pm resignations. Meanwhile the chamber of the House of Commons is carrying on business in its customary parallel universe. Business questions: Will the minister make a statement? Only if they still have a job. Back on planet earth the Economist has tentatively endorsed Alan Johnson...
In a face-off with the "pukka" David Cameroon, his "penurious and
industrious back story" and non-fiddling of his expenses would serve him well.
And his reputation for "low key charm and reputation" and, assuming Brown is
knifed, his being untainted by the coup may, Bagehot suggests "pull back some
disillusioned English voters, maybe avoiding the utter, fissiparous general
election rout that now seems likely (it would help if he were to set a date for
the election straight away)."
According to the ever-intriguing blog by Rene Lavanchy, the second reading of the Royal Mail selloff bill isn't due to be debated in the Commons next week, despite being widely anticipated. Critically it does not appear on the future business paper. Labour opponents of the part privatisation say that they don't think it is dead yet. The key will be if Lord Mandleson remains as Business Secretary. If he is reshuffled, they think, the sell-off is dropped.
Labour MPs were discussing the option of a round robin letter calling for Gordon Brown to go this lunchtime.
Opponents of Brown believe they could secure the support of 70 or 80 MPs for the move. Crucially, however, the letter does not exist in hard copy and the levels of support remains an aspiration. It is not true to say that 70 or 80 Labour MPs have agreed to sign such a letter. Under Labour Party rules, it takes 70 MPs to trigger a leadership contest. Mainstream Labour MPs think it is unlikely such a formal move would ever be used, because they party does not want to "humiliate" Gordon Brown. If Mr Brown hangs on, it is more likely that "men in grey suits" from the Cabinet ask him to step down, Labour MPs believe. Alternatively, a "stalking horse" could stand for the leadership to force the issue. Speaking on Sky News, Lord Mandelson called the letter a "rumour" and said that Labour MPs are "nervous" but "the last thing any MP wants to face is a general election."
I mean - really - pull the other one. Just been collared by one Cabinet Minister who warned of dark forces at work undermining Gordon Brown. He said that an anonymous individual had phoned his local newspaper this morning claiming to be an official from his department and saying they were about to be moved. The Secretary of State insisted this must have been the work of "opposition forces" trying to undermine the government. Although they didn't mention Lord Ashcroft and his merry band of wealthy friends, this was clearly the implication. So hands up who thinks Gordon Brown's woes are the fault of Lord Ashcroft.
As it begins, so it will end. What appears to have tipped Hazel Blears over the edge this morning was a suggestion - on the front page of this morning's Telegraph - of Downing Street sources blaming the Communities Secretary for briefing that Jacqui Smith was resigning. She vehemently and furiously rejected the charge last night when it surfaced. "All we can do is tell the truth that it didn't come from us," said a friend last night. And then she quit. Today leading Blairites are saying that this is part of an attempt by Downing Street to discredit them and their ilk, and create the impression of a plot which does not exist - in order to protect the PM from any more Cabinet implosions. Indeed, several people, including the post-Draper Labour List website, have suggested this morning that the person responsible for leaking Smith's resignation came from Downing Street itself. For their part,allies of Mr Brown are today furious rubbishing Ms Blears, alleging she had sought to co-ordinate her resignation with Jacqui Smith for maximum impact. One Labour MP claimed that Number 10 had had to intervene to prevent Ms Blears to be called before the NEC 'star chamber' to explain her expenses. "The way that Hazel has behaved over the past couple of weeks has been disgraceful."
From his local paper: Black Country MP Tom Watson (Lab West Bromwich East), a Cabinet Office
Minister, is set to leave the Government, but will continue to advise
the Prime Minister and help organise campaigns.
Friends are suggesting this is correct.
Labour MPs gave Harriet Harman the full big whinge at last night's Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. Barry Sheerman, normally a Brown loyalist was the most surprising MP to let rip, along with Jim Dowd, Blairite troublemaker and Shona McIsaac, who was involved in last year's anti Brown coup. Dowd was colourfully robust, beginning his contribution with the word f***. Sheerman's crie de coeur was more significant, saying that MPs weren't getting support from the party, and suggesting that there wasn't sufficient policy direction in the party.
Harman, doing an unenviable task, replied handily that: "This was never not not going to be difficult." (sic) MPs came away saying it was one of the worst PLPs in a while...
It's not looking good for Julie Kirkbride, the MP wife of Andrew MacKay who fell on his sword on Saturday over his "missing main home". Cameron's office insist they still support her - "she's an effective MP but she's got questions to answer" says DC - but it's not looking good. Why? Because Conservative Home have put the black spot on her. They are reporting their monthly members survey, which shows 81 per cent think she should go and only 6 per cent say should remain an MP. The site's editors haven't explicitly called for her to go, but they say this morning her "refusal to engage with voters and
the media will not make the questions go away." Jonathan Isaby, co-editor, has just gone on the World at One to report local donors are unhappy with Kirkbride. ConHome's judgment is becoming increasingly important. MacKay was unable to withstand Conservative Home's black spot last week. Tim Montgomerie, the founder who along with Isaby co-edits the site, made a prominent demand for his scalp. This - as much as the angry public meeting on Friday night - was responsible for his eventual decision to quit. Apparently David Cameron told MacKay that the Conservative Home's views were a decisive factor in a phone call on Saturday morning. So another head of the block for the self-styled "grassroots" site funded by Stephan Shakespeare, the man behind PoliticsHome and YouGov. The events underline ConHome's growing influence on Tory decisions and policy. I believe they have had a role nudging the party in many policy decision - the decision to reform the A-List, the decision to ring fence defence spending (since dropped), and keeping up the pressure against profligate public spending. ConservativeHome, with its comprehensive converage of the party and high quality postings, has made itself indispensable to party figures and activists alike. But it also has a political perspective, meaning that it - quite rightly - uses its influence to push viewpoints usually to the right of the leadership. Tim, Jonathan, and prior to Jonathan my namesake Samuel Coates have clearly done a great job building up the site and forcing CCHQ to take note of their views. But some senior Tories feel the party must not bend to the will of the website quite so easily. So one straw in the wind to watch: Montgomerie's decision to sign up to Better Off Out,
the pressure group dedicated to getting Britain to leave the European
Union, will I imagine have unnerved those in the party who see few
electoral gains from another messy public debate on the issue. How the Tory leadership handle this - and what action, if any, they take against candidates who also sign up, will be fascinating.
|  |
|
