The Would Be Comeback Kids: ex-MPs hoping to return in 2010

Bill Clinton was the original comeback kid.

The former president was first elected as Governor of Arkansas in 1978 but after a series of slip ups he lost the 1980 gubernatorial contest only to come back and win again two years later.

During the Democrat primaries in 1992 when it looked like the Clinton campaign was down and out, a memorable interview with Hillary on 60 Minutes earned him a second place victory in the New Hampshire primary. The “Comeback Kid” was back - and the rest, as they say, is history.

On this side of the Atlantic our most celebrated leader, Winston Churchill, lost two elections, was deselected once and represented five constituencies before he became Prime Minister.

And this year’s General Election in the UK looks like it could have a fair few retreads too (ex-MPs returning to the Commons). With the help of the Mandate Twitter (and thanks to everyone who responded) here is a list of the most eye-catching candidates from the ranks of ex-MPs who might just yet make a return to the green benches:

1) Stephen Twigg

Perhaps the most famous of the 1997 Labour intake, Stephen Twigg sensationally beat Michael Portillo in his Enfield Southgate seat and earned a place in political history. But after 8 years in Parliament and a brief spell as a Minister, Twigg lost the marginal seat in 2005 in a swing to the Tories of over 8%.

He is now standing in Liverpool West Derby after the incumbent Labour MP Bob Wareing was deselected. Politics in Liverpool dictates that nothing ever comes easy but a strong local campaign and Twigg's star quality mean he is likely to return to the Commons.

2) Jonathan Evans

Former Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnor until 1997, Minister in the Major Government and MEP for Wales for ten years, Jonathan Evans is standing in Cardiff North which is 20th on the Tory list of target seats.

The constituency is suburban, affluent and middle class and recently went Conservative at the Assembly level in 2007. The current MP is Julie Morgan (wife of First Minister Rhodri Morgan) but she is highly vulnerable to a challenge. ConservativeHome was cock-a-hoop when Mr Evans was selected claiming his brand of compassionate conservatism meant a win in Cardiff North could be a bridgehead back into Wales for the party.

3) Parmjit Singh Gill

An MP for only one year from 2004-5, Parmjit Singh Gill was the first ethnic minority MP for the Liberal Democrats and was elected to the House of Commons at the Leicester South by-election. However, he lost the General Election a year later and returned to Leicester where he is now a councillor. He will stand again this year.

Despite a Labour majority of only 3,717 Mr Singh Gill may struggle to get re-elected. The Labour victor in 2005 was Peter Soulsby, former leader of Leicester City Council, whose rebellious streak in Parliament and careful wooing of the Asian vote mean he is well liked by his constituents. The Lib Dems may decide to concentrate their resources elsewhere.

4) Sue Doughty

One seat the Liberal Democrats may focus on is Guildford where former Liberal Democrat MP Sue Doughty is standing against Anne Milton (Shadow Health Minister) who defeated her in 2005. Guildford is third on the list of Liberal Democrat target seats and it would take only a swing of 0.1% to overturn Anne Milton's 347 vote majority. Could Sue Doughty follow in her colleague Mike Hancock's footsteps? He lost his Portsmouth South seat in 1987 but regained it in 1997. Only time - and a good campaign - will tell.

5) Peter Duncan

The former MP for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency between 2001 and 2005, Mr Duncan unsuccessfully contested the new seat of Dumfries and Galloway in 2005 when boundary changes altered his constituency. He had been Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland between 2003 and 2005 but this wasn't enough to stop him losing to Labour's Russell Brown in a closely fought campaign.

This is likely to be a tough race but Mr Duncan's work as a local councillor and his grassroots support mean he might just overturn Russell Brown's majority. However, it is not certain and a lot will depend on how the Tories perform in Scotland overall.

6) Phil Sawford

Former Leader of Kettering Borough Council, Phil Sawford was MP for Kettering between 1997 and 2005. He won in 1997 after three recounts and managed to double his majority to 665 in 2001 but this wasn't enough to keep him in power. Four years later he lost to Philip Hollobone, who defeated him with a swing of 3.6 per cent. Hardly the most memorable of the 1997 intake, Phil Sawford nevertheless gained a reputation as a 'champion' of local issues and an inveterate 'left winger'. He is still a member of the 'Campaign Group'.

Kettering is a semi rural seat which is due to undergo significant expansion over the next decade, with new homes and major regeneration planned. It is unclear what affect this will eventually have on the constituency but recent boundary changes favour Labour. If the polls remain tight Phil Sawford might win but it is too soon to tell.

7) Ivan Henderson

"Still here, still working". Ivan Henderson's slogan for the forthcoming campaign in Clacton sums up this popular former MP. He was elected for Harwich in 1997 but lost to Tory right winger Douglas Carswell in the 2005 General Election. Since then, Ivan Henderson has remained involved in local politics but it will be a hard slog to win this seat back. Douglas Carswell's radical views go down well in the constituency - it was his motion of no confidence which removed Speaker Michael Martin.

However, the Tories won't simply be able to assume victory here. And if Labour forces the Conservatives to spread their resources thinly by concentrating on places like Clacton, it might enable Labour to hold onto other seats elsewhere.

The Pope is wrong about the Equality Bill

The Pope's intervention over the Government's equality agenda and legislation is unwelcome and unhelpful.

The pontiff said that "the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal [of equality] has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs". He said that Catholic Bishops must invoke "missionary zeal" to resist it.

Everyone is entitled to express their view and in a secular society the Catholic Church should be treated as one voice amongst many but there is no excuse for the pope to be so badly misinformed.

The new Equality Bill tidies up a whole host of equalities legislation and extends anti-discrimination laws in some areas. But it does not affect Catholic schools which are covered by separate legislation and it certainly does not affect churches' hiring for religious posts. The Church should have nothing to fear from the new Bill.

Therefore, I can't understand his intervention. When church attendances are in decline, I don't think this will win him or the Catholic Church in the UK many new friends. There's also something troubling about a foreign leader telling us to change the laws currently being voted on by our elected representatives. Better for him to stay out of it altogether.

The West Wing Does Obama

For West Wing and Obama fans everywhere...

Tony Blair at the Chilcott Inquiry

After his appearance at today’s Chilcott inquiry I think Tony Blair should be able to hold his head high, even though his appearance took place under very difficult circumstances.

Some of the stuff that has been written about him over the last few days has been despicable. The media has twisted and distorted everything about Iraq to such an extent that he is now treated like a criminal.

You can imagine the likes of George Monbiot frothing at the mouth as they bash out their polemics on the keyboard.

And I find it galling that some mandarins, particularly Sir Christopher Meyer (the British Ambassador to the United States at the time) have suddenly found their principled opposition to the war. I didn’t see any of them – with their houses, cars, pensions, knighthoods and everything else that the British Establishment hands them on a plate – resign at the time of the war. Meyer wasn’t even at the Crawford summit which he claims to have such a detailed knowledge of.

Once again, I thought Blair made the case for invading Iraq in a convincing and compelling way. He laid out the facts clearly and reasonably, not indulging in the hysteria of his opponents. For those of us who supported Blair’s actions at the time, there remains nothing wrong with the grounds for invasion or the legality of it.

Finally, I thought he was particularly strong when pressing his critics on what they would have done if no action had been taken in 2003 and Saddam was left in place. He was also right to publicly warn of the dangers of Iran. It would be interesting to know what he would do about this if he was still in power.

Barack Obama's State of the Union

Tomorrow night Barack Obama will address both Houses of Congress in his first State of the Union Address.

It is not an auspicious moment. After one year in office, Obama’s poll numbers are the lowest of any President since Gerald Ford and he suffered a serious setback last week when the Democrats lost the Senatorial election in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown.

As David Plouffe told supporters yesterday, the President has hit some “serious bumps in the road…in the march toward change”.

That’s why Obama’s speech tomorrow has to be good enough to allow him to seize the agenda. Great speeches can do this. Think of all the times Tony Blair was counted out before he delivered a barnstorming speech to Labour conference and seized the initiative again. Even on a bad day, Obama is better than Blair.

So tomorrow night will be about vision and delivery.

He can point to some successes. His fiscal stimulus stabilised the economy. He has ended the era of torture. He has built a new relationship with the rest of the world. He put Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court and although Copenhagen failed, he has changed the way the US Government thinks about climate change. He has also rightly decided that Afghanistan is a fight worth having.

But there are items he cannot ignore. He was elected on the promise of health care reform and this he must do. After twelve months of negotiations, he cannot back down now. He must reach out to Republicans when it comes to health care costs and look for a compromise with them on the issue. Any Bill that insures more people is better than no Bill at all.

He must talk about reducing the Budget deficit but send the bankers a clear warning at the same time. If they stand in the way of his banking reforms, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Defeating Wall Street for the sake of Main Street it is a battle worth having.

Finally, he should use the bully-pulpit the occasion affords him to reach out to Americans about the importance of climate change. It is a great chance to lead and to educate. He needs to display the same courage and bipartisanship on this issue that he showed in the campaign.

All of these issues are potentially fatal for him. The United States is more conservative than we often imagine. But he is absolutely right to press ahead. What he says tomorrow will tell us whether he is the transformational president we expect him to be.

Lessons from the Obama campaign

I have just finished reading David Plouffe’s fantastic account of his time as Barack Obama’s campaign manager and after reading his book ‘The Audacity to Win’ I think there are some important lessons which Labour could follow at the next election:

1) Have a clear message and a single strategy. The Obama campaign was good at not getting buffeted by events or setbacks whether that ranged from Jeremiah Wright’s crazy rantings to Joe the Plumber’s sudden appearance in the campaign. It had a message - "Change We Can Believe In" - and a strategy which were inviolable and they stuck to that regardless of what people were saying. Sometimes this placed them under intense pressure but they never changed course. Labour can learn from this. Now that Brown seems to have settled for a strategy based on middle class aspiration we should make sure we stick to that, even when engaging in a bit of class warfare with the Tories might look like an easy option.

2) Be Bold. The Obama campaign was great at taking action which people thought was ‘outside the box’. For example, he made a foreign trip (and speech in Berlin) right in the middle of the campaign which looked and sounded great to American voters at home. He addressed the race issue head on with a fantastic, memorable speech and he performed brilliantly in the debates. The Labour campaign has nothing to lose by following the same principle. It would be great if the Party high command could save up a few surprises for the campaign (and not just new policy announcements) which could set the cat amongst the pigeons. It should also remember to take the bold option when it has to respond to the Conservatives in the midst of the campaign.

3) Build a healthy organisation. Plouffe makes the point that healthy organisations do not thrive under leaders who yell and scream and fly off the handle. Brown who is infamous for the ‘hairdryer treatments’ he dishes out could do well to remember this. Better to run a campaign when there is “clarity, calmness and collegiality” throughout the ranks. Labour has to get over its in-fighting. Brown has to widen his circle of advisers and control his temper. And Party leaders have got to feel confident that they can get on with the job in hand without being undermined by their colleagues. If we can’t trust each other, how will the electorate trust us?

4) Expand the electorate. The Obama campaign always knew that the Clintons would have the Democratic establishment locked up. They also knew that if they relied on swing voters they would end up with a dead heat like in the General Election campaigns of 2004 and 2000. So they decided that they would focus on getting young voters, African Americans and independents who had never previously participated to the polls. By expanding the electorate, they increased the percentage of people who would support their campaign. Labour could do the same. We worry about the middle class vote in the 30 or so swing seats in the south east where elections are supposedly won and lost, but we never think about ways we can get young people or non voters to the polls. If we could do more to win their support, we might find that we have a new group of voters ready to support us.

Seven Seats to watch at the General Election

Forced resignations, retirement and defeat mean that at the next General Election we could see the biggest churn of MPs in Parliament since 1945. As many as half of all current MPs may not return and there are likely to be some interesting results on the night, so I've compiled what I think (and my colleagues at Mandate have helped) will be the 'Top 7' seats to watch at the next General Election:

1) Brentford and Isleworth

A genuine bellweather seat and the type of Tory/Labour straight fight that will decide the election, Brentford and Isleworth is a key target for the Tories. The current MP and Health Minister, Ann Keen - otherwise known as 'Mrs Expenses' by her less charitable friends - is in the fight of her life to defend her seat.

As things stand, it doesn't look good. Voter anger over plans to expand Heathrow, fallout from her and her husband's expenses claims and a strong local Tory campaign mean the Conservatives might win it back. She is one of four Health ministers who could lose their seats.

However, nothing is conclusive. There are still pockets of strong Labour support and demographic and boundary changes slightly favour Labour. One to watch.

2) Brighton Pavilion

A once solid Conservative seat which the Party lost in 1997, the Tories will need a 7% swing if they are to reclaim this seat at the next election. But it looks more likely to fall to the Green Party - giving them their first ever MP. The Greens have been winning council seat after council seat over the last couple of years (and are now equal with Labour) and an ICM poll in January showed the Green Party candidate and Leader Caroline Lucas on 35 per cent, with an 8 per cent lead over the Conservatives. A win for the Green Party would be a breakthrough.

It would also show just how far the demographics and voting habits of some of the 'Deep South, True Blue' seats that the Conservatives lost to Labour in 1997 have changed in the intervening years.

3) Bethnal Green and Bow

Labour lost this rock solid East End seat in 2005 when George Galloway capitalised on anti-war sentiment and sensationally beat the incumbent Labour MP, Oona King. However, fulfilling a campaign promise he made at the last election, Galloway announced that he will not contest the seat this time around. This leaves the Leader of the Respect Group on Tower Hamlets council, Abjol Miah, and Labour candidate Rushanara Ali to battle it out. Ali would be the first Muslim woman to be elected to Parliament if she wins. It promises to be a tough fight but Labour might just have the edge.

4) Burnley

With former Government Minister Kitty Usher standing down because of her expenses' claims, Burnley is the sort of seat the Liberal Democrats need to gain from Labour in order to do well. The Lib Dem candidate, Gordon Birtwistle, is the current leader of Burnley Council and has strong local roots and the Liberal Democrats have performed well in recent local elections. The BNP is also a factor. It could steal some of Labour's traditional voters away, allowing the Liberal Democrats to sneak in. A defeat for Labour in its heartland would send shockwaves around the Party.

5) South Basildon and East Thurrock

One of the best known bellweather seats, Basildon has voted for the winning Party in each election since its creation. It was the first marginal seat to declare in 1992 and the failure of Labour to win the seat that year foreshadowed the night's crushing defeat for the Party. Held by Cabinet Office Minister, Angela E Smith, it will only take a 1.7 per cent swing to the Conservatives for her to lose it. Tory and Labour Party strategists will be watching this one closely.

6) Buckingham

UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage announced in September that he would stand against House of Commons Speaker John Bercow. By convention the main parties do not normally put up candidates against the Speaker but Farage said Bercow represented "all that was wrong with British politics" and has thrown himself into the campaign. There is nothing the Tory high command would like to see more than Bercow defeated but the odds are unlikely - he is defending a majority of over 18, 000. Still, with Nigel Farage involved the contest promises to be dramatic and the campaign could throw up one or two surprises.

7) Morley and Outwood

The Conservative Party is hoping to deliver its very own Portillo moment of the night as it aggressively targets the constituency where current Schools Secretary Ed Balls is standing.

The new seat which is formed out of boundary changes has a notional majority of 9,000but the Tories hope their decapitation strategy will force Labour to spread its resources thinly and remove Ed Balls and one or two of the Cabinet's other big beasts in the process. Alistair Darling, Jim Murphy and John Denham are also being targeted but if Balls loses this it will be a sensational result for the Tories and plunge the Labour Party into post-election chaos.

Spot the difference...

Great Posters from Go Fourth

In response to the Conservative Party's recent poster campaign, Go Fourth (the Labour campaign group) has come up with some pretty good posters of its own. The one below is excellent and sends out a stong, clear message - while taking the mick out of the Tory leader. Just goes to show what a bit of creativity and humour can do. Good job from Go Fourth on this.

By The People: The election of Barack Obama

I've just finished watching the fantastic documentary "By The People: The election of Barack Obama" which was shown on BBC Two over the weekend. It goes behind the scenes of the campaign and provides an insider's account of how the election was won. It is absolutely brilliant and had me laughing and crying in equal measure.

What the documentary really shows is the dedication and commitment of Obama's team of young supporters. It captures how hard they work, how much they admire Obama (even if they never actually get to meet him) and their belief that politics can change things. I came away reminded that it really is the candidate that shapes the tone and direction of a campaign - only a great candidate can inspire an army of volunteers like Obama did. It makes me sad that we really have no equivalent in the UK who can do the same.

You can still catch the film on iplayer.

Hewitt and Hoon are Wrong

Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have made a bad mistake and have misjudged the mood of the Party.

In calling for a secret ballot on Gordon Brown's leadership, they have not acted in the interests of Labour and their actions are a betrayal which serve no purpose.

By calling for a secret ballot, they don't even have the guts to say what they think - proving their duplicity. It shows unbelievably bad judgement and is another self inflicted wound which will cost us more votes in key constituencies.

But bad judgement is hardly surprising. If ever someone epitomised the faceless managerialism of politics its Geoff Hoon. I wouldn't follow his lead anywhere.

I make no secret of the fact that I have always had strong reservations about Gordon Brown's leadership. I have never been entirely comfortable with his politics or ideology. But there have been many opportunities over the last two years when he could have been removed or he could have resigned gracefully. When James Purnell resigned last June and none of his Cabinet colleagues had the guts to follow, I decided that the issue had been settled and Brown would lead us into the next election. This remains my view.

It does the Party irrevocable damage to raise the issue again now. It gives the Tories more ammunition to attack us with and will demoralise Labour activists around the country. No one ever votes for a divided Party and with only 120 days to go before an election has to be called, it is hard to feel any sympathy with either Hoon or Hewitt.

We must apologise to the British public for letting them down. When we should be concentrating on getting the economy going again, we are instead concentrating on ourselves. We lose our credibility.

That's why Mandelson's decision to issue a clear but muted reaction to the rebel plot was spot on. He said "The prime minister continues to have the support of his colleagues and we should carry on government business as usual."

It was a perfectly judged response - neither a hysterical over-reaction nor a source of further division. Treating it like a 'damp squib' will take some of the sting out of it and close it down quickly so that we can get back to concentrating on the issues and the forthcoming General Election.

Some long term rebels like Charles Clarke and James Purnell, whose judgement I think is right on this issue, have been very clear about where they stand and have always had my respect for that. And history probably will be sympathetic to the rebels' arguments but to do this now on this day - when things were looking up for us - is very bad form and I cannot support it.

Top 7 Political Moments in 2009

Another Top 7 - this time 'Top 7 Political Moments from 2009'. I did this for work but thought I would bung it up here as well. If we think last year has been a tumultous one in politics, 2010 will be even more exciting!

1. Barack Obama's inauguration as 44th President of the United States. After a gruelling election campaign, America's first black President finally reached the White House. The Supreme Court Chief Justice may have fluffed his lines but this didn't stop thousands of Obama's supporters celebrating on the streets of Washington DC or billions worldwide tuning in to watch. The new President promised a new era of American leadership and responsibility and temporarily, at least, restored our faith in politics.

2. The 2009 Budget. Alistair Darling revealed that Britain would have to borrow £175 billion as he admitted that the UK faced the worst economic conditions since the Second World War. Labour also scrapped its manifesto pledge not to raise income tax before the next General Election, effectively killing off one of New Labour's central tenets. The Chancellor said it was about Building Britain's Future; the Tories called it an 'utter mess'.

3. The Expenses scandal. Westminster was rocked by allegations of sleaze and impropriety as information on MPs' expenses was leaked to the Daily Telegraph in the biggest scoop of the year. The most ridiculous claim went to Sir Peter Viggers for his floating duck house but some MPs may still yet face criminal charges. Reputations were ruined, careers ended. The fallout continues.

4. Exodus of New Labour. Only hours after polls closed in the June local and European elections, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, sensationally quit the Cabinet. In a rare act of political courage, the arch moderniser put his reputation on the line and asked Brown to stand aside to give Labour a fighting chance of winning the next election. With Hazel Blears and John Hutton announcing their resignations too, the exodus of New Labour heavyweights from the Government continued. Brown was irrevocably damaged but Purnell established himself as one to watch for the future. The Economist called him one of New Labour's heroes.

5. The Sun Goes blue. Britain's biggest selling daily tabloid did what many had expected it to do for months and officially announced that it would endorse the Conservatives at the next election. After 12 years of support for Labour, the Sun's editorial screamed 'Labour's Lost It'. Coming only the day after Gordon Brown's set piece speech to conference, the decision looked like a deliberate attempt to scupper the Prime Minister's re-launch. The Tories rejoiced.

6. A change of Speaker. One of the fallouts from the expenses scandal was Michael Martin's resignation as Speaker of the House of Commons, effectively becoming the first speaker to be forced out of office in 300 years. Martin had faced enormous criticism over his handling of the expenses scandal with many MPs prepared to sign a motion of no confidence in him. The left-leaning Tory MP, John Bercow, was chosen to replace him, much to the delight of Labour MPs and the fury of his Tory colleagues.

7. The BNP on the BBC. The British National Party had one of its most successful years ever in 2009 when the party won two seats in the European Parliament and consolidated its strength in the London Assembly and across councils in England. Its gains sent shudders of horror across Westminster. The BNP's leader Nick Griffin received widespread coverage in the press and even appeared on the BBC's flagship 'Question Time' programme, with the Corporation receiving a barrage of complaints as a result. Many wonder whether the Party has peaked but the question remains whether it can emulate its success in next year's General Election.

My 'Top 7 Political Heroes of 2009'

In the spirit of annual yearly reviews and The Economist’s recent feature on New Labour heroes I thought it would be a good idea to compile my own list of ‘Top 7 political heroes of 2009’. Here they are:

1. Barack Obama
After one of the most gruelling and exciting presidential election campaigns of recent times, Barack Obama was inaugurated in January and has rapidly changed US policy. He is about to get his healthcare reform bill passed in Congress, which will insure a further 30 million Americans, and he has improved America’s relations with the rest of the world. He is my top hero of 2009.

2. James Purnell
More courageous than his colleagues, the former Work and Pensions Secretary challenged Gordon Brown’s leadership after the local and European elections in June and very nearly brought the Prime Minister down. His judgement on the leadership issue was right, I only wish more of his colleagues had followed his lead. I expect him to play an important role in the Labour Party after the next election.

3. Peter Mandelson
For being the best politician in the Government. For his competence. For his attacks on the Tories. For keeping the Government going. For a barnstorming speech to Labour conference. Over the last year, Lord Mandelson has rehabilitated himself and proved himself to be one of the most effective politicians of his generation.

4. Alistair Darling
Despite poisonous briefings against him by the media and some members of his own side, the Chancellor has remained one of the calmest and most competent members of the Government. Faced with the largest post war deficit in this country’s history and some terrible economic conditions, he has remained a quiet, thoughtful and steady presence on our screens. His decisions, including the brave one to raise income tax, probably saved us from an even worse fiscal situation than we might have faced.

4. Charles Clarke
Utterly relentless in his pursuit of Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke has stuck to his guns and repeatedly called for the Prime Minister to step aside. He has had the decency and honour to say in public what many members of the Party think in private.

5. Harriet Harman
A surprising choice for me but I think our Deputy Leader has been one of the most effective members of the Government this year. She has done a brilliant job facing William Hague at PMQs and attacking the Tories. People belittle Harriet Harman but she is one of New Labour’s great survivors and managed to get most of her equalities legislation passed in the House of Commons this year.

6. Ed Miliband
I have forgiven him for his disloyalty to Tony Blair because since the younger Miliband brother became Energy and Climate Change Secretary back in 2008 he has become one of the Government’s most competent and effective ministers. He single-handedly saved the Copenhagen climate change summit and has treated climate changes issues with a seriousness and sincerity that his predecessors lacked. Buy shares now.

7. Hillary Clinton
The great machine politician proved she could bury the hatchet and not in her opponent’s head, when she agreed to become Barack Obama’s Secretary of State. She has remained steadfast and loyal to her boss, while managing to pursue her own areas of interest like Africa and development policy too. In charge at the State Department, she has also shown she is good at running things.

Game On for Brown

I think it is a really good idea that Gordon Brown has agreed to take part in a TV debate during next year’s General Election campaign.

I can understand the reticence of any Prime Minister to agree to this, they have a lot to lose and it’s not like the opposition leaders aren’t given a chance every week to grill Brown during PMQs. But a proper debate, broadcast live, in front of a studio audience will give Brown the chance to shine and could provide real excitement during the election campaign. The proposed debates will be on the economy, public services and foreign policy.

It is fair enough that Clegg should be included but I think Cameron could have the most to lose. He will need to hide his temper and deliver the knock out blow people expect him to make, both of which he may struggle to do.

Brown, on the other hand, will be able to demonstrate his grasp of the issues, his experience and his intellect.

I don’t see why TV style debates should not be extended to other senior politicians during the campaign too. Darling versus Osborne would be good but Mandelson versus Clarke would really be one to watch.

In the past, some US Presidential debates have been game changers. With so little left to lose, the same could happen for Brown. Game on.

Brown should call a March election

Gordon Brown should call a March election. The circumstances have never been better for Labour.

Last week's Pre Budget Report pushed all the right buttons and with recent opinion polls showing the Tories only 9 points ahead, it is the best we could have hoped for.

It is hard to imagine what the Chancellor would say if he had to make another Budget Report before an election next year.

Instead last week's report did just enough to put Labour back in the game. It managed to spread the pain around for everyone and clearly lay out the Government's plans to halve the deficit by 2014.

The Chancellor’s announcement of a one off 50% windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses was music to my ears. At last, Labour politicians seem to have got it.

The tax may only last until April and bankers will do all they can to avoid paying it but, as well as bringing in more cash, the tax sends out an important message too. It signifies a change in Government priorities - no longer will we be in thrall to the Square Mile.

It may be populist but don't we need popular policies?

The politics of it are right too. We can't ask public sector workers and ordinary taxpayers to foot the bill without bankers paying for the mistakes they have made as well. It is fair and sensible, although a complete re-think about the tax system should surely be on the cards too.

It is doubtful the economy will drastically improve between March and June anyway, so what has Brown got to lose? This is the second poll we have seen which shows the Tory lead narrowing. If this continues, it looks like a trend and we would be foolish to delay.

Under these circumstances, why would Brown wait? He should surprise us all and call a snap election early in the new year. It would put the Tories on the back foot, help us to seize the initiative and end the drift which will surely set in early in the new year.

Don't do a Jim Callaghan Gordon, go for it in March.

Mayor of San Diego reverses his position on gay marriage

I have just stumbled across this fantastic clip from 2007 of Jerry Sanders, Mayor of San Diego, who changed his mind on gay marriage. Up until then he had been a dyed in the wool opponent, but for reasons personal to him, he reversed his position and made this dramatic speech to the waiting media.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this or where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, I think there is something very courageous about a politician who can admit their mistakes so publicly. This happened a few years ago now and even in that short space of time things have changed in the United States but as this clip shows politics can be a raw, emotional, personal business. This isn't always such a bad thing.

Whose ever heard of the Belgian and the Baroness?

I think it is disastrous for Europe that we have ended up with two lightweights in the top positions of EU President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

I am sure both Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton have admirable qualities, but they are not the best people for the job.

In particular, Van Rompuy has consistently oppposed Turkish membership of the EU which I think he is wrong about.

The decision to choose two unknowns also shows Europe is not serious about leading or projecting its power onto a global stage. There is no powerful, self-assertive voice to represent us here. Europe's status is diminished once again.

Tony Blair won't lose any sleep over this. But we should worry that Europe has chosen to bury its head in the sand again. This was an opportunity to be radical and show leadership. Instead we end up with the worst of all worlds.

Brown must reverse his decision on childcare vouchers

If weekend press reports are to be believed, I am delighted that Gordon Brown appears to have changed his mind on plans to remove tax relief on Employer Supported Childcare Vouchers.

Brown originally told delegates to the Labour Party Conference that he was removing the tax relief to pay for ten hours of free childcare for 250,000 two-year olds by 2015.

But while extending childcare support for parents should be applauded, it should not come at the expense of other parents who are struggling to balance their careers with family life.

Childcare vouchers currently support over 340,000 parents and help more than 30,000 employers help their employees get back to work.

But many of the mums and dads who use childcare vouchers are middle income earners, often working in the public sector, who rely on the voucher system to support their childcare costs.

70% of parents who use them are basic tax rate payers.

They are popular with employees and employers because of their flexibility and ease of use. They allow parents to get back to work (hasn’t this always been a Labour goal?) and they offer real choice and flexibility when it comes to childcare options.

So it seemed madness to me at the time that Brown was prepared to scrap them.

Since Brown made the announcement, there has been a huge campaign to get him to reverse his decision. A petition on Downing Street opposing the decision to scrap vouchers has so far received over 80,000 signatures. Progress sent a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to change his mind. It was signed by Patricia Hewitt MP, Hilary Armstrong MP, Beverley Hughes MP, Caroline Flint MP, David Cairns MP, Denis MacShane MP and Estelle Morris to name but a few. And there has been widespread media coverage, particularly in The Sun and Mail, which has kept the issue alive.

It is also bad politics. It doesn’t make sense to penalize working parents in Middle England ie marginal constituencies, whose support Labour will need if it is to win the next election.

It is wrong for the Government to force us to choose between tax relief on the one hand and extending childcare to two-year olds on the other hand. I hope Brown will recognize this in the forthcoming Pre Budget Report and reverse his decision for good.

Can Labour capitalise on Tory EU division?

The return of 'Europe' as a problem for the Conservative Party should provide Labour with a few good opportunities to score some political goals.

Tory policy on the issue is a complete mess. First, they want to have a referendum and now they don't. Instead they want to repatriate certain powers from Europe which have already been given away. The idea that the rest of Europe will let them is fanciful.

The Europe 'issue' has dogged every Tory leader for the last thirty years, but with Cameron doing so well in the polls and a General Election just around the corner I doubt there will be any Conservative Eurosceptic willing to put their neck above the parapet and criticise their leadership's policy.

It's up to Labour then to really tug at those divisions. We need to stress the positive benefits of EU membership on issues like climate change, highlight the Tory cracks and warn people which EU powers the Tories would like to repatriate, most of which concern the European Social Chapter and a whole raft of social measures and workers' rights like paternity leave. I don't think it would go down well with the electorate if they knew that Mr Cameron was, in effect, saying he wanted to get rid of these.

We should also remember that UKIP won't give up on its bonkers crusade to get us out of Europe. In a few Tory marginals it is likely to put real pressure on Tory candidates. If we can find ways of driving a bigger wedge between the Tories and UKIP, we might just force Cameron to adopt an even more irrational policy on Europe.

Finally, we should continue to push for a strong EU Presidency (preferably with Tony Blair in the role) that can act as a counterweight to a future Conservative Government's Euroscepticism and make life difficult for David Cameron.

Alan Johnson was right to sack his drugs adviser

I think Alan Johnson was well within his rights to sack Professor David Nutt as the Government’s Chief Drug Adviser.

It is perfectly possible, in fact desirable, for advisers to government to voice independent views but it is not okay to publicly repudiate government policy. David Nutt seemed to think it was alright to be the government’s drug adviser and at the same time rubbish the government’s drug policy.

It is his job to advise, it is Alan Johnson’s job to decide. This is what the Home Secretary is paid to do and ultimately he is the one who has to answer to the public for it.

When it comes to drugs policy, the government needs to send out very clear messages and Professor Nutt’s comments only added to the confusion.

I believe it was wrong to downgrade cannabis (as does the World Health Organisation) and I believe it would be wrong to go down a similar route with ecstasy. Soft drugs often lead to hard drugs. They are responsible for significant amounts of crime and they do kill people.

Everyone is entitled to their own views, but you cannot reasonably be expected to serve a government which you are hell bent on criticizing.

Alan Johnson’s decision to get rid of him was the right one.

Tony Blair should be the next EU President

It’s a no brainer. Tony Blair should be the next president of the European Union.

He is the only candidate with the vision, stature and star quality to give the EU the credibility it needs.

As David Miliband rightly points out, we need an EU President who can “stop traffic”. Tony Blair is that man.

Contrary to what some media commentators have argued, he also proved himself as a committed Europhile when he was in office. So what, that the UK did not join the Euro under his watch? This is not the only defining characteristic of being a good European.

Under Blair, there was no more “awkward partner” or “empty chair” policy as there had been under John Major. Instead, we got a dynamic leader (who incidentally speaks French) who put the UK in the driving seat of European reform. On every issue ranging from European defence to the Budget to climate change to EU enlargement, the UK played a key role in shaping EU policy. This was thanks to Tony Blair. His contribution over ten years in power was invaluable.

The Left should support his candidacy because with Labour facing near certain electoral defeat next year, we will need a strong counterweight to what will be a viscerally bonkers anti-EU Tory Government. A Tony Blair presidency makes David Cameron’s job a lot harder. We should relish that.

Blair is also a naturally outward looking leader and this is what the EU needs. There would be little or no institutional introspection with him. Good. He would be very clear about his goals and achieving them. He could not be ignored in the capitals of Beijing, Moscow or Delhi.

After Bill Clinton, he is probably the best political communicator going. If anyone can explain the Byzantine workings of the EU to ordinary voters, he can. As he demonstrated in Northern Ireland, he is also capable of the type of schmoozing and arm twisting that is an essential feature of EU business. Never underestimate Tony Blair’s ability to persuade people.

If EU leaders fail to choose Tony Blair, it will be a bad omen. It will show that they are not really serious about reforming the EU and making it a stronger actor in world affairs.

We should get behind a Blair presidency. It will be good for Europe and what is good for Europe is good for Britain.

Where is CJ Cregg when you need her?

Does Gordon Brown have the worst spokesman ever? Asked by the Guardian this week whether the Prime Minister had watched the BBC's Question Time show, the spokesman replied:

"He very rarely watches Question Time. He is often busy on important government matters, finishing paperwork and other government business. He was certainly engaged on government business."

God, I wish CJ was here. On the most important political issue of the week, Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, Number Ten did not even have a good line to take. They could have used the opportunity to talk about anti-racism or tolerence or multiculturalism but instead we got this ridiculous, flustered reply.

If you want to see how a good press officer should answer a question (and still get across the Government's key messages) watch this:

Why the BBC is right to let the BNP speak

I think the decision by the BBC to invite Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, onto its Question Time show tonight is the right one.

I oppose everything the BNP stands for but the BBC has a public service duty to allow everyone, regardless of how odious their views are, the right to a hearing. I do not for one second accept that Sinn Fein should be classed in the same category as the BNP but it was a mistake to silence Gerry Adams’s voice (quite literally) in the 1980s and 1990s and I think it is self defeating to silence Nick Griffin’s voice now.

We have to face facts. In both Yorkshire and the North West, there are BNP MEPs. Nick Griffin got 8% of the vote in those elections. The party polled 8.9% in the North East and 8.6% in both the West and East Midlands. They polled 6.1% in the Eastern region, 5.5% in London, 5.4% in Wales, 4.4% in the South East and 3.9% in the South West. In places like Rotherham and Doncaster, they polled even higher. They are a political fact and a majority of people in a few communities voted for them. We cannot ignore this reality any more.

Labour’s ‘No Platform’ approach has been an utter failure as well. Pretending that they don’t exist, hoping that they will go away and just calling them ‘racist’ all the time hasn’t worked. We need a new strategy that proactively argues against the BNP’s views. That is why the Generals’ intervention earlier in the week was so effective.

I also think we should stop blaming the BBC for this. The real culprit is the Labour Government for spectacularly ignoring the working class over the last ten years, failing to listen to some of its legitimate grievances about housing and jobs and treating many members of the working class as if they are nothing more than an underclass or a bunch of 'chavs' (as we are now supposed to call them). Effective MPs like Jon Cruddas, Hazel Blears and David Blunkett, who speak to that working class demographic, are sadly few and far between.

I also think that if we give the BNP the opportunity to appear on shows like Question Time, it will allow us to interrogate their views and expose them for what they are. A Paxman interrogation of Nick Griffin would show him up for sure.

I think we should all watch Question Time tonight. I think we all need to be aware of what the BNP stands for so we can take them on. And in light of that, the other political parties, but notably Labour, need to rethink the way they deal with the BNP in the future.

We should all hate the Mail

The reaction to Jan Moir’s article on Stephen Gately in the Daily Mail has been fantastic.

It just goes to show that after all the progressive advances over the last ten years, you simply can’t get away with expressing views like hers anymore.

I don’t know how she can hold her head up in polite company. Where is her humanity?

Her article is just another example of the poisonous, spiteful writing that passes as journalism at that paper.

The poor boy was not even buried before she decided to attack him by suggesting that there was nothing ‘natural’ about his death. Her comments were nasty, insidious and spiteful.

But the reaction to her comments has been overwhelming and just shows how much our society has changed over the last ten years.

There have been over 1,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. They will have to do something now.

There are 12,000 members of the Facebook group calling for the Mail to retract her comments.

Stephen Fry has denounced her. A well liked, respected figure he described her comments as "loathesome" and "inhumane".

Alastair Campbell on his blog reminds us all of why we should hate the Mail anyway.

And best of all, Marks & Spencer withdrew their online advertising from the offending web page. Whoever decided to do that at M&S should be commended. They have just enhanced their brand reputation by about 100%. Other companies should follow suit.

There are lessons to draw from this. Unfortunately nasty views like Ms Moir’s still exist and are still readily expressed and we have to remain vigilant against them. And secondly, and more positively, they are no longer considered acceptable. Marks & Spencer’s response just shows how seriously even big business takes this sort of thing nowadays.

We should follow its example and vote with our feet and never buy the Mail again. Not that I ever did.

Are the Tories already out of date?

If the Conservatives are supposed to be the party of the future, why did their conference today feel so dated and past it?

Not only did we have to watch Ken Clarke shuffling about in his Hush Puppies, we also had to put up with Kenneth Baker (who was bloody old in the Thatcher Government) droan on. He looked as slimy as he did when Spitting Image used to mock him.

The fact that the conference was obsessed with Europe as well meant the whole thing had a distinct 1990s flavour to it. It was all a bit tired and past it.

Boris Johnson didn't exactly spice things up either. And we can usually count on him to have a good laugh (at).

After admitting to delegates that Manchester was one of the few great British cities he had yet to insult, the Mayor then promptly told his audience that London remained the motor of the UK economy and cities like Manchester were dependent on it. This was surely not the message the Tory leader, David Cameron, wanted northern voters to hear.

It's also untrue, Manchester does very well for itself thanks Boris.

During his speech, the Mayor stuck rigidly to a traditional Tory agenda of tax cuts, free markets and anti-statism. He staunchly defended the actions of city bankers and even moaned about the “communist era free sheet called the Londoner”. The speech felt like it was twenty years out of date.

There was no mention of Europe or President Blair or anything of controversy in what he said. It was all a bit safe and tired and traditional, not the Conservative Party David Cameron has been trying to sell us.

The Conservatives head to Manchester

The Conservative Party begins its conference in my hometown of Manchester this week. The party has every reason to feel pleased with itself. Although the Labour conference wasn’t as bad as everybody expected, the Sun’s decision to come out in favour of Cameron will have given the Tories a nice little boost before they all gather together.

However, let me throw a few spanners in the works.

Firstly, this is not 1996 and Mr Cameron is no Tony Blair. There is little public appetite for the Tories as the opinion polls show. Its poll numbers should be in the high 40s (and they’re not), there should be fewer floating voters and its lead over Labour should be bigger. It is a tired phrase but the Tories have not sealed the deal with voters.

Secondly, there are serious question marks over the Conservative’s handling of the economic crisis and its stance on Europe. I think there is an increasing view out there that the Tories made the wrong call on the economic crisis twelve months ago. Voters still feel uneasy about trusting a leader who displayed such poor judgement. The party’s position on Europe is all over the place as well. Its stance on the Lisbon Treaty is ill thought through, liable to antagonise important allies like Sarkozy and Merkel and makes no sense. Cameron looks like he is about to have a major row on his hands. It also seems hypocritical to me that a party which says it has changed has got into bed with some pretty unsavoury characters in the European Parliament.

Thirdly, George Osborne is a liability for the party. He is disliked, distrusted, looks like he relishes the idea of enacting ‘savage cuts’ and has shown bad judgement on some major decisions. His speech will be the most important of the week and he will have to demonstrate that he looks like a credible Chancellor in waiting. Fat chance.

Finally, I have doubts that the Tories message of ‘cuts, cuts and more cuts’ will resonate with voters in the major northern cities of Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds - never mind Wales and Scotland! The Conservatives are not a national party, yet.

So, Conservative MPs may well feel that they are about to be handed the keys to Number Ten and I am sure they will spend the next week desperately trying not to appear smug. But there remains some major concerns about what they stand for, their competence and their policies for the future. This should give Labour some hope.

The Sun's decision is not surprising

It is no surprise to me that The Sun has turned its back on Labour.

Its decision to come out in favour of the Tories today was an unmistakable, deliberate act of sabotage, timed to steal the Prime Minister’s thunder.

No wonder Brown and Mandelson were furious. It has just flat footed us again.

Party members put on an admirably brave face but they must recognise that it is a blow.

The Sun is not as powerful as it once was, but it is a good bellwether of public opinion. And its decision shows that public opinion is shifting towards the Conservatives.

In close elections, like 1992, newspapers do have the power to influence their readers. The Sun’s disgraceful attacks on Kinnock, a good man, in that election did influence what their readers thought of him. And I expect that the Sun’s endorsement of Cameron might just give the Tories an extra edge if the next election is really that close.

But why someone didn’t see this happening two years ago is a mystery to me. It was inevitable that The Sun would switch sides. We haven’t been addressing the concerns of Sun readers for a long time now.

The Sun’s announcement clearly infuriated the Prime Minister. When he stormed out of his interview with Adam Boulton on Sky today, part of me thought, “Oh, good on yer!” But I felt sorry for Brown and even in Blair’s darkest days I never felt sorry for him. Blair was always in control of events around him. Brown’s temper tantrum, on the other hand, only further exposed the personality flaws we have come to know so well. No one votes for a leader because they feel sorry for them.

The loss of the Sun is a blow. But there is a lesson here for us. Our love affair with the Murdoch press never delivered what we expected and hoped for. Let’s remember that next time.

And let’s hope that the ever loyal Mirror is there to support us come the election this time.

Was Brown's Speech Enough?

It didn’t quite live up to all the expectations, but Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour Party Conference today was a tubthumper.

The Prime Minister put on a strong performance and delivered a policy rich speech. He promised a referendum on electoral reform, a care home network for teenage mothers, an extension of free childcare places and to enshrine in law the commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on international development. If the intention was to put clear red water between us and the Tories then it worked.

The new announcements showed that we are still capable of delivering up fresh ideas which are relevant to the British people.

I particularly welcomed the strong attacks he made on anti-social behaviour. It wasn’t directly mentioned but there were strong echoes of Tony Blair’s Respect Agenda in what the Prime Minister said. Up until today Brown has ignored this issue but I am pleased it is at the top of his agenda again. It will certainly help us to appeal to floating voters.

Some of the policies he announced also pivoted to our base which was good. The announcements on Post Offices and ID Cards were met with big cheers. They will win him friends where he needs them.

I also thought he established the Tory lines of attack very well, while still managing to sound positive. I think there is a view, increasingly taking hold amongst the British public, that Cameron made the wrong call about the recession twelve months ago. Brown hammered this point home. “The Conservative Party were faced with the economic call of the century and they called it wrong”, he said. I think Joe Bloggs will agree with him.

He also made promises on the minimum wage and a National Care Service for the elderly which will leave the Tories in a tricky position. Will they be able to match them?

Unlike some cynics, I also liked Sarah Brown’s introduction. It was personal, emotional and honest. It worked the first time and I think it has again.

But the speech was not a game changer.

Of course, it takes more than just one speech to turn around the fortunes of a political party but for me it still sounded like a rag bag of ideas and sound bites stuck together, rather than a compelling narrative or vision of what Labour’s election message will be.

I thought it could have been bolder. Why stop at the recall of corrupt MPs? Why not introduce primaries? Why not hold a referendum on PR on the day of the election? Why not take tougher action on bankers’ bonuses? It didn’t go far enough. It won’t be enough to convince the voters.

Brown may have littered his speech with good announcements and good reminders of what we have done, but the trouble (as it has always been with him) is that the British public have just stopped listening.

Maybe we can get them to listen again. But I doubt it.

That’s why at the end of the day, it may have been a good speech, but it will be the last he makes as Prime Minister.

A Barnstorming Speech from Mandelson Saves The Day!

"If I can do it, we can do it," declared Peter Mandelson to the Labour Party Conference.

His speech today was a barnstorming attempt to breathe life into a conference which up until then had looked moribund.

He told delegates that if he could return from oblivion, so could the party. Labour was in the fight of its life. And it was exactly what we needed to hear.

If the architect of our successful 1997 victory still thinks we can win, then who are we to argue?

Although Mandelson announced an extension of the car scrappage scheme, there was little in the way of new policy announcements in his speech.

But this didn’t matter. Mandelson directed all his fire at the Tories.

Frequently referring to the Shadow Chancellor as ‘Boy George’ he said that Osborne had sailed too close to the wind, too often. A neat reminder to all of us of the last time the two men met on a yacht in Corfu.

He accused Cameron of being shallow and mocked the Shadow Secretary of State, Ken Clarke for his inability to get to grips with modern technology. No mobile phone. No Blackberry. A Business Secretary who can’t function in the modern world. Ken Clarke –the old duffer. A highly effective form of attack.

The speech was littered with criticism of the Tories. If only more Labour politicians could do it.

It was theatrical, camp and a little self indulgent. But if anyone can get away with this, it is Peter Mandelson. And it worked.

It gave us some fire in our bellies, made us laugh at ourselves and reminded us that the real enemies are Cameron and his cronies.

I remember the second time Mandelson resigned from Government and the Mirror newspaper or the Sun (one of them) carried a picture of him and Blair sat on the frontbenches looking thoroughly miserable. The headline was “He could have been one of Labour’s Heroes”.

I hope that Peter Mandelson has put headlines like that to rest now. Over the last twelve months, he has proven his ability and his judgement.

His speech today showed that he has true star quality. God knows Labour needs some of that magic and sparkle.

Brown needs to surprise us at conference

As we all head to Brighton for Labour Conference this week, there are a number of things that I would like to see happen.

Firstly, Gordon Brown has to announce some big policy changes in his speech. It is the only way the polls may move towards him.

Last year, in the wake of Lehman Brothers collapse, the Prime Minister’s response to the crisis played to his strengths. He showed he was a capable, effective and experienced politician. Public opinion shifted and for a time the polls improved.

Andrew Rawnsley points out in today’s Observer that Brown could still do this by surprising us. On this, he already has form – remember his announcement regarding the independence of the Bank of England or even Mandelson’s return to Cabinet. But any surprise announcement has to be a game-changer. And it has to be sufficiently startling to resonate with the British public.

Secondly, we need to ram home our message that only Labour will make cuts in a careful, sustainable way that doesn’t ruin our public services or destroy our social fabric. In the 1980s Mrs Thatcher made brutal cuts which created enormous poverty and deprivation. Generations of families are still reaping the consequences of this.

Cameron and Osborne are no better. If they had their way, they would make severe cuts now based on a perverse out-dated ideology with no thought or conscience about how it might affect ordinary people. Labour can be trusted to be kinder and more careful. This has to be our line of attack. I believe our core working vote could respond well to it.

Paul Richards wrote on Labour List this week that conference needs to be a ‘Cameron Killing Machine’. He is right.

So thirdly, we have to stop talking about the leadership question. I have been very clear all along that I do not believe Gordon Brown was right for the job but I accept that the party has now come to a settled view on this.

As much as I agree with what Charles Clarke says, it is now time to put these questions behind us. It destabilises us when we need to come together. It makes us look divided when we need to show unity.

This is the last conference before an election so we need to take the fight to the Tories. There is much to be said for adopting a strategy of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them.

If that means negative campaigning then so be it. How do the British public know we will fight for them if we don’t take the fight to the Tories? We need some fire in our bellies. And a bit of Tory bashing in Brighton this week is exactly the right medicine.

Brown's Best Week Yet?

Gordon Brown has had one of his best weeks in office so far – which is good news for him as we approach the start of the Labour Party Conference in Brighton.

His address to the UN General Assembly was masterful, right and displayed his best qualities. His spontaneous response to mad dog Qadaffi’s bonkers behaviour won him good will and the support of most sensible onlookers. He looked and sounded like a world leader.

His press conference with Presidents Obama and Sarkozy to talk about Iran was effective as well. It is about time we stopped messing around with this despicable regime and put on a united show. It was good to see all three leaders there but Brown’s strong rhetoric and push for greater sanctions singled him out.

I have even been watching him over the past few weeks on BBC Two’s excellent ‘The Love of Money’ show, which explored what happened during the financial crisis and ended on Thursday night. Anyone watching that could not doubt Brown’s importance to what happened. It is quite clear that he saved this country from a terrible depression, contributed to the rescue of the banks and was the first to encourage a global stimulus which is now helping the world to move out of recession.

Forget this media rubbish about Obama snubbing him too. I know the British media love to write those stories and the Conservative’s Propaganda Chief Nick Robinson worked himself up into a flap about it, but the President is just BUSY – you know, chairing Security Council meetings and stuff like that.

Both leaders can work off the same page without meeting every two minutes to discuss it.

So I was very proud of Brown this week. The UN and the G20 obviously played to his strengths but he handled it all very well. On the eve of conference, Brown should feel happy that he did all he could, which was more than most people expected.

Cuts, Cuts and Cuts

Up until this week, it had seemed like the word “cuts” was a whisper Labour politicians dare not even speak.

And now it seems we can’t get away from it.

At the beginning of the week Lord Mandelson made an impressive speech in which he said that Labour would be the “wise spenders” while the Conservatives would impose “savage cuts”.

At the TUC conference, Gordon Brown said he would “cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets”. He talked of “tough choices” ahead.

And only this morning, the Sunday Times reports an interview with the Education Secretary, Ed Balls, in which he details more than £2bn worth of cuts across the schools budget.

Every adult with half a brain knows that public spending cuts are inevitable. This message seems to have finally gotten through.

I would not have started by going after the schools budget though. I thought we were meant to be the party of ‘education, education, education’. Instead, why shouldn’t we be bolder and immediately scrap Trident and ID cards? These policies are not bread and butter Labour stuff.

At least now we are being honest though.

Labour has laid down the battle lines for the next election. We are the party which will make sensible, wise choices while the Tories are the party practically salivating or “foaming at the mouth” (as Mandelson said) at the prospect of being able to cut spending. This is a wiser strategy for Labour.

It even hints at the ‘nasty’ label which the Conservatives have unsuccessfully tried to shake off.

On balance, the Government had a good week and now that a strategy is settled on, we can go to conference feeling a little less gloomy.

Labour still has to be more honest

At last Labour seems to have started to change its message on the economy.

I thought Alistair Darling's speech in Cardiff today was better because it was more honest.

The Chancellor spoke of 'hard choices' ahead and went further than any other senior minister has done to talk about spending cuts.

He also made a vigorous defence of why cutting spending now (but not necessarily in the future) would only prolong the recession and have a negative social and economic impact. Heaven forbid, it was almost an attack on Tory policy.

So much so the better.

But I still think Labour will have to be more direct about where it thinks cuts might fall. I don't think we have been honest enough with people about the scale of the problem.

On the other hand David Cameron has been very clear that a Conservatve Government would impose cuts. To show he is serious about cutting public spending, he has said that he will reduce miniserial salaries and end subsidised food and drink at Westminster.

I know this all populist nonsense and will only save a relatively small amount of money each year but I think it will go down well with voters. And it sends out an important signal.

It will certainly make it easier to sell public spending cuts further down the line if politicians can show they have made sacrifices as well. I wish Labour had made a similar suggestion first.

Labour still needs to be more honest with people but the Chancellor's speech today was a start.

Is 'Broken Britain' like The Wire or a bit more like Shameless?

Yesterday Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, warned that Britain was falling apart so quickly we were in danger of turning into an episode of 'The Wire'.

What a load of rubbish.

Instead of glib references to TV shows, why can't any senior Tory make a single thoughtful speech about what we can do to tackle crime and social deprivation?

It is true that there are people in the UK trapped on sink estates, without a job, dependent on benefits, living in poverty. I admit to knowing one or two families exactly like the Gallaghers in the C4 drama 'Shameless'.

But it is not the case that places like Manchester or Liverpool are even remotely comparable to Baltimore, where The Wire is filmed, and where there are hundreds of violent gun deaths each year.

The Tories are trying to paint a picture of a nation crumbling apart which is inaccurate, scare-mongering and panders to the poisonous Daily Mail agenda. This is not the sensible politics of a party which wants to form the next government.

Labour could do more though. We used to talk a lot about welfare reform. We used to talk about the 'Respect' agenda which I thought was very important and a good response to issues of social deprivation and community crime. But this seems to have all fallen by the wayside now.

I think Labour would improve its chances amongst voters if it recovered some of that early Blair radicalism on welfare reform and started to talk about these issues again. If we don't we allow the Tories to paint a picture of our society which is terribly misleading and terribly destructive.

It was the right decision to release the Lockerbie bomber

I think the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, was the right decision.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, made a very brave, principled decision which was clearly based on his strong values. In doing so, he withstood tremendous political and international pressure.

I think there is something deeply honourable about that and he should be applauded.

I don’t believe the SNP Government has damaged Scotland’s reputation either. The SNP has followed the law, under difficult circumstances, and shown that you can have disagreements with the United States without the whole edifice collapsing.

I actually think that when the dust has settled on this, the SNP Government will come out of it very well and the UK Government will look shifty and unprincipled, particularly if Gaddafi’s comments today that the UK Government helped facilitate the release are proven to be true.

It is of course entirely inappropriate for al-Megrahi to be given a heroes welcome back in Libya. It makes me feel very uncomfortable. And I can understand how upsetting that must be for the victims’ families.

But I do think Kenny MacAskill did the right thing. He showed a compassion to al-Megrahi which al-Megrahi never showed to the victims’ families. In an age when we complain that politicians are too cynical and have forgotten what they believe in and don’t do what they believe in, there is something refreshing about that.

I am not usually a fan of the SNP Government, but today Scottish voters should feel proud.

The Tories would destroy the NHS

The Conservatives are all over the place on the NHS.

Bonkers MEP Daniel Hannan (seen in the picture) should have the whip removed. His actions are unpatriotic and have exposed just how unreformed and nasty parts of the Conservative Party still are.

He is clearly a nutter for comparing the NHS to North Korea.

Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary, should not escape blame either. I think he is one of the most thoughtful and considerate members of the Conservative front bench but he was silly to put his name to a book “Direct Democracy” which argued that the NHS was a “1940s monopolistic structure . . . no longer relevant in the 21st century”.

The Conservative Cornerstone Group also produced a report in 2007 which described the NHS as ‘Stalinist’ and called for a compulsory insurance scheme.

So, is this the progressive party George Osborne alluded to earlier in the week?

Laughable. Indeed.

The row exposes the Conservative Party’s half-hearted commitment to the NHS. Many Tory members share Mr Hannan's views.

I also find it particularly distasteful the way Cameron, every time the NHS is mentioned, has to bring up the subject of his family (like he did yesterday morning). To his eternal credit, the Prime Minister has never done this.

If the polling of their PPCs is to be believed, the next intake of Tory MPs are even less committed to the NHS than this current lot. The British public should be concerned.

The Conservatives are totally divided on the issue. If today it is the NHS, tomorrow it will be taxes and Wednesday it will be Europe. No change.

The problem, as it has always been for the Tories, is that they think 1997 was a blip. That somehow the British public made a terrible mistake and they will finally see sense. It has meant the Conservative Party has never had to reconcile itself to its own failings in the way Labour had to do in the 1990s. It has never had a Clause IV moment. It has never had to change and adapt. This row underlines that.

It remains an unreformed, out of touch, pathetic little party.

David Cameron owes the doctors and nurses who work in the NHS an apology for his MEPs idiotic remarks.

Labour must exploit this mercilessly. We are the party of the NHS because we share the public service values and ethos that the NHS is built on.

I would hammer the Tories on this from now until the Election Day.

Why I like Harriet

You’ve got to give it to Harriet Harman – she doesn’t give up.

She is clearly enjoying standing in for Gordon while he is on holiday.

But if press reports are to be believed she has apparently used the opportunity to block a review into the operation of rape laws because she is unhappy with the scope of the inquiry.

She would like to see a wider review conducted which looks at the low conviction rates in rape cases, violence against women more generally and the legal question of ‘consent’.

Now, in the past I have not always been a fan of Harriet. And I also tend to think that although this is a really important issue, voters want to hear what the government is doing about the recession and getting them back into work. And this is what the Government should be talking about – Harriet included.

But you have to hand it to her. No other politician at such a senior level pursues an equality agenda with such gusto.

Over the last week, she has talked about the importance of women at the heart of government, focused on the thorny issue of the proverbial glass ceiling in the City and even said that Lehman Brothers might not have collapsed if it had been Lehman Sisters!

She may receive criticism from the likes of John Prescott for this sort of interference but this goes with the territory.

Over the years, she has consistently shown a commitment to women’s issues and now that she has an opportunity to actually do something, why shouldn’t she seize it?

In the past, there are people who have treated her with contempt. They have patronised her achievements and this has been wrong.

Since becoming Deputy Leader she has done well when she has had to stand in for Gordon at PMQs, she has robustly defended the government when needed to and she has been very clear about her purpose. In fact, she has been one of the strongest members of the government.

Unlike many of her colleagues, she is clearly not riding out the clock until the next election. I like this and she does deserve credit for that.

What does it mean to be on the Left today?

I am fan of the ideas behind the Open Left project at Demos. It argues that there has to be an open debate in the party about values and goals.

I like that its starting point is about rediscovering the Left’s idealism and radicalism.

So, the first question it poses ‘What does it mean to be on the Left today?’ has got me thinking.

For me, the answer can be summed up in one word: Aspiration.

I think that what essentially motivates people in life is aspiration and ambition.

Families aspire to own their own homes. Parents aspire to send their kids to a good school and then on to university. I aspire to have a successful career. We all aspire to go on holiday once a year. We all want our friends and family to be looked after and cared for when they are in need. We all aspire to lead the good life. A better life.

And I think only the Left which is committed to putting power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many and not the few is capable of delivering this.

Only the Left, which delivered universal health care, comprehensive education, the minimum wage, the expansion of higher education and training opportunities for the young has the values and ideas which will allow people to achieve their goals.

Working class, middle class, white or black, male or female – this doesn’t really matter, because we are all motivated by the same thing. Labour is strongest when it recognises this.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Conservative Party. It is committed to defending the status quo. It is incapable of helping people to realise their aspirations and dreams because it is too conservative, too reactionary, not interested.

Left wing politics, for me anyway, also comes from a place of anger.

I look around and see terrible injustice and poverty and inequality. It makes me furious. I know that in the UK, there are millions of households living in fuel poverty. I know that in Africa there are thousands of deaths every day that could be prevented because of malaria or HIV. I know that inequality in Britain has never been greater and we seem a less happy society.

If Conservatives look around and think that the status quo is worth preserving, worth defending, worth conserving then more fool them.

The Labour Party has to be about helping people fulfil their dreams. The Left has to be about change and progress and hope and idealism. Without these values, we are nothing.

Dreams from my father by Barack Obama

I have just finished reading Barack Obama’s memoirs ‘Dreams from My Father’. I read the Audacity of Hope when it first came out, so I don’t know quite why it has taken me so long to get around to his earlier book but I really loved it.

I know Obama wrote the book before he reached national prominence, but I can’t recall a similar occasion when a President or any politician has written with such honesty and eloquence.

Firstly, it is very well written. Obama has a knack for capturing a particular person or moment. His trip back to Kenya is both sad and funny in equal measure. At times, you sense that he feels isolated and alone but you are really gripped by the journey he is on to discover who he is and where he came from.

Secondly, the memoirs also help to personalise him. When you read of his time on Chicago’s South Side, you suddenly understand what it means for Americans, and in particular African Americans, to see Obama elected. The Bushes, Clintons and Reagan’s didn’t sweat and worry with the poor and the underprivileged in the way Obama did. He doesn’t just empathise with people or ‘feel their pain’, he experienced it. For the first time you understand that his own troubled identity as the son of an African man and a white, American mother gives him a vantage point which is unique amongst American leaders. His experience as a grass roots organizer means he knows what being poor and hopeless can lead people to do. In a perverse way, this gives you confidence and hope that the man sitting in the Oval Office will make the right types of decisions.

You also get the sense that Obama is a different man now from the man who wrote ‘Dreams from my Father’. His professorial, cool demeanour contrasts with the emotive, anxious young man who is in a hurry to get somewhere that he writes about in ‘Dreams…’ This is probably about age and experience but it is interesting to know what he was like before and where he has come from.

Even if you are not that interested in politics, I would still recommend reading this book.

After Norwich Labour must rethink its strategy

It will come as no surprise to anyone if Labour loses the by-election in Norwich North today.

However, I think it will be a closer result than many people expect. The expenses scandal has hurt all the parties and Labour’s decision to ban Ian Gibson from standing as a MP at the next election has not gone down well with many party members and constituents.

So the Tories will sneak in, but it won’t be a ringing endorsement for them like it was in Crewe. A win with a majority of less than 8,000 is not good news for Cameron.

The lesson Labour must draw from defeat is that its message of “Tory cuts” versus “Labour investment” is just not credible or believed by voters. As a strategy for the next election, it will not work.

We have to face up to this. We have to be honest with the British public. We have to be more sophisticated.

Every poll conducted shows that voters know that there will be tough choices ahead about what we spend public money on.

Labour’s message has got to be “Yes, some cuts in spending are coming, but you trust Labour to make the right cuts”.

This is a much more credible and effective message than the simplistic one we have peddled in Norwich. Voters will appreciate the honesty of it and it will allow Labour to establish some clear dividing lines in areas of policy and public spending with the Tories.

It will put them in an uncomfortable position because Cameron will be forced to say whether he would match Labour commitments and/or tell us which areas of policy he would make cuts in.

It is time Labour was honest with the voters. If we can do that, then we can win back the trust and the respect we desperately need.

McBride's 5 Live Interview

I listened to Damian McBride’s radio interview on 5 Live this morning.

I believe that everyone deserves a second chance and McBride was contrite enough for it to sound genuine.

We should all be able to forgive stupid mistakes.

But it is difficult to explain away behaviour which, according to most people, was endemic in Number Ten at the time.

It is probably true that Brown didn’t have a clue what McBride was up to but isn’t Brown responsible for the culture that allows this sort of behaviour to become acceptable. When you employ attack dogs, what do you expect?

Only a few days ago, Jane Kennedy compared the Prime Minister to a mafia boss and she used to be a Government Minister! It is not as if accusations like this, against Brown, are rare either. We have all heard about this sort of stuff before. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the time it was directed at people on the Labour side.

Everyone from Peter Mandelson to Frank Field to Patricia Hewitt to Stephen Byers have talked about the bullying tactics emanating first from the Treasury and then Number Ten. McBride’s attempt to smear senior Conservatives was a rare example of him directing his fire at the opposition.

I know politics can be a rough ol’ business and you have to expose the weaknesses and failings of the oppposition. But my beef is when it's directed at your own side tactics like these are not a very effective form of motivating people.

You don’t get the best out of people by scaring them, attacking them or subjecting them to the hairdryer treatment. You get the best out of people by encouraging them and valuing their work.

Businesses should learn this but so should governments, political parties and indeed prime ministers.

Moving on from New Labour?

I thought James Purnell’s interview in the Guardian this weekend was interesting.

I think he is right to point out that we should all stop “hankering” for the heyday of New Labour in the late 1990s. As he points out (and Tony Blair would be the first to agree) we need to develop a new set of policies that is relevant for today, not for 1994.

Purnell states:

“We took the electoral furniture to be too fixed. We didn't think about creating a new coalition and I think that's what we need to do now. To be honest I think we were too conservative about our means, so it was easier to take on arguments on the left, not the right. So what I want to try and do now is be as radical on the left as on the right.

"I think we need to go back and clarify values which underlie new Labour and be very candid about what worked and didn't work”.

Even Tony Blair’s biggest fans, myself included, have to accept that what worked and what was right in 1997, isn’t necessarily what will work now.

We shouldn’t forget about the electoral coalition that got Labour elected in 1997 but nor should we get ourselves trapped in a permanent time warp. Sometimes even the best ministers still think they need to fight the 1997 election all over again.

That is why it is interesting Purnell will be talking to people like Jon Cruddas over the next few months, as he leads a three year project for Demos. Why shouldn’t Purnell, Cruddas and others start setting out their own ideas and vision for the party and the country? We need to be creative about what we we can offer the British public. We don’t need more timidity and indecision.

Even though Cruddas and Purnell offer different perspectives, I would expect both of them to be powerful voices in opposition. They both ‘get it’ that New Labour needs refreshing. The real issue will be whether, as a party, we are willing to listen to and give their ideas a chance.

Let’s wait and see.

What can we learn from the West Wing?

Writing in this week's Observer Andrew Rawnsley states that Josiah Bartlet has a lot to answer for.

Rawnsley uses his article to criticise David Cameron and Tony Blair before him of trying to turn Downing Street into a mini West Wing.

Is Rawnsley right?

On one level he probably is. In the West Wing decisions are made by Josh, CJ and Sam as they dash from meeting to meeting at a breakneck speed. "Impromptu, informal, haphazard gatherings", as Rawnsley calls them, are probably not the best way of reaching decisions. He argues it was this sort of approach which led to some of the most disastrous periods of the Blair Government - like the dodgy dossier.

On this I tend to think he is right. Meetings for meetings sake are a pointless waste of time. But there is value in stopping a moment, weighing up the facts, listening to dissenting voices, considering the options and then reaching a decision.

But Rawnsley is wrong on another level because he fails to understand the point of the West Wing. It was about recapturing the idealism of politics. And it would seem to me that British politics could do with more of this.

A tight knit group of young, idealistic, talented and intelligent people helped turn around the Labour Party in the mid 1990s. But we have lost that magic now. We have lost that ambition and hunger and idealism that helps propel parties into power.

Unlike Josiah Barlet, we have also become afraid of our own liberalism and social democracy. Bartlet was a liberal lion who wasn't afraid to champion difficult or unpopular causes. In fact it was what gave him his authenticity. I think we try to triangulate too much and we forget our values.

The West Wing showed that you could be true to your values and still be politically skillful and electorally successful. It would seem to me that we should try to emulate this as much as possible.

In British politics we need more Josiah Barlets and fewer Francis Urquharts.

Have the Tories changed on gay rights?

The rainbow flags were flying in Soho this weekend as London celebrated Gay Pride.

Not wanting to miss an opportunity, Westminster's politicians have been falling over themselves to prove their gay credentials.

Last week, David Cameron said "sorry" for Section 28, the law which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools. Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, described the apology as "historic".

In a reversal of historic trends, it appears that the Conservatives have certainly made it possible once again for gay men and women to vote for them.

A poll conducted by Jake, the professional gay networking organisation, found that out of over 600 gay men and women, 38% said they would vote Conservative if an election was held tomorrow, while only 20% would vote Labour - figures which mirror the national polling preferences too.

In constituencies in London, the key battleground for next year's election, the 'pink vote' could be decisive.

The National Portrait Gallery also played host last week to a debate between senior gay political figures about which party could offer the gay vote more.

Ben Bradshaw MP (the new Secretary of State for Culture), Chris Bryant MP (Foreign Officer Minister), Nick Herbert MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Defra), Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Universities) and Nick Boles (PPC for Grantham) were all in attendance.

There was even a brief appearance from Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister's wife. She also led the Pride parade as it worked its way through London's streets on Saturday.

However, both Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant used the occasion at the Gallery to attack their Tory colleagues, claiming that many Conservative MPs and PPCs were still prejudiced.

I think it is right for Labour to remind people of the great work it has done extending gay rights - one of the really successful achievements of the Blair years. But I am not sure it is fair any more to criticise the Tories on this. In any organisation, there is bound to be some element of prejudice. After all, it is made up of humans. But the Tory leadership, at the very least, has changed on this. And shouldn't social democrats in particular, accept that people can make mistakes and forgive them for it?

At the National Gallery, the most eloquent and articulate speaker, turned out to be Nick Herbert, the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environmment.

In his speech, he gave credit to the Labour Government for establishing the legal framework for gay equality and was honest about previous Conservative failings in this area. But he quoted David Cameron's first conference speech when the new leader stated that marriage between two men was equally valued as marriage between a man and a woman, and reminded the audience that it was important to remain vigilant in the future.

This is not the Tory voice of Norman Tebbit or John Hannam, the MP Ben Bradshaw originally defeated in Exeter. Herbert represents a new generation of Tories who recognise the importance of gay rights legislation. They are not going to roll back the clock now. And I think Labour has to accept this. It also has to accept that there are many people who will now begin to look at the Tories in a different light and, as the poll suggests, are willing to vote for them.

It would be better for Labour to fight the Tories on what we can offer for the future, like what are we going to do about homophobic bullying in schools, rather than hark back to the fights of yesterday.

It is often said that gay men and women are the first to start a new trend and are always just one step ahead of the curve.

Labour strategists may be conceeding that it would be ironic indeed, if, after all the progress Labour has made over the last ten years, it is the Conservatives who turn out to be the biggest beneficiaries of the pink vote at the next election.

Building Britain's Future

The Prime Minister’s package of reforms that he announced today, “Building Britain’s Future”, is good stuff.

It has been attacked for containing ‘rehashed ideas’ but it does establish clear dividing lines with the Tories and there is an attempt at the ‘vision thing’ in it.

Importantly, it is an opportunity to move away from the economy and get back to reforming the public services which have been understandably neglected over the last year.

The parts I liked included:

• The mandatory training or employment for every young person who has been out of work for a year

• Training or a school place for each 16 or 17 year old

• An energy bill which pledges support for 4 CCS demonstration projects

• Extra investment in housing with a focus on new council build; and

• Reform of the House of Lords

All of this was positive and right.

However, I still think that the Government’s strategy of going into the next election with an offer of Labour investment versus Tory cuts is fundamentally wrong. I don’t think it is going to wash with the British public.

We have a £140 billion debt. Our public finances have taken a battering. Everyone knows this. It is isn’t credible or truthful to go into the next election saying that we’re going to carry on spending at the same level as we are doing now.

We all know that there will be tough choices ahead and yes indeed, some cuts. Wouldn’t it be better for Labour to be honest about this? Draw a line in the sand with 4 or 5 key things that we will defend like new Sure Start centres and then tell the British public where the sacrifices will be made.

I would start with Trident and ID cards for one. Both are totally unnecessary, have clear alternatives and would save us billions. It isn’t too late to do this and still be believed.

The political journos and the Westminster village might worry about u-turns but all the British public are concerned about is making the right decision. On this, I think the public would reflect and think the Government had got it right.

If we just start telling people that the Tories will cut 10% across the board, we face the danger that the public might actually think this a good idea. I don’t know anyone who would like to see their taxes increased as an alternative. It simply isn’t a good enough argument to vote Labour.

And while Brown had a good day today so did Cameron. I know some people think this is a problem for the Tory leader, but I think he is most effective when he is angry.

At the press conference he gave this morning he was asked about the debate over Labour investment and Tory cuts and he replied:

"I don't care what the government does any more. They can announce cuts, they can announce increases, they can set out whatever they want. Set the whole thing to music and do a karaoke. I have lost faith in a prime minister who stands up and says black is white. We will make our own decisions about what's right for the country."

This was powerful, brutal, elegant and steely stuff. If Mandelson saw this he should worry.

It just goes to show you that even when Labour has good news days, Cameron now has the power to effectively hijack our coverage.

Today was a good start for Brown after the tumultous last few weeks but we are not even close to being out of the woods yet. He must know this.

Alan Milburn Stepping Down

I have been on holiday the last couple of weeks hence the lack of blogging.

But I did consider Alan Milburn's decision to stand down at the next election, announced yesterday, as further evidence that senior people within the Party have given up on Labour winning the next election.

This isn't a criticism, merely an observation. John Hutton and Alan Milburn have both concluded that they are done with front line politics and don't want to spend another ten years slugging it out on the opposition benches. They have done their service so I can't really blame them.

I think both are quite creative thinkers so it's a bit of a loss for the future. But it can also be a window of opportunity. Fresh blood and fresh thinking is what's required - a new generation of Labour activists to take the Party forward - so it's no bad thing that one or two of the Party's top brass calls it a day.

We Bottled It

It looks like a done deal then. Gordon Brown is staying on as leader. The Party bottled it. What a pity.

At last night's make or break PLP meeting, there simply wasn't enough support to challenge the Prime Minister.

It was blind loyalty that allowed Labour to walk into electoral defeat in 1983 and we are repeating the same mistake now.

Last night, Brown claimed he would change. I don't believe he can. I don't believe a word he says.

Well done to Tom Harris and Charles Clarke for sticking to their guns and saying what they thought. I agree with them 100%.

Well done to Jane Kennedy too. She got into politics to fight the bullies of Militant in Liverpool and she has resigned because of the bullies at Number Ten. Another one of the many good ministers who have resigned over the last few days.

I attended the Progress event last night in Parliament, held just minutes after the PLP showdown and there was little sympathy on show for the Prime Minister.

Although the acting Director of Progress, Jessica Asato and Ben Bradshaw, the new Culture Secretary, valiantly tried to steer the discussion onto policy there was no getting away from the elephant in the room.

The question marks over leadership and loyalty could not be ignored.

Stephen Byers, the former Transport Secretary, launched a withering attack on the PM which was received with considerable applause by the audience.

Ben Bradshaw, convincing and articulate (why wasn’t he in the Cabinet sooner?) responded with a passionate defence of the PM which helped to change a few members’ minds.

Arguments were strong on both sides. The passion intense.

But the overall feeling was that nothing was really resolved. My sense was that the audience was split 50:50 on the leadership – much like the Cabinet, MPs and the Labour Party.The Prime Minister will limp on like a wounded elephant.

But we should have had more courage to remove him, particularly after the poll in the Independent today suggests that Alan Johnson is more popular than Brown and would deny the Tories an outright victory.

After achieving 15% of the vote in the European elections and losing to the Conservatives in Wales, believe me, it doesn't get worse than this!

I believe that the Labour Government needs an ambitious, radical programme of change between now and the next election. This should start with the type of massive constitutional and electoral reform many people have been calling for.

Number Ten should forget about all the small initiatives and concentrate on 4 or 5 big ideas that can get pushed through in the next ten months. This is where our possible salvation lies.

But Gordon Brown isn't the person to do this.

He lacks the legitimacy, credibility and authenticity to do it properly. He is neither liked, respected or trusted.

As Tom Harris points out, the British people already have a settled view of him and this will not change. He is a liability to the Labour Party and the wider movement of progressive politics. By clinging on, he does the country a grave disservice.

And if you think that a change of leader would necessarily force us into an early election, then you should read Polly Toynbee's convincing argument in the Guardian today. There is a way of changing the leader and still delaying an election until next year.

This was our chance to get rid of Brown and the Party blew it. After the next election, we will all have to live with that guilt - some more than others.

I am prepared to admit that my judgement about Brown might be wrong. I also recognise that there is now a settled view of him. He is staying on and we go into the next election with him. After this week, you won't hear me call for a change of leader again. These are my last words on it.

But I suspect that no matter how good Brown's speech to the PLP was last night and no matter how much he tries to change, most Party members know that its over. It will take more than just one good speech to turn around the fortunes of this Government.

My Forecast for the European Election Results

Tonight, when the European election results come through, Labour will have performed very badly.

I predict that Labour's share of the vote will be less than 20%. We will be lucky if we hold one MEP per region.

More seriously, in one area at least, we will come behind UKIP. All that money sloshing around Nigel Farrage will have worked. Voters will flock to the fringes and desert Labour in droves. The BNP will do well enough in some areas, probably the North West, to make all of us worry.

Because the elections are proportional, the humiliation will be worse for Labour because the elections mean more.

The results will be more ammunition to those that think, like I do, that Brown must go. They will be an indictment on his calamitous leadership.

Our presence and effectiveness in the European Parliament will be severely curtailed. Our influence in Europe will diminish.

John Prescott on Labour Home blamed a bad campaign. True. But he then rather pathetically focused his attack on Caroline Flint and other current and former members of the Cabinet who he accused of not doing enough. Wrong. It takes more than just licking a few more envelopes and knocking on a few more doors to win John.

You need vision, direction and leadership. Brown did not make a single substantial speech on our membership during the whole campaign. He demonstrated no leadership and his visibility was virtually nil. The buck stops with him.

One more reason why he should go.

Like shuffling the deck chairs about on the Titanic

Another tumultuous day in Westminster.

Another awful day for the Labour Party.

We have become a laughing stock.

Gordon Brown’s reshuffle is a bit like shuffling the deck chairs around on the Titanic. It ain’t gonna solve anything.

It is window dressing – something which the Prime Minister knows all about, according to Caroline Flint.

Her brave and direct attack on Brown is very serious because we all know it is true. By the way it is not just women he treats like that, its men too.

However, she weakened her case by professing such loyalty only twenty four hours before. In the end, at least she had the courage to eventually say what she thought, unlike some of her colleagues. It was a stinging rebuke to a Prime Minister who treats his colleagues with utter contempt and sanctions the poisonous briefings against them which have sadly become the norm in the Brown Government. Flint has done the right thing.

What a pusillanimous Cabinet. They have tied their fortunes in with Brown and they’ll go down with him. After the next election, James Purnell will be in a very strong position indeed.

I can understand the disappointment of many MPs that not a single other Cabinet Minister was prepared to support Purnell, even though many of them privately agree with him. If Miliband ever hoped to be leader, his chances have surely now gone for good.

The fact is Labour has never had such a disastrous local election result. We are no longer in charge of any county councils. We have lost in places like Lancashire and Derbyshire which should be the backbone of Labour Party support. They have gone – perhaps for good. Responsibility for this rests with Brown.

I am an instinctive Party loyalist and I have defended this Government until I am blue in the face. But Brown has tested my loyalty to the limits and I can no longer support him. He is dreadful. I do not want anything to do with him.

In nailing my colours to the mast, I know I will be criticised. I still believe in the Labour Party and its values. I still believe that a Labour Government is always preferable to a Tory one and I still believe that our Party can go on to achieve great things for the British people. I am Labour through and through and prepared to accept it if people think I am wrong. But I can’t be loyal to a Prime Minister I have no confidence in. I have no faith in him and no belief.

If he thinks that bringing Alan Sugar into the Government (who, incidentally I do admire) as Enterprise Tsar is suddenly going to provide us with the vision and direction we need, he is very fickle. What next, ‘Casualty actor’ for Cancer Captain? Please.

To lose half a dozen Cabinet Ministers within four days makes his position look untenable and yet he clings to power with a desperation that makes him look pathetic.

And yet, cling he does. The rebels are divided and unsure. They may even cock this up – which would make it all pointless. I urge them not to.

Purnell, Milburn, Clarke and those on the Progress wing of the Party have to find a way of working with the impressive Jon Cruddas and his Compass band of supporters. It is nothing to do with being Blairite or Brownite, on the left or on the right of the Party. It is about character and values. The Prime Minister lacks both. He is an electoral liability. A change of leader would be a damage limitation exercise which might mitigate our loss at the next General Election.

If we change leader, we can find a way of uniting behind a centre left agenda – starting with huge reform of Parliament in an attempt to regain voters’ trust – that could recapture the political initiative and lead us into the next election in a stronger position. Remember, the Conservatives didn't have the brilliant night they had been hoping for on Thursday. Their vote was down, hardly a ringing endorsement for Cameron.

But Brown is an obstacle to any chance of reform. He does not have the trust or credibility to see it through.

The Euro election results are going to be equally as bad for the Party and powerful because they are proportional. MPs should seriously consider them on Sunday night, weigh up how this would look in a General Election and act decisively on Monday when they return to Westminster.

The British public would never forgive us if we gave up on them. But if we stick with Brown, we seal our fate and theirs. We leave them to the rot of a Tory Government.

The pressure on him must be maintained. More ministers must resign. More senior figures on the backbenches need to speak out. There should be a secret PLP vote on Monday night. Time is running out to get rid of him. Go he must and go now.

*I was very angry when I wrote this, apologies.

For the love of God, Go

It is clear to many of us that Gordon Brown must go. He has neither the character nor the policies to see us through to the next election. As long as he remains Prime Minister a Conservative election victory is more likely.

It is for this reason and for the sake of the Labour Party and the country that Gordon Brown must go.

He should resign or be pushed.

He has no vision for the country.

He is not trusted.

He is not liked.

He is not competent.

And he is not respected.

It is time he went.

He is simply not up to the job.

James Purnell’s decision to resign to force Brown’s hand is very brave. He has been prepared to put his reputation on the line and for this I applaud him. His reasons for leaving are clear and heartfelt. It is an act of immense honesty. He quits, now Gordon must quit.

Loyalty is an underestimated quality. But loyalty for loyalty’s sake is just plain stupid. And tribalism is ridiculous, when you are heading towards political annihilation.

I hope that all Labour MPs and those that love the Labour Party, like I do, do what is necessary to get rid of Brown. This isn’t about saving your own skins, it’s about saving the Labour Party and as long as he remains in charge the Party has no chance of being rescued.

If we cannot save the Labour Party then we leave the country to face the Tories. This would be unforgiveable. There are many people who depend on a Labour Government and we would be hanging them out to dry if we let Cameron in through the back door.

The rebels are not just the usual malcontents either. Blears, Purnell and Smith must have agonised over their decisions and thought it through hard. We need a leadership election to unite behind a different leader – one who doesn’t have Brown’s personal and political flaws – who can communicate with the electorate, provide us with a vision for the country and reconnect with voters.

If the local and European elections are half as bad as we can expect then the man responsible for this is Brown too. I have not known what to say on the doorstep to defend him. I don’t know what Gordon Brown believes in, I don’t know what his vision is for the country.

It is with a heavy heart, that I urge Gordon Brown to resign.

If he is not prepared to, we – as a Party – must get rid of him.

Hazel Blears Is Right

Hazel Blears decision to resign is brave and politically astute.

Constantly underestimated, Blears has shown her steel. Rather than knifing the Prime Minister in the back, she has looked him square in the eyes and done it.

Fed up with being briefed against, she must hope that her decision to leave government and pre-empt a ministerial reshuffle will fatally undermine the Prime Minister.

I don’t believe she would have done it if she thought Labour had any chance of winning the next election with Brown as its leader. Like many of us, she has concluded that as long as he stays, we are headed for defeat. And she cares too much about the Labour Party to do nothing and let that happen.

She owes him no loyalty. He has shown her none. Her loyalty is to the people of Salford and elsewhere who depend on a Labour Government and would suffer under a Tory one. She resigned for them.

Like Jacqui Smith (and maybe others) why would she want anything to do with a Government that was drifting to defeat? Better to get out and disassociate yourself from it and him. And campaign for Labour on your own strengths and values.

It is interesting that it is the women in the Government who seem to be leading this charge. They obviously don’t like Brown’s brand of politics. I don’t blame them. I agree.

Without her, the Cabinet will be a worse place. She was doing good work as Communities Secretary and her political instinct is better than most of her colleagues. She speaks to a wider audience than just the party or the trade unions and she is a great campaigner.

A personal consideration must be at work here too. She was badly damaged by the expenses scandal and I am sure she is the first to admit that she needs to win back some trust starting in Salford and then elsewhere. She can do it – this is retrievable for her but she will have to work hard to win over Salford’s sceptical voters. She is one of the best campaigners the party have and I have every faith she will.

Blears will relish the opportunity of taking on the Tories from opposition and she will be good at it. No, she shouldn’t be counted out. This is not the last we have heard from her.

Anyone who thinks the Labour Party and progressive politics needs saving from fifteen years of opposition to a Tory Government should applaud Hazel’s actions.

If only more were braver.

We look like a rabble

Jacqui Smith’s resignation was inevitable. She jumped before she was pushed.

But, I can’t help thinking it’s all ended a bit sadly for her. I was not her greatest fan. She made mistakes, like over the Gurkhas or 42 day detention, which could have been avoided. But the failure of these policies rests solely at the door of Number Ten and it would be wrong to blame her for the government’s troubles.

I hope she fights to keep her seat at the next election and is successful.

The resignation of Tom Watson is more interesting. One of Brown’s henchman, he was plotter in chief when an attempt was made to remove Tony Blair a few years ago. He may have personal reasons for quitting, but like Patricia Hewitt and Beverley Hughes perhaps he already sees the writing on the wall. Very few sensible people should mourn his departure.

And yet a reshuffle could be very dangerous. If Brown demotes Miliband and sacks Blears they could both go nuclear.

Blear’s credibility is damaged (perhaps irrevocably) but she would be a dangerous threat on the backbenchers and should not be counted out.

If Miliband refuses to be moved, there would be nothing to stop him from sticking the knife in.

It would also seem unfair to remove Alistair Darling – although I accept that this might be inevitable know. He has been steady and courageous in the face of very difficult circumstances and to remove him, might look like Brown is repudiating his own policies.

The effect of yesterday’s resignations makes the Party look like a rabble – leaderless, unfit to govern, incompetent.

Number Ten has no control over events. Ministers are making their own calculated decisions, MPs are refusing to act. Rather than doing what is necessary to save the Government and the Labour Party, they are thinking only about saving their own skins. Can anyone blame them?

An excellent editorial in today’s Guardian, makes it clear what needs to be done.

On a final note, the decision to stop Ian Gibson standing at the next election is a harsh one I think. I know he is an awkward maverick and annoys lots of people. His judgement and politics, at times, is questionable. But he is also one of Parliament’s few trained scientists, with a nationally renowned reputation in cancer medicine. He supports the work of many cancer and patient charities – who will miss him being around – and I can’t help thinking Parliament will be a worse place without him. He is certainly not corrupt.

But that is what the expenses scandal has done – ruined reputations and ended careers.

A New Supreme

Congratulations again to Barack Obama for stealing a march on the Republicans and everyone else by nominating Sonia Sotomayer as the first Latino on the Supreme Court.

She would replace David Souter, a liberal, who is due to retire in June.

With issues like civil rights, gun control, abortion and terror laws likely to rear their head over the coming decade, Sotomayer's elevation to the Court will ensure it does not tilt too far to the right.

You can already hear the Republicans sniping though.

They argue that her radical, hard left judicial activism makes her an inappropriate choice to defend the Constitution. But I wonder why John Roberts right wing conservativism made him a better one. (He is the current Chief Justice and was nominated by Bush a few years ago).

Incidentally, there is nothing hard left or radical about her approach to issues like affirmative action, which just seem like good, mainstream, liberal common sense to me.

A female Latino Justice makes the Court a more diverse place which is a better reflection of America as it stands today. And a court which is a more accurate reflection of society is a better, more legitimate one.

The fact that she was appointed to her first judicial post by George Bush Snr and then promoted by Bill Clinton also shows that she must have some bipartisan appeal. Her back story also makes her an appealing choice.

Anyway, all of this reminds me of the time the West Wing staff nominated Glenn Close to the Supreme Court. It was a good episode.

What next for Parliament?

In today’s Guardian, Ed Miliband is quoted as saying that there needs to major constitutional and political reforms in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal.

I think he is right.

There hasn’t been a better time in the last ten years for Labour to make the case for political reform. I believe there is genuine public appetite for it and I believe it might just help Labour reverse its declining political fortunes too. This is what I would do:

- Cut the number of MPs to roughly 500-550 and let an outside, independent body set the pay levels. MPs should abide by this

- Continue reforming the House of Lords. Have a partially elected, partially appointed second chamber with fewer peers

- Introduce the idea of open primaries.To David Cameron’s credit, the Conservatives have piloted this idea in the selection of some of their PPCs and it has thrown up some interesting choices. We also saw in the US that it can be a really exciting way to rejuvenate the political process. It keeps MPs on their toes and might help remove the odd one or two who have just sat on their seats for 20 years

- Beef up the powers and responsibilities of Select Committees and their Chairs, paying their members more and turning them into a genuine alternative to a ministerial career. We need our select committees to behave like Congressional committees. In the long run, this leads to better government and better legislation

- Members of Parliament who have made inappropriate expenses claims should be encouraged to step down and if they refuse to do so their local parties should deselect them. Those that have committed fraud must be prosecuted

- It is not unreasonable to expect non London MPs to have a second home in the capital in order to do their jobs properly. Taxpayers should pay for the rent or mortgage, council tax and utilities but nothing more. Here is a novel idea – the fees office should enforce the rules

- MPs should behave less like social workers and delegate some constituency casework back to local councillors where it can be dealt with more appropriately. There need not be hard and fast rules about this, but we should have a proper debate about the role of MPs in the future. Constituency casework should only inform a MPs understanding about the issue, it is not for MPs to fix everyone’s broken fences

- PR. We should go into the next General Election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform based on Roy Jenkins proposals. I have no idea where I stand on this yet – and, in the end, our current system might actually still be the best one - but it is an argument worth having and people should be offered a choice about it

This is not an exhaustive list and other suggestions should be considered. But, the system does need an overhaul and some of this has to start happening before the next election. We have a parliamentary system which people no longer have faith in and a question mark hangs over its legitimacy.

I also think if Brown goes for this it will look like he is taking proper action to fix the system and I think people will have respect for that. It is not enough for us to win the next election on, but we can outflank the Tories on it and importantly do the right thing. It would be best if it wasn’t done in a piecemeal fashion either. After all, it was someone else who once said, “we are best when we are boldest”.

From the mother of all parliaments to the mother of all scandals

I haven’t blogged about the expenses scandal so far because I am quite literally speechless. I haven’t been able to find a way to articulate my anger.

But I don’t want to be accused of burying my head in the sand and hoping it will go away. It won’t. So this is what I think…

The expenses scandal is so serious and so damaging to the Labour Party and by that token the Government that I believe we are heading to the most crushing electoral defeat that is imaginable.

After this, Labour will be out of power for decades.

It might not be fair but Labour is the governing Party and we will suffer the most.

I also sort of expect Tory grandees to claim for their moats and country estates but not Labour MPs. I expect Labour people to have a higher moral and ethical code. I expect them to be governed by strong values. I expect them to have a better sense of fairness. But the whole affair has just proven how morally bankrupt some Labour MPs are.

I am so disappointed that I just don’t know how to defend the Party at all. I don’t know what to say on the doorstep.

In particular, I feel personally let down by Hazel Blears.

If you have read my blog before, you will know how highly I rate Blears. I think she is a wonderful politician and for a long time she was something of a political hero. I have defended her for years. She is one of the most genuine, authentic politicians on the Labour benches and someone who I think still does care and should be listened to.

But her actions leave me feeling depressed. She will no longer be able to talk about social justice, poverty or a fairer distribution of tax with the same credibility and authenticity that she once had. How can she look her Salford constituents in the eyes anymore? How can she ever have thought her actions were acceptable and above reproach?

She has adopted some sort of ‘masochism’ strategy to try and get through it – appearing on every news channel, hopping on her motorbike, carrying on business as usual – but wouldn’t a bit more contrition be in order? Where is her mea culpa? Where is the mea culpa from any of them?

How can Labour talk about benefit fraud when some Labour MPs have committed fraudulent acts?

How can we talk about fairness and helping ‘hard working families’ through the recession when some of our MPs are claiming hundreds of pounds worth of food each month?

Why should I pay for their groceries from Waitrose?

Why should I pay for David Miliband’s potted plants?

What are they spending the money on that they actually earn?

Until Brown decided to suspend Elliot Morley’s membership of the PLP (quite rightly in my opinion), there was a typical lack of leadership from Number Ten. There was a vacuum at the heart of government about what to do and how to respond. But why should that be surprising?

The only person who came out stronger was David Cameron. He turned what could have been a potentially catastrophic day for the Conservatives into his strongest day yet as leader.

He took quick, decisive action in forcing some of his shadow cabinet members to pay the money back. He looked in control of events and in chime with the mood of the public. It was reminiscent of Tony Blair in his heyday and exactly what Blair would have done.

I think MPs should get a second home and should be able to claim back rent or mortgage, council tax and utilities bills on their second properties. But there a line should be drawn. It isn’t acceptable that we pay for their scatter cushions and bottles of gin.

Some have said that it’s the system which is at fault and to an extent it is. But the rules were very clear, they just weren’t properly enforced. And, anyway, why shouldn’t we trust that Members of Parliament, who decide our laws, will have their own set of ethics to police them?

It is clear that many don’t.

The real tragedy is that cynicism and apathy about politics just increases – as if it wasn’t bad enough to begin with.

An Inconvenient Truth

The last few days have seen further speculation about Gordon Brown's position as Labour leader. But interventions from Stephen Byers, Charles Clarke, David Blunkett and now Hazel Blears do not mean the "tectonic plates" are moving.

It is certainly true that the last week has been another horrendous week for the government - since the last one.

For Brown to place himself on the wrong side of the Gurkha issue just defies belief. Sometimes in politics there are clear rights and wrongs. And this issue was one of those. To hear Brown try and wriggle out of it, with a few weaselly words about the financial implications of resolving the issue, was utterly embarrassing and shameful.

But not only did he get the decision wrong, he managed to force the opposition leaders into bed with one another too. Hardly the evidence of a masterful tactician at Downing Street.

But Hazel Blear's comments this weekend are potentially the most serious. And I agreed with them 100%.

As an authentic Labour voice and one of the most impressive members of the Cabinet, Hazel Blears is more qualified than most to tell the Party a few inconvenient truths. She is right to argue that the Party needs to step up a gear and remedy its "lamentable" failure to get its message across.

Like me, she must be exasperated with the Prime Minister's seeming inability to demonstrate any emotional intelligence whatsoever. He seems to bumble from one crisis to another without even demonstrating the wily cunning of Harold Wilson, who was often deeply unpopular, but managed to survive because he was good at the game of politics.

All too often, Brown gets the decisions wrong and the politics wrong.

However, barring the odd display of strength and leadership ie the G20, some of us have been saying all of this for well over a year. And yet, we are still in a worse position than we were a year ago.

What I cannot excuse are those Labour MPs who have already resigned themselves to losing the next General Election and are therefore not doing anything at all to change the situation. They don't appear to care that the Conservatives are heading to a landslide victory and many of the programmes and policies that we sweated blood for will be overturned or neglected. Burying your head in the sands is not going to place Labour on the right side of a General Election victory.

And I think this is why Hazel Blears made the comments she did. I don't believe she intended to fuel speculation about a leadership challenge. She is too loyal for that. But I think she did intend to kick start a debate in the Party and force it to face some uncomfortable truths about what we are doing and where we are heading. For this she deserves our support and congratulations.

Is New Labour dead?

The obituary writers have been in full swing since last Wednesday's Budget.

Lance Price, writing in the Daily Telegraph and Andrew Rawnsley writing in today's Observer have declared New Labour dead.

They point to the new top rate of tax on higher earners as the final nail in the coffin for the Party that won three general election victories in a row.

Now, I have always considered myself to be an uber-Blairite but I don't think the new 50p top rate of tax has to mean the end of the New Labour project.

It is true that the promise not to raise income tax was central to New Labour's appeal in 1997, but that was 1997.

The circumstances have changed since then.

And if the rumours are to be believed that Tony Blair is privately disappointed with the decision, then he should remember that he would be the first to argue that different circumstances require different solutions. The Tony Blair I know would not hark back to an outdated, irrelevant policy. He would adapt to the changing circumstances.

And I believe that is exactly what Brown and Darling have done.

This is not a tax for its own sake. The £2 billion it will bring in every year will go to paying down the national debt.

It also make sense while we are paying for initiatives to help the young and unemployed through the difficult times ahead.

It doesn't have to mark the end of Labour's commitment to aspiration either. Half of the population earn less than £23k. Most people don't even know someone who earns £100k, let alone £150k. The tax isn't going to affect most people. In fact, the lastest opinion polls show that its popular too - so the politics, for now, is right.

More importantly, it is about fairness.

The top earners in this country have done exceptionally well under the Labour Government. It isn't too much to ask them to pay something back and do their fair share helping Britain mend its finances. We all have a part to play - not least the richest in society who have benefited the most. Remember, aspiration also has to come with social justice.

My only regret is that it would have been more convincing had Labour done this during the fat years. I think people would have been more willing to listen to the case then. It may also have been a good idea to hypothecate the revenue from the new top rate and direct it at eradicating child poverty. It would have been harder for the Conservatives and the Tory press to criticise it then. As it is, Labour will miss its child poverty targets now - a cause of great shame to us.

No doubt the doomsayers will argue that aspiration and entrepreneurialism will be gone under the new tax. That there will be a mass exodus as the richest pack their bags and emmigrate to Spain. Let them. I'm willing to call their bluff.

This is about fairness and justice and doing the right thing. In fact, it's the first good decision this Government has made in a while.

Rather than the end of New Labour, maybe its a different version of New Labour: A Better Labour.

Why We Blog: Our ethic of progressive activism

Just over twelve months ago, I set up this blog because I wanted to start a conversation about politics. I was impressed by the way the Obama campaign had managed to utilise new media to build and drive a coalition of activists. And I wanted to be part of something similar in the UK.

However, as the last few weeks have shown, there are many people who think bloggers are just the purveyors of scurrilous rumours, innuendo and gossip.

I think blogging can have a positive impact on our political process though. I believe it can help kick start debate and I think it can reach people which the traditional print media ignores. Blogging can be a tool of empowerment.

That’s why I am one of the signatories to the following statement. We are a group of like minded individuals who believe that blogging can make an important contribution to progressive politics. There is no room in our world for the politics of personal destruction and we reject the argument that the internet is “inevitably a force for anti-politics”. This is our ethic of progressive activism. Let me know what you think.

WHY WE BLOG
Our ethic of progressive activism

Please let us know what you think: you can sign this statement at http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/, post or write about it on your own blog, discuss this with those who have signed it on the participating blogs linked below, or discuss it http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/twitter/ on twitter using the hashtag #cwn


We are a group of Labour party members and supporters who believe that blogging can make an increasingly important contribution to progressive politics. We are seeking, in different ways, to make our own individual contributions to that, and wish to set out the ethic which informs our blogging and the broader politics we are working for within the Labour Party and beyond it.

Many of these are truths which should be self-evident. We are well aware that the broad spirit which we seek to articulate has long informed what most Labour bloggers do, as it also does most of those who blog in other parties and in non-partisan civic activism. So we do not claim any particular originality; still less do we seek to impose our views as a new regulatory code, or to attempt to police others.

Our purpose is simple. We do not believe that new technology leads to inevitable outcomes, but rather that we must all make choices about how we use it and for what purposes.

So we wish to set out why we blog and how we want the party which we support to change so that it can connect to new progressive energy for the causes we support.

1. Ethical and value-based

We believe we must act as ambassadors for the political values we profess. This applies to all politics, online or not. The Obama campaign's power to mobilise was rooted in supporters living its ethic of 'respect, empower and include'. As Labour supporters, we wish to ensure that our values of solidarity, tolerance and respect are reflected in how we do politics as well as the causes we seek to serve.

So we oppose the politics of personal destruction. We believe that the personal can be political, where it reveals the hypocrisy of public statements, the wilful misuse of evidence, or breaches proper ethical standards in public life. Where it doesn't do that, it should be off limits. Politicians should be able to have a family and private life too. A politics of personal destruction violates progressive values and brings all politics into disrepute.

2. Positive about political engagement

We do not believe that the internet is inevitably a force for anti-politics. We reject the mythology of the internet as a lawless and ethics-free zone. Bloggers are subject to law, as well as to the ethical and civic pressures of our online and offline communities. We are clear that the left can never win a politics of loathing and mutual destruction, because the faith in politics that we need will inevitably be a casualty of war. The nihilistic approach practiced by a few online should not overshadow the greater energy and numbers engaged in constructive civic advocacy.

We believe that we can challenge our political opponents without always questioning their integrity. We believe that there are big political arguments to be had between the left and the right of politics, and the left has every reason to be confident about our values and ideas, which have done much to change Britain for the better over the last century and which are in the ascendancy internationally after three decades in which anti-government arguments have often dominated.

We also believe that what is pejoratively called 'negative campaigning' has a legitimate place in politics. Scrutinising the principles, ideas and policies of political opponents is an important part of offering a democratic choice. We should challenge the ideas, claims and sometimes the misrepresentations of our political opponents, just as we would expect them to challenge us. We believe that this is effective when it is done accurately, and that this will become ever more important as the internet makes politics more transparent. So we will point out where there is a mismatch between professed principles and policies, or where the evidence does not back up what is claimed, but we will try not to assume our opponents are in bad faith where we do not have evidence to support that.

3. Pluralist and open

We believe that pluralism must be at the heart of the progressive blogosphere. We believe that debate and argument are what brings life to politics. We want to promote a cultural 'glasnost' of open discussion within our party, to show that we understand that the confidence to debate, and disagree, in an atmosphere of mutual respect helps us to bring people together to make change possible.

We believe we must change the culture of Labour's engagement with those outside the party too, including those who were once our supporters but who are disillusioned, and new generations forming their political opinions. For us, democratic politics is about individuals working together to create collective pressure for change, but also about the need to continue to talk even when we disagree deeply. We believe in engaging with all reasonable critics of the Labour government and Labour Party, wherever we can establish the possibility of taking part in democratic arguments in a spirit of mutual respect.

4. Independent spaces

We believe that attempts to transfer 'command and control' models to online politics will inevitably fail. Labour must show that it gets that - in practice as well as theory - if we are make our contribution to the progressive movements on which our causes depend.

The government and the political parties should use their official spaces to contribute to and enable these conversations. We also want to see Ministers and MPs having the confidence to engage in political debate and argument elsewhere, while being clear that there is no value for anybody in seeking to control independent spaces for discussion.

5. Participatory and cooperative

We believe in a cooperative ethic of blogging, because the internet is most potent when it harnesses the creativity, ideas and expertise of many people. The internet is a powerful tool for individual expression. We believe it also enables citizens to interact and collaborate in ways that were never previously possible, and catalyse new forces for participation and activism. As citizens, and as bloggers, we believe in asking not only what is wrong with the world but how we can work together to improve it.

We hope that others will offer ideas and responses - supportive and critical - about these ideas and how they can help to inform the future of our politics. We know that the outcomes of politics matter deeply, that politics is about passion and argument, and that we may ourselves sometimes fall short of the values and standards that we aspire to.

But this is why we blog - and what we hope to achieve for our politics by doing so.

Sunder Katwala, Fabian Society
http://www.nextleft.org/

Nick Anstead
http://www.nickanstead.com/blog/

Will Straw
http://www.changeweneed.org.uk/

David Lammy MP
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/

Rachael Jolley
http://www.nextleft.org/

Jessica Asato
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/
http://labourwomen.blogspot.com/

Karin Christiansen
http://labourwomen.blogspot.com/

Paul Cotterill
http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/

Laurence Durnan
http://www.blackburnlabour.org/blog

Alex Finnegan
http://www.abigblockofcheese.blogspot.com/

Gavin Hayes
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/

Mike Ion
http://mike-ion.blogspot.com/

Richard Lane
http://www.politicana.co.uk/

Tom Miller
http://newerlabour.blogspot.com/

Carl Nuttall
http://www.blackburnlabour.org/blog

Anthony Painter
http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/

Don Paskini
http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/

Andreas Paterson
http://citizenandreas.blogspot.com/

Asif Sange
http://www.blackburnlabour.org/blog

Stuart White
http://www.nextleft.org/

Graham Whitman
http://gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com/

The Tories Are Not Blameless

Gordon Brown finally apologised for the Damian McBride emails today.

Good. I hope it helps draw a line under the affair.

But one of the most nauseating aspects of the email smear plot has been the Tory reaction to it.

Paddy Ashdown's serialised memoirs in the Sunday Times at the weekend included the following extract about his "Paddy Pantsdown" episode:

"All this made life for my family even more difficult and seriously undermined my self confidence too. That, it appears, was precisely what was supposed to happen - as we discovered after the election, when we learnt that some Tories had imported a group of US activists called "the Nerds", whose job was to spread malign rumours and make unfounded personal accusations against senior opposition MPs."

"Perhaps this was done without official sanction from the top of the Conservative Party. But after the election Kelvin MacKenzie, then editor of The Sun, revealed that at least one cabinet-level Tory minister had approached him seeking to retail scurrilous and untrue allegations against a number of senior opposition MPs."

I don't know if David Cameron read that or not, but it puts a slightly different perspective on his holier than thou comments.

Did I also mention that his Director of Communications, Andy Coulson, was forced to quit his previous post as a News of the World man, after he was implicated in the small affair of the newspaper paying someone to tap into the mobile phones of senior members of the Royal Family?

As this shows, Cameron doesn't exactly surround himself with reputable characters (Coulson, Osborne, Ashcroft...the list goes on).

I am not for one moment trying to diminish the unjustifiable smears McBride was trying to spread.

But it does put things in a bit of perspective. The Tories are certainly not the innocent victims in all of this.

Has Labour succumbed to anger rather than hope?

A great article by Rachel Sylvester in today's Times pretty much sums up what I've already said about the McBride email scandal (see below).

Sylvester is spot on at pointing to the laddish and bullying atmosphere that surrounds Brown.

She is also right that his brand of politics is driven more by anger than hope. Who ever voted for that? If you're in doubt, ask John McCain.

And I was pleased that Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers both spoke out today against this culture which has been allowed to creep into our politics. I know they have their own axes to grind, but in all honesty, who can blame them? They know what it's like to be on the receiving end of such innuendo and smears.

A colleague said to me today that you have got to expect a bit of rough and tumble in politics and after all, it was a "dirty business". But, there is a difference between negative campaigning and exposing your opponents weaknesses and viciously going after people in the way McBride had planned to do. It's immature, petty and not very effective.

As the affair drags on, it leaves me feeling more and more depressed about the leadership of the Party.

Brown is responsible for McBride

There's not many people within the Labour Party who will lament the loss of Damian McBride.

His actions have brought the Party into disrepute and led to huge reputational damage. It is only right that he goes.

Its not like we should be surprised though. McBride has pulled this sort of stunt before, only this time he was directing it at the Tories rather than his own side. No wonder there were so few in the Labour Party willing to defend him. Not for nothing did he earn the nickname, McPoison.

McBride's suggestions for attacking the Tories, which included sexual, emotional and professional smears reveal a deeply flawed, nasty character. People like him are not fit to serve the Prime Minister or the country.

Of course, politics is a blood sport with plenty of rough and tumble. And if you can't dish it out or take it, then you won't last two minutes. But this is the politics of the gutter and it has no place in our system.

McBride and the rest of Brown's cabal are bullies and thugs who think that politics is a big game, one huge joke, in which its all about 'getting one over on the other side'. There's not even a semblance of high minded principle of reason with these folks about.

I am very surprised that Draper, a trained therapist, would find it funny that jokes were being made about the emotional state of George Osborne's wife. Even if this were true, which it isn't, where is the compassion or humanity on display here?

Tony Blair never would have and never did surround himself with advisers who thought this sort of behaviour was acceptable. They didn't plunge to these sorts of depths.

So what does it say about Brown? Well, it once again reveals his Jekyll and Hyde persona. A man who can be so moral, purposeful and good can also resort to the type of political skullduggery and smearing that Richard Nixon would have felt comfortable with.

The Tories want Brown to personally apologise and I think he should. McBride wasn't just a 'here today, gone tomorrow' adviser. He had been with Brown for over a decade and was immensely powerful.

Brown is responsible for McBride's actions because he has presided over a culture at the Treasury and in Number Ten which has allowed this sort of politics to develop. And in that sense he is to blame.

It is a dreadful day for the Prime Minister and a dreadful day for politics.

The Tories Haven't Changed

Where's the evidence that the Conservative Party has changed?

Tomorrow, the Justice Bill returns to the House of Commons where it will seek to make it illegal to incite homophobia.

The Tories have already voted this amendment down THREE times before.

When the Bill was in the House of Commons, only five Conservative MPs supported the ban on inciting homophobic hatred.

In the House of Lords, when the Bill was there previously it was wrecked by some Tory nutter.

And when it went through the Committee stages in the House of Commons earlier this month, all of the Tory MPs on the Committee voted to remove the amendment.

Some of these Tory MPs think it will stop the odd comedian telling a joke or two. It won't. That's not its purpose. It is designed to make it an offence to bully or abuse people because of their sexuality.

The Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles might think its funny to make jokes about gay people but there is absolutely nothing funny about inciting hatred of anybody. Foolish people with half a brain might laugh at 'gay' jokes but really they are just another way of bullying people. I remember similar arguments being made when laws were passed that banned incitement to racial hatred. There should not be any double standards.

If you needed any evidence that the Tories haven't changed one bit you should take a look at their actions over this.

Compassionate conservatism? Now that is a joke.

From New Labour to New Socialism?

I have thought a lot about the article Jon Cruddas wrote in the Guardian this week and I have to say I like the sentiment behind it.

Cruddas understands - and its surprising how few in government do - that a new set of initiatives or policies isn't the solution to Labour's problems. What we need as a Party is a fundamental rethink about what we stand for and where we are heading. Cruddas even suggests a new label: "New Socialism".

What I like is that Cruddas thinks about these things. He understands that the Party needs to find new ways of communicating its values to a different generation of voters. A generation which is much more politically savvy and demanding now. Rehashing the arguments of 1997 or rigidly sticking to New Labour dogma is not going to win us the next election. So we need to revisit what we are for.

I also think he trusts people to make decisions for themselves. He wrote that he wanted to see a new localism, the devolution of public services and proportional representation "not as a preserve of the liberal metropolitan intelligentsia, but as a core mechanism with which to combat a sense of working-class alienation".

Firstly, to talk about devolution of public services and localism is a very Blairite idea. It sounds like he wants people to have choice and to make decisions for themselves. Great. I believe this is a mechanism that drives up quality and standards in public services and is genuinely popular with the electorate. We should steal a march on this before the Tories outflank us with it.

Secondly, he's also trying to find ways of reaching out to the working class, which only him and Hazel Blears seem to be bothered about. Perhaps, it is time that we go back to the idea of electoral reform and reconsider it as a way to do this.

In the same article he also says:

"Labour lost the language of generosity, kindness and community as it lost the tempo of the country. England's abiding culture was never socialist, but as we misunderstood its essential ethic of solidarity we lost our ability to build a politics beyond the market - to mould a radical hope for the country".

I could not have put this better myself. He is not repudiating the last ten years, but he is pointing out that our language needs to adapt and reflect new circumstances. We have to be radical. A positive, forward looking agenda that does seek to build a "Good society" still offers the best hope of winning the next election and staying in power.

At the end of the article he quotes Tony Blair for heaven sake. I think his verdict on Blair is harsher than it ought to be but discovering some of the early radicalism of Blair and using the language of change and hope seems to me to be pretty sensible. He understands this.

At last year's Labour Party Conference in Manchester, I listened to him and Hazel Blears take part in a fringe event. Two politicians, two different outlooks, two sides of the Party. But united by a quality which I think is lacking in some of our politicians: "authenticity". Both of them know what needs to change, both of them say what they think and both of them offer good solutions about how we reach out to people.

In the end, I think that Cruddas just 'gets it'. He understands what needs to be done and his judgement appears good. If he keeps his seat at the next election - and it is a marginal one - this will put him in a powerful position should there be a leadership contest.

Who's Sorry Now?

It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Tories are hypocrites.

But I find it particularly galling that David Cameron has chosen to "apologise" for the Conservative Party's failure to identify the problems in the economy over the past ten years.

In the last few days, the Tory leader has admitted that the Party had not done enough to warn people about the rising levels of debt and borrowing. He said that the Thatcher and Major governments should shoulder some of the blame for the crisis.

But wasn't it the Conservatives who repeatedly criticised the Labour government for too much regulation of the City and business? If we had done what they wanted, goodness knows where would we be now.

After all, Cameron was one of Norman Lamont's special advisers - an arch de-regulator. And I didn't hear him complain about any of this when the good times were rolling.

He may be right to point out that many of our economic difficulties relate to weaknesses that have been there for decades, but in a Tory leader, who once used to advise the government, this sounds pretty hollow and hypocritical.

If he thinks that his so called mea culpa will build trust with the electorate he is politically naive. It only serves to further expose the weakness of the Tory position now.

The Conservatives have been all over the place since the credit crunch hit. They don't know whether to shift left or right, be pro-regulation or anti-regulation.

They don't know whether to pin blame on Labour for the credit crunch or accept some of the responsibility for it themselves.

They don't know whether to stand up for the rich (mostly their chums) or defend the poor.

They don't know whether to be the tough party of law and order and fiscal conservatism, or the party of green taxes and wellbeing.

In short, they don't know what they're doing.

This is not a man with a plan.

All too often, Tory attacks are strident and angry - but not in a good way. There have been times when Cameron, Osborne and the other highly strung members of the shadow front bench team have worked themselves up into a near state of hysteria. They often act and sound like a rabble.

This is not a Party ready for government.

This means there is a good chance that Labour can expose the essential problem at the heart of Tory strategy:

Cameron doesn't know where he stands on the major issue of the day - the economy.

While he is flapping about trying to come up with some ideas about what to do, the Prime Minister must put the knife in and attack the Tories with renewed force.

He needs to expose their weaknesses, undermine the individuals and attack their half baked policies.

This is the path to re-election and it is one which Gordon Brown must follow.

Mandy Gets Gunged

Leila Deen, the woman who gunged Lord Mandelson last week, has just blogged on labourlist.org

Firstly, good for labourlist.org for letting her blog. She’s written a thoughtful piece about the way women are represented in society. Plus, she is a different voice from the usual suspects and that’s a good thing.

But, I don’t think this should excuse her.

What she did last week was neither clever nor thoughtful it was just yobbery pure and simple.

Mandelson was on his way to a summit on how Britain could achieve a low carbon economy. His Department has just launched an industrial strategy for delivering a low carbon economy – which includes things like electric cars, energy efficiency measures and renewable technology, all stuff any self respecting Green should care about - and of course Deen ignores all this.

There’s nothing funny about this type of stunt. Its puerile, silly and a waste of time. It’s also the politics of punishment. She didn’t like the decision Mandelson made over Heathrow (a decision I disagreed with as well) but she thought she would throw green custard over him. Did she think this was going to change his mind?

No, of course not. She wanted to embarrass and humiliate him. I am not sure I like her motivation.

He popped up two minutes later in a new suit with a big grin on his face so the only person who was embarrassed was her.

Not big. Not clever. Just Plane Stupid.

Was Brown's speech any good?

I thought so yes.

It was strong, clear and at times spoken with genuine conviction. Some foolish commentators – who never like what the prime minister does or says anyway - said that there wasn’t much to get your teeth into, but I thought there was plenty of substance.

He pushed the US on climate change and reform of the international economic system and he even reminded his audience not to succumb to protectionist instincts. Quite a brave thing to do considering the current climate of opinion in Washington.

He also didn’t forget to talk about Africa or international development – two issues close to his heart. I thought it was brave of him to mention both in the midst of a recession to a chamber which has a reputation for being hostile to the idea of foreign aid.

If leadership is about bravery and courage then that was firmly on display yesterday.

He also signed up to much of President Obama’s policies like stricter regulations for tax havens. Good. People in the Labour Party have been calling for this for years. His support for Obama's policies must have gone down well in the White House and will have provided the President with crucial political support. I think it's also good politics because it cements our relationship with them. Who cares if the Republicans didn’t clap?

If at times he was a bit too gushing about the US, then I can forgive him this. He actually does love the United States. He holidays there more than Blair ever used to, so his warm praise for American culture and values is entirely natural and authentic.

No, he doesn’t have the star quality of Tony Blair, we know that by now and the jokes were a bit thin on the ground, but the rest was all good stuff.

Typically, sections of the British press tried to concentrate on all the perceived snubs and so-called problems with the visit. The Conservative Party’s Propaganda Chief, Nick Robinson from the BBC, seemed to think his job was to go around trying to catch the Prime Minister out as much as possible, rather than just reporting on what happened. Nothing Brown does or says will ever get reported correctly by cynical hacks.

But, if his job was to make a case for the reforms of the G20 in April and show the British public that he had thought about the issues and had an idea about what to do about them then it was a good job done.

No time to bask in the glory mind - the economy is still crumbling and we are still behind in the polls – but well done Gordon.

Good luck tomorrow, Mr Brown!

Tomorrow Gordon Brown makes one of the most important speeches of his life when he addresses both Houses of the US Congress.

I am still unsure as to why the Obama Administration has granted our Prime Minister this rare honour.

But never underestimate the importance of a set piece speech like this in helping to define an agenda. Some of Tony Blair's speeches like the one he gave to the Labour Party Conference after 9/11 helped to define an era and shape government policy for years. There is a chance that Brown's could be equally significant.

Brown should use the occasion as a chance to push for whole scale international reform of the financial markets and the financial system. This is what he knows best and is most comfortable with - so he should stick to the serious, substantial stuff. There is no need to be hectoring but he must impress on the Americans the importance of international co-operation in fighting the credit crunch and reforming the financial systems. And he must not be afraid to criticise some of the protectionist instincts within the Democrat Party and the wider political scene.

However, he shouldn't try to be something he isn't and fawn over the new President. To be quite frank, any forced familiarity would be embarrassing.

The worst case scenario would be that the whole spectacle of our Prime Minister next to the President would somehow diminish Brown in the voters' eyes and remind them of his flaws - especially next to the charming and eloquent President.

We should see it as a good sign though that a British Prime Minister is the first European leader to meet the President and has been asked to address Congress. It lays to rest the argument put forward by some 'doom-mongers' who said that the special relationship would be over.

In fact it suggests to me that the Obama Administration might be willing to cut Brown some slack over the forthcoming G20 meeting in London in April and agree to the Prime Minister's reforms. Why else would they have allowed him to make a political case directly to the American people? The Prime Minister's speech will be covered tomorrow by the US news networks.

This is excellent news. The current economic situation lends itself to active, interventionist governments which progressives on both sides of the Atlantic should be trumpeting. No doubt Brown will make this case passionately.

Finally, in all of this Brown has to remember that the most important audience is the one at home. I don't believe for a second that the Presidential magic is suddenly going to rub off on Brown and transform him in the eyes of voters. But the occasion might just show Brown at his best.

A Prime Minister - who more than any other world leader - actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy and has a plan about what to do. Brown must convey this tomorrow. If he does, it is job done and who knows it might just enhance his image in the eyes of the voters at home.

Obama announces troop withdrawl from Iraq

Barack Obama fulfilled another campaign pledge this week, when he announced that he was bringing the troops home from Iraq but leaving a residual force there after 2010.

This has not pleased all Democrats though. Some like Nancy Pelosi, Leader of the House Democrats, think he should bring home all of the troops much sooner.

I disagree.

Obama is right to be careful about getting out of Iraq, after all we were careless about getting in. So an exit strategy has to be implemented carefully and properly, making sure we leave Iraq in a better condition than it is now.

However, it does mean that Obama goes into the next General Election having fulfilled his main campaign pledge to end the war.

After all it was this promise that won him the primary in the first place and then the election. Hillary always struggled to explain her initial support for the war amongst Democrat voters and McCain was too pro-war to overcome the suspicion and anti-war sentiment amongst the electorate.

Along with Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo and dismantle the Bush Administration’s so called legal apparatus i.e. torture and rendition, it amounts to yet another repudiation of the Bush Doctrine.

Obama has been so honest and forthright about America’s failures in Iraq, I wonder why our Government is still so reticent to admit to its past mistakes.

Perhaps, it’s because Obama has the authenticity and legitimacy to talk about Iraq because he opposed it in the first place. He does not have to explain any u-turns or wriggle his way out of difficult questions like ours do. We are all guilty of allowing Iraq to turn out the way it did but Obama has his hands clean.

His judgement was right in 2003 when he was marching in the anti-war rallies and his judgement was right again this week when he sought to draw a line under the Iraq War once and for all.

This gives me confidence that when he says he wants to bring the troops home and do it properly, he actually means what he says.

Brown: A drag on the Ticket?

A new Guardian/ICM poll published today shows that two thirds of voters believe Labour would do better under a different leader.

Only 28% believe he is best placed to lead the Labour Party into the next election, compared to 63% who think the Party would do better under a different leader.

But a change of leader ain't going to happen.

The Party had its chance to swap leaders last summer and chickened out - rightly or wrongly. I don't think the Party has the stomach for it now. So that means Gordon Brown is not going to go anywhere. To his credit he will shrug this off and get on with the job but the findings will undermine his authority even more and encourage some of his more foolish colleagues to carry on with their barely concealed leadership campaigns.

The poll also shows that support for the Tories has flatlined at 42%. This might bring some comfort to the Brownites but remember the Tories don't have to do well, they just have to sit there and wait for the government to collapse.

I am at a loss to know what to do about figures like these. The Prime Minister has tried numerous different approaches, with little or no result. What can he do to turn this around? There have been so many attempts at rebranding excercises that they are just not working and anyway the problems run deeper than that. The electorate simply lacks confidence in the government.

Most worryingly Labour now lags behind the Tories on the issue of the economy by six points. Not good. With the economy the single most important factor at the next election Labour should be deeply concerned.

Could Harriet Harman be the next leader of the Labour Party?

Simple answer: no. But neither do I think should she be underestimated.

Westminster seems to be rife with speculation that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party is lining herself up to replace Gordon Brown. The rumour mill is in full swing.

She is certainly popular with activists and party members. She got a good reception in my own constituency, Islington, when she addressed members during the Deputy Leadership contest. But then you might say you would expect that in a place like Islington North. She has been around a long time, has good name recognition – compared to many of Labour’s front bench women – and is obviously very ambitious.

It was a surprise to me that she won the Deputy Leadership election but this probably goes to show how hard she works and how well liked she is with party members and the unions. She has certainly fought her own personal battles with colleagues over policy and I suppose this means she is something of a survivor.

But I think Harriet (for all her qualities) would be a stretch as leader. I just don’t see it.

I don’t think other Labour MPs would vote for her and the Right of the Party would simply not allow it. It would lead to a mass civil war. I also think there are stronger characters.

However, it is impossible to predict what will happen when and if Gordon Brown goes. In fact it is really too early to speculate. Who knows what the circumstances will be like in a year’s time or eighteen months? Everything is possible.

But for now, the Prime Minister is not going anywhere this side of a General Election. At the moment he is the best person to do the job.

And anyway, speculation like this isn’t really helpful. Is Labour really going to replace its leader in the middle of the worst economic recession in seventy years? No.

We should stop our naval gazing and get on with sorting out the economy. The public are the priority. Labour needs to remember this and so do those who are angling for positions now.

My favourite writers...

With Barack Obama now firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, I wanted to say something about two of the best writers who have covered the US election from start to finish. I have been glued to their daily and weekly reports.

Andrew Sullivan, on his blog The Atlantic and in the Sunday Times and Michael Tomasky in the Guardian were early Obama watchers. They spotted his talent and predicted his success, while the rest of the rest of the press pack were still obsessed with Hillary and the whole Clinton drama.

I wouldn’t say they shared exactly the same beliefs but what they do share in common is a lack of cynicism about the political process. A lot of hacks treat politicians with barely concealed contempt and vice versa (deservedly so in some cases) but Sullivan and Tomasky seem to have a genuinely healthy respect for politicians and US politics without being too deferential. This makes their writing free of the usual ‘bitchiness’.

They are also impeccably fine writers – frequently witty, clever and of sound judgement. Andrew Sullivan was even named one of the world’s most influential blogger’s recently.

I’ll stop going on now - you get my drift – but I would encourage everyone to read them.

The Politician's Politician

Channel 4 is about to hold its annual political awards and the most important category in the contest is for the 'Politician's Politician'. This year the contenders are Diane Abbott, John Bercow, Lord Mandelson and George Osborne.

I think Lord Mandelson should get it.

His return to front line politics last autumn was a spectacular coup for the government. Nobody expected him to be recalled from Brussels, mainly because we all thought Gordon Brown hated him. But as the Prime Minister calculated at the time, Mandelson's return was both in the national and the Party interest.

Some interpreted it as a sign of how desperate Brown was, but in politics you do what you need to do to survive. And anyway, it showed that Brown did have a magnanimous streak after all.

Mandelson returned to the Cabinet with the noblesse oblige of an elder statesman being called back to do his duty at a time of national crisis.

And he hit the ground running.

Within weeks, you detected a change in the way the government was conducting its communications. The message was more co-ordinated and focused. The briefings against colleagues which had been in abundance up until Party Conference, seemed to disappear. Yet, the attacks on the Conservatives multiplied.

This culminated in the one man campaign Mandelson seemed to wage against George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor. The story of the Greek yacht saga may have dented Mandelson slightly but it irrevocably damaged Osborne more in the eyes of his Party and the country. It was classic Peter. The message was clear: 'I'm back, don't mess with me'.

Mandelson, the arch strategist, seemed to instill a new sense of direction and purpose in the government. The result: Labour's poll numbers shot up, briefly coming close to overtaking the Tories.

He was perfect for the role of Business Secretary. His international experience negotiating the world trade deals on behalf of the EU made him probably the most experienced member of the Cabinet there was. He has an instinctive understanding of what business wants. And like Brown, he correctly believes that free trade and free markets can be used for social ends.

In this role he has called for a more 'mixed economy' less reliant on financial services. Last week, he bailed out the car industry, saving jobs and livelihoods. He has also called for the part-privatisation of the Post Office. A necessary step I believe to ensuring that there is a Post Office at all in the future.

Mandelson brings a level of competence and expertise to the Cabinet - which, let's face it - wasn't there beforehand. I never feel with Mandelson, that he has given up on securing Labour a fourth term. He may know it is an uphill struggle, but unlike some members of the PLP and the Cabinet, he is not just waiting around to collect his pension. He is keen to ensure that the New Labour legacy survives and adapts for the future. He has a hunger and energy which counteracts the fatalism of some in the Labour Party.

Most importantly from my perspective, Mandelson is an antidote to some of the people the Prime Minister surrounds himself with. His judgement and strategy when it comes to politics are second to none - much better than some of those cynical young men the Prime Minister normally listened to.

Of course, not everything has gone smoothly. He still needs to do more to win over people in the Labour Party and the media and he should have really chosen his words more carefully last week, when he was commenting on the wildcat strikes.

But these are minor blips. Lord Mandelson (a bit like Tony Blair) has star quality. When he speaks, you listen. He commands authority and respect. With him in the government, I feel more confident.

Yes, the real test is how to get Britain out of this recession and get Labour a fourth term. But, these are all contests for another day. For now, I think he deserves to win the Channel 4 one.

"British Jobs for British Workers"

“British Jobs for British Workers”

When Gordon Brown first said this nearly two years ago, I felt distinctly uneasy.

I know when he said it he meant that he wanted to see every British citizen equipped with the skills they needed to get ahead, but I thought then that it would be taken to mean something else. And, anyway, it was an ugly phrase.

Now it’s come back to haunt him.

Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that the wild cat strikes of last week were “indefensible”. Really?

I think the economic circumstances made it pretty likely there was going to be this sort of anger and disruption. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened again.

I don’t think we can just dismiss these concerns out of hand. A lot of people share the perception that jobs they want and need are going to foreign workers. There is no denying this. It is not ‘indefensible’ for them to be concerned.

The Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet need to address this. They could start by making a strong argument to people out there why the free movement of labour and an outward-forward looking approach to immigration has served this country so well and will continue to do so.

If Brown really wanted to, he could talk of the dangers of protectionism and make the case again why globalisation (not unfettered or unchecked) is best placed to serve this country.

The politicians, academics, bankers and economists at Davos have been doing this all week, but have any of them made this case to their own domestic populations? At Davos, you are preaching to the converted.

What Brown really needs to do is go into the country on the front foot and explain the situation. The fact is that now that Britain’s economy is faltering, many immigrants who came here from Eastern Europe are returning from whence they came. And what if other countries adopted similar stances? Would the 2.4million Brits living in the rest of Europe suddenly find themselves kicked out because the Italians wanted Italian jobs for Italian workers?

By the same token, I would also find out why it is that companies like Total feel the need to bring in workers from Portugal and Spain and do not use local workers. Is there a reason for this? Has it been explained? Is it because of the local skills base and if so, what can the government do to change this?

The government mustn’t pander to prejudice – because undoubtedly some of this is – but it should also recognise that many people perceive a fundamental unfairness in the balance of work between local citizens and foreign workers.

While I think Frank Field’s suggestion that the government should legislate so companies only use British workers in the first instance, is a step too far, I do think he is right to point out that the government could be doing more to address people’s concerns.

I am still thinking about how you do that (and I am sorry I don’t have the answers yet) but as the economy get worse, this situation is likely to increase.

The Prime Minister should take last week’s strike actions as an early warning.

Labour's free cancer drug scheme

It has largely gone unnoticed by the British press and the vast majority of people, mainly due to events on the other side of the Atlantic, but this week the government showed that it still had some life left in it.

On Tuesday, the Health Secretary Alan Johnson, announced that up to 150,000 cancer patients in the UK can now start applying for free prescriptions on the NHS. This comes in the wake of Gordon Brown's announcement last September that he was abolishing charges for the treatment of cancer from April this year.

Under the proposals, patients can apply for certificates which would entitle them to all NHS prescriptions free of charge.

This will mainly affect cancer patients with long term conditions and it is estimated that it could save each patient approximately £100 a year. In the long term, five million people will be affected.

I mention this story because there is a quiet revolution in cancer care going on in this country which has largely been ignored.

A few weeks ago, the government reversed its decision to stop patients who want to 'top up' their treatment by going private from doing so. It also recommended to NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) that the criteria under which cancer drugs are judged will change, so that more people suffering from long term rarer cancers will now get the funding for drugs from their PCT, that they desperately need.

Not only does cancer threaten your life, it can also makes you poor. The government has at long last recognised this. By abolishing prescription charges for cancer patients it will transform the lives of thousands of people who are battling various forms of cancer.

This is exactly the sort of progressive policy Labour should be responsible for. It shows that as a government we are still capable, even under the most trying economic circumstances, of helping people in a fair and proper way.

It is worth noting that the Conservatives had no such policy to do the same. If they got in, would some of their proposed tax cuts chip away at policies like this, for instance? You bet.

The message: Labour still has the ideas and is still capable of doing the right thing.

Obama's audacious start

Contrary to what everyone has been saying about the drama surrounding Obama's 'second inauguration', I think the President has got off to an audacious start.

In the last few days, he has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay within one year and set about dismantling the Bush Administration's network of torture camps, prisons and clandestine detention centres. He has also publicly banned torture and rendition and called for a new approach to detainees.

It is a complete repudiation of the way George Bush prosecuted the war on terror. It should make the possibility of prosecutions against some Bush administration officials, for human rights abuses, all the more likely. Let's hope so. That would lead to proper justice.

The cynic in me might say that Obama's swift action was a clever ploy to change the news agenda after all the fuss about the second inauguration. It is quite clear that this rattled Obama (the constitutional professor) and he wanted it settled quickly, so his actions do help to change the news story.

But more importantly they also help to restore America's standing in the world. He cannot do this overnight, the proof will be in the pudding and what the Obama Administration does in the months ahead. But they do at least draw a line in the sand and dismantle the legal apparatus, which was so self defeating and so damaging to America, that Bush and his cronies put in place.

On a side note, Hillary Clinton's rapturous reception at the State Department is also interesting. I am desperate for her to make a success of this job and the will from her officials certainly seems to be there. Let us not forget, that after Obama, she remains the most powerful political figure in America.

The fact that Obama says he wants to be engaged with the Gaza/Palestine issue from Day One, unlike Bush, and his appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East give Clinton the very real chance of helping to broker a peace settlement there. I don't believe she would have taken the job, had she not thought she would have a chance to do this. But I do hope she does not get distracted by the petty politics and the drama that usually surrounds the Clinton roadshow. She has the very real chance of being remembered as a great statesman(woman) so my message to her - don't blow it.

Finally, just this morning Obama has overturned the ban on US funding for international organisations that offer advice or perform abortions. Under the "golden gag rule" as it was known, aid groups could not even discuss abortion. This policy had become another battle line in the cultural wars but the low key way in which Obama overturned it suggests a new approach to polarising issues like this which is less confrontational. Good. I hope his next step will be to lift the restriction on federal funding for stem cell research.

The First Day

Day one of the Obama Presidency and he has hit the ground running.

On his first full day in office, Obama suspended all trials at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay while a thorough investigation is carried out into what goes on there.

He also ordered a pay freeze for senior staff at the White House and tightened the rules on lobbying.

All three acts send out a clear message of the sort of Presidency Obama wants.

Transparent, accountable and law-abiding.

In between meeting with his national security team and his economic advisers, he also telephoned leaders in the Middle East - a clear sign of where President Obama's foreign policy focus will lie in the weeks, months and years ahead. Note, not a single call was made to any European leader as far as we know - interesting, in itself.

The lightning speed with which he suspended all trials at Guantanamo Bay though is particularly important. This action was not just a symbol of change or a sop thrown to liberals like me. It was also a sign that the rule of law will be of the utmost importance to this former lawyer and constitutional teacher.

It is an attempt to start redressing the gross constitutional abuses that have been carried out in the Bush and Cheney years and it sends out a message that this President will not sacrifice liberty and the rule of law for political expediency or security. It was the right thing to do.

So far so good eh?

President Obama calls for new 'age of responsibility'

We’ve all just become part of history.

A son of Africa is now President of the United States.

‘President Obama’ – it’s got a nice ring to it, hasn’t it?

In all honesty, I had tears streaming down my face from the moment Aretha Franklin started singing. I found it difficult to stop. It wasn’t just the pomp and ceremony that sent a shiver down my spine, it was also the knowledge and relief that a man I have wished and willed to become President for the last four years, finally made it.

On days like this, you are reminded that not only is the President a political figure but also Head of State and a symbol of hope for millions of people around the world. The grand tradition of ceremonies and parades and poetry readings is the sort of spectacle you would only get in America and it is all the more special for it.

One of the most beautiful moments in the ceremony, was the benediction given by The Reverend Dr Joseph Lowery (a hero of the civil rights movement). It was moving and emotional and funny. It deserves a second viewing.

After the swearing in ceremony, in which it was clear President Obama was nervous, he began his inaugural speech.

Almost immediately, he started to address the problems confronting America. It was a chastened, business-like and direct approach. He warned of “serious challenges” ahead but promised that these challenges “will be met”.

He told America that it had chosen ‘hope’ over ‘fear’ and he attacked the ‘irresponsibility and greed’ of some people and the ‘dogma and divisiveness’ of others.

He called for, “A new era of responsibility, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world”.

As predicted he called for a new relationship between America and the Muslim world based on mutual respect and he said that at times America had not got the balance right between liberty and security. This means an end to Guantanamo and the Bush Administration’s policies of torture.

However, the biggest applause came when he mentioned his father, his social standing and the changes that had occurred since the civil rights struggle. The reference to his father certainly resonated in a city that was built on the back of slavery and which to this day still has a large Black underclass. As a white Brit, I am not sure that I can truly understand what it means for African Americans to see a Black man elected President. But I know that if ‘Hail to the Chief’ can be played for a man whose father was Kenyan and whose mother comes from Kansas, then the American Dream must still be alive.

The speech summed up the problems of America and promised hope for the future. By urging America to “reaffirm its enduring spirit” his words as one television commentator said were both timely and timeless.

Today was a celebration, not just for Barack Obama or even the African American people, but a celebration also of America’s genuine capacity to renew itself again and again.

As Bush looked tired and shrunken and Cheney was wheeled away in his chair, President Obama knows that the weight of the world’s expectations rest on his shoulders.

His popularity will give him a cushion for the time being but tomorrow morning as he steps into the Oval Office he will be met with a huge in-tray of problems that need to be tackled straight away.

Roll on the first one hundred days…

In the shadow of Abraham Lincoln

What can we expect from Obama's inauguration?

Right at this moment, Barack Hussein Obama is making his way to Washington by train - in a clear echo of the journey Abraham Lincoln once took.

In two days' time, he will be sworn in as President of the United States. He is using his full name.
His inaugural address, written by Jon Favreau, his speech-writer, promises to be one of the best yet.

Expectations are high. Can he beat Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" 1961 inaugural speech or indeed any of Lincoln's speeches? The chances are that he will.

Obama is a great orator so I expect to hear the lofty rhetoric, the references to President Lincoln and Dr King, the appeal to America's "better angels" and the post-partisanship which characterised the election campaign.

But I also think there will be specifics in the speech, which will signal a break with the failures of the Bush years.

I expect him to announce the closure of Guantanamo Bay. I expect him to publicly announce an end to torture, rendition and illegal detention (even if he doesn't use those exact words). He is smart enough to know that America needs to restore its moral standing in the world and both announcements will send out a clear message.

He will pick certain issues like climate change to show how an Obama Administration will be different.

I think he will also make a direct appeal to the Muslim world and call for a new relationship between the 'West' and the 'rest'.

In some respects, on the domestic front, the speech is going to be harder to give. He has to convey the severity of the economic situation to the American people without descending into pessimism or negativity. This requires a fine juggling act.

He must appeal for bipartisanship and co-operation (so he can get his stimulus passed) but he must also find a way of telling people that the spending commitments he made in the campaign can no longer be realised. It will be difficult stuff.

But inaugurations are not for nitty-gritty policies either. They are there to set the tone and direction and create an impression of what an Administration would be like. Obama will stick to a message of change and hope.

As Obama lays his hand on Lincoln's bible and gets sworn in with Michelle and the girls surrounding him, it will be a powerful weapon in the war of ideas that divides America from its enemies. It will herald a fresh start and a new future. It really is that seismic.

Just after President Lincoln was assassinated, his successor, Andrew Johnson was quoted as saying: "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men".

With Obama's inauguration on Tuesday, perhaps we can finally lay to rest views like that. The triumph of Barack Obama to the Presidency is also a triumph for the African-American people who have endured enormous pain and suffering over hundreds of years. This will be their day, as much as anybody else's.

President Lincoln said that America the nation was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" and that government was "of the people, by the people and for the people". I don't think it would be stretching it too far to say that come Tuesday, we may be a little closer to fulfilling his dream.

Two days to go until the Inauguration

There are just over two days to go now until Barack Obama is sworn in as 44th President.

It takes place at midday on Tuesday so I thought now would be a good time to remind ourselves of what exactly happens

This might be fictional example, but I think the West Wing (like everything else it does) perfectly captures the moment....

Six Days To Go Until The Inauguration

There are now six days to go until Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States. Apparently, this is going to be the most expensive inauguration in history with millions of people descending on Washington.

When Andrew Jackson was sworn in as President in 1828, the streets were filled with people as well. At the time, Washington had never seen anything quite like it. Some people saw it as a symbol of the triumph of democracy, others saw it as a dangerous example of populism and people power.

On the day itself Jackson invited the crowds to the White House for a party. Things got so out of hand that the whole place was trashed and people only left when the White House staff threw the huge kegs of beer out of the windows and onto the White House lawn. Needless to say, the crowds jumped out after them and got very drunk. By this stage, the President had been led to safety.

Anyway, that was then and this is now.

David Plouffe who has been Barack Obama's Campaign Manager for the past two years is the man responsible for building up the incredible grassroots organisation that helped secure Obama the nomination and then the White House.

I found this clip of him discussing Obama's inaugural and what it means to him. I didn't know but Obama will get sworn in on Lincoln's Bible.

National Internship Scheme won't do enough to help graduates

As a recent graduate, I am intrigued by Gordon Brown’s idea for a national internship scheme.

Under his proposals, university graduates unable to find a job at the end of their courses could be offered paid internships to prevent them joining the ranks of the unemployed.

Companies like Barclay’s and Microsoft have signed up to the scheme.

When the Government persuaded people of the idea of tuition fees, it was partly under the presumption that students from the best universities (where students paid higher fees) would land lucrative jobs and therefore have no trouble paying back large student loans over the course of a lifetime.

But things look a little different now that we are in the midst of a full blown economic recession.

Graduates from some of Britain’s best universities are struggling to find jobs. Milkround schemes have closed down. Banks and law firms are postponing their graduate intake. Most recently, one bank was fined by the FSA for faking its graduate scheme. It had no intention of taking anyone on but it didn’t want its competitors to know it was struggling.

The intern scheme put forward by the Government is the sort of policy innovation that we should welcome and it is probably the best, under the circumstances, that we can expect. We should not let graduates just fend for themselves. It will at least improve participants’ skills and experience and may in some cases lead to full time work. If, as the Government hopes, the interns will be paid at a rate slightly higher than undergraduates' income from grants and loans then at least they are getting some payment.

However, the internship scheme is probably not enough to tackle the scale of the problem. There will be tens of thousands of students hitting the job market in July and not enough internship places to go around for those not lucky enough to get a job. There will still be a lot of disappointed debt-ridden graduates come July who will be very angry with the Government.

David Cameron's Economic Policy

http://www.davidcameronseconomicpolicy.co.uk/

To call or not to call?

Nick Clegg reshuffled his shadow Cabinet team yesterday.

If rumours are to be believed, David Cameron is about to do the same.

Are both opposition leaders gearing themselves up for a General Election?

The signs at first appear promising.

Firstly, the polls look good. The Conservatives have slipped since the autumn and are now hovering at around 40 points. Labour meanwhile has clawed its way up from those disastrous autumn depths to a respectable 36 to 37 points. This means there is plenty to play for and a well fought election campaign from Labour could see the Party just sneak in.

Secondly, the Government is more effective, better disciplined and appears stronger. Thanks, I would say, to Peter Mandelson’s return. It appears to know which political direction it is heading in unlike the Tories who seem distracted and out of their depth.

Thirdly, the recession is not (yet) hurting people. The financial crisis has not quite filtered down yet so people are not feeling the pain in their pockets. Every economic commentator says it’s only a matter of time before more jobs are lost but for the moment people are not blaming the Government.

Finally, the Conservative solution to the crisis has been dreadful. Osborne is a drag on the ticket, but the policy response is nothing short of scandalous. Their laissez-fair approach contradicts everything coming out of the Obama administration-in-waiting, the EU, the CBI, France, Germany, the Institute of Directors and the IMF to name but a few. It look uncaring, outdated and a return to the Tory Party of the 1980s.

The next few months look like the best time for the Prime Minister to call an election. But I still don’t think he will.

Gordon doesn’t want another disastrous will-he-or-won’t-he election that never was. He needs to make a decision and stick to it. Speculation will destroy the Government.

Secondly, the Prime Minister, for all his bombast and activity over the last few months, is still essentially a cautious man. He will not relish an election campaign against David Cameron and he would still rather wait and see then risk an early election.

But if he is playing the part of Mr Micawber and waiting for something to ‘turn up’, he could be severely disappointed.

In times of recession, the electorate blames the Government and as we are constantly being told Britain is heading towards a severe recession.

Before we get there, maybe it would be better for Gordon to call it and call it now.

Obama's Silence Speaks Volumes

Barack Obama has faced stinging criticism over the last few days because of his silence on the Israeli-Gaza crisis.

The Guardian and Independent newspapers seem to have worked themselves up into a rage that the President-elect has not criticised Israel for its actions.

But Barack Obama’s reticence to speak out reflects something much deeper than merely a desire for the US not to have two Commanders-in-Chief operating at the same time.

Those that criticise Obama simply don’t know him.

What do you expect from the “No Drama, Obama” candidate?

As we discovered during the election campaign, Obama won’t be rushed or browbeaten into anything. His approach is measured and calm and deliberate. Exactly the opposite of the Bush years.

Solving the problems of the Middle East and the Palestinians will take decades. Obama is surely right to approach the situation carefully and thoughtfully. After all, the Israel-Gaza crisis nearly ruined the last two Democratic Presidencies. Caution and pragmatism in foreign affairs will win the day. His choices for Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence and now CIA Director confirm this.

Choosing Leon Panetta as CIA Director inspires confidence. An outsider, who strongly opposes the Bush Administration’s use of torture and Guantanamo Bay, Panetta will bring fresh thinking to an organisation totally discredited after the war in Iraq.

The fact that Obama has chosen not to intervene in the current crisis does not mean to say he will preside over American isolationism or retrenchment in the future either.

But his approach to foreign affairs will be different.

It will be more consensual, more long term and more strategic. The Obama Administration is not going to shoot from the hip.

He plays a long game. He bides his time. And then he makes a decision - anyone who watched him in those early primaries knows that.

So liberal commentators should stop complaining and shut up. This present crisis is awful and messy and tragic and Obama will get to it.

But for the time being he is thinking and planning.

Two qualities George Bush never had and Obama has in spades.

The Tories vs. The Police

It is a truth universally acknowledged that politicians need the police and the police need politicians.

Going up against them is a risk few governments or ministers are willing to take.

Only a few years ago, Charles Clarke had to back down in the wake of police outrage after he tried to implement some meagre reforms to do with local forces.

And just last year, Jacqui Smith was brave (or foolish) enough to put her foot down over police pay. Relations have never really improved since.

You would have thought politicians would have learnt all this by now. After all, the police are powerfully represented by the Police Federation and if it came to a popularity contest between both groups, the boys in blue would win hands down.

This is why I cannot understand why the Tories are insisting on dragging out this Bob Quick affair. I would want the whole thing to go away.

It will come as no surprise to most people that parties leak things to the press and brief against people in the media, but it would be a bit of a stretch to argue, as Mr Quick seemed to imply, that the Tories had organised a concerted campaign to undermine him in the media. He did make an error of judgement when he described the Party’s behaviour as ‘corrupt’ but he has since apologised.

David Cameron should have left it at that. But the Party is now increasing the pressure on Mr Quick by suggesting he needs to ‘consider his position’.

Obviously, the whole affair has unveiled a simmering tension between the Conservative Party and the Metropolitan police force.

Relations were already strained over the 42-day detention saga and the resignation of Ian Blair.

But the Tories will get no traction politically if they are seen to be anti-police and that is what it feels like at the moment.

Good relations and most importantly good results depend on trust. This has now broken down completely.

It is a far cry from the days when the Tory Party strutted around pretending to act like the party of law and order.

If I was the Tories, I would ignore the support of the Mail and Express and worry about the way the public perceived this. Attacking Mr Quick won’t win them many friends.

And just like Labour should never bend over backwards sycophantically to do what the police want it to do, the Tories should be careful not to distance themselves to much either.

Sooner or later they will be back in Government and they will need the support, expertise and help of our Bobbies.

The issues – terrorism, crime and anti-social behaviour – are too important to let a falling out last too long.

Manchester turns its back on congestion charge

I think it’s a real shame that the people of Manchester have voted against the introduction of a congestion charge.

The Council had proposed that the Charge would apply at peak times (7am to 9.30am and 4pm to 6.30pm) Monday to Friday. Drivers would cross both an outer ring and an inner ring where they would have had to pay a small fee.

But it looks like this idea is now dead for at least a decade.

What a pity.

The Government had promised that if Manchester voted “Yes” it would release £1.5 billion from its Transport Innovation Fund to improve public transport across the city and a further £1.2 billion would have been borrowed to help with this.

I thought it was a brilliant opportunity to vote for a massive package of transport improvements and economic investment.

The £2.7 billion would, among other things, have paid for double length trams which had the capacity to carry an additional 30,000 passengers each morning and evening.

It would have also paid for a huge expansion of the Metrolink system (41 new stops and 20 miles of additional tracks).

And along with the extra buses, bus lanes and cycle routes, the money would have paid for 180 yellow school buses to take kids safely to and from school.

But none of that’s going to happen now.

No extra jobs will be created and Manchester’s transport system will creak along as it always has.

The ‘Yes’ Campaign never seemed to get off the ground. Certainly, in the visibility stakes the ‘No’ Campaign was way ahead. It had more billboards, leaflets and a stronger advertising campaign which seemed to reinforce its message.

The Council didn't do a good enough job explaining the whole package to voters. Its message seemed confused and weak. It was also a bit elitist. There was an element of "We know what's best for you so you better vote for it" when I think it would have benefited from a more grass-roots approach.

Small business said it would be penalised unfairly by the charge, but it would have adapted – just like it did in London. And it would have found new ways of transporting goods that didn't clog up the roads and harm the environment. Unless you force behaviour to change, nothing will improve.

The Council did all it could to make the charge palatable to voters. For example, it would not have kicked in until 2013 when the vast majority of public transport improvements would have been nearly completed.

I always think you should trust voters to make the right decision. But I can’t help thinking on this occasion it was a missed opportunity and one we will come to regret.

The Barclay's are the new Christmas Scrooges

Are these two men the new Christmas Scrooges?

The Barclay Brothers, owners of the Telegraph, have taken umbrage with the people of Sark for voting against their chosen candidates for election.

Sark was until yesterday Europe's last remaining feudal kingdom. But the one hundred or so inhabitants of the tiny island in the middle of the English channel voted in their first democratic election yesterday.

And because they didn't vote for the brother's candidates, the Barclay's have decided to pack up and close their businesses on the island including all the hotels and restaurants that employ local people.

One hundred people are expected to lose their jobs, in the midst of a credit crunch, right before Christmas.

Who do they think they are?

They remind me of the "William Randolph Hearst" character in 'Citizen's Cane'.

I hope the people of Sark manage to withstand the Barclay's pressure. What a vile pair of sharks!

Has Labour forgotten its anti-establishment past?

The whole sorry saga concerning the police raid on Damian Green's office has made me think about Labour's anti-establishment past.

Not all the facts are known and some might appear in the next few days which would make me rethink what I am about to say, but since when should Labour politicians automatically defer to the police?

I'm not a natural supporter of Tony Benn, but he was on Channel 4 News a few days ago and I agreed with what he said. He criticised the police for their heavy-handed actions. He was concerned that it would threaten parliamentary sovereignty and prevent MPs from acting independently on behalf of their constituents. If he had known, he might also have questioned why they acted without a warrant.

For just one second, there was a hint of the old Labour anti-establishment radicalism about his argument.

It should be the role of Labour to question the police force, scrutinise it and provide checks and balances. From the argument over 42-days detention to the raid on Damian Green's office, our senior Labour politicians seem to have accepted what the police say as gospel.

This is not our natural territory - nor should it be.



We all know the police do a great job, sometimes under immensely difficult circumstances. We also know that they need support to ensure that they do their job well. But with every mistake the Met makes, with every PR disaster that unfolds, the public loses confidence.

Labour shouldn't be scared of publicly questioning what is going on. It shouldn't be afraid to challenge the police over its actions.

The police will always be able to look after themselves. They have their own organisations who do that very well and if push comes to shove the Conservatives are usually on hand to help too.

But Labour should always be on the side of the marginalised, the bullied, the voiceless, the dispossessed, the victim even if occasionally that person is an opposition Member of Parliament.

That is the real radical tradition.

"The real death this week was not of new Labour but of Tory new Labour posturing".

I attended the annual Progress conference this weekend in London. As ever, it was full of the great and the good.

Gordon Brown put in a surprise appearance and gave a really fine speech about the economy. He was even better during the Q and A when his knowledge and personality shone through. I mention it because it surprised me. He was eloquent, confident, assured and knowledgeable - the kind of person you want in a crisis. I even got to shake his hand!

I think he probably reassured the Progress audience, many of whom don't instinctively warm to him in the same way that they warmed to Tony Blair.

James Purnell had a hard act to follow but he gave an equally fine speech in which he made a vigorous defence of new Labour. He laid into the Tories calling their modernisation a "spray job". He attacked them for their vacuousness: "Politics by numbers is what you get when you lack a politics of ideas" and he called time on Cameron's efforts to change the Party - "The real death this week was not of new Labour but of Tory new Labour posturing". He faced a little bit of criticism from one man in the audience about his repeated attacks on the Tories, saying this was what turned voters off, but I think this is exactly what we need. Many on the Labour front bench are bad at exposing and attacking Tory policies. James Purnell does this very well and made an intelligent, passionate case for sticking to new Labour core principles at the same time. Just the stuff we need.

The rest of the day saw Peter Mandelson in conversation with Martin Kettle and Ed Miliband addressing the conference hall. Mandelson came across as funny and charming. He was also brutally honest about his previous experiences in Government. He said he had never been more happy and relaxed now. This certainly came across. Ed Miliband did the whole "I am going to give a speech and walk around the stage at the same time" routine and did it very well. He was very good on energy and climate change and repeated the Government's argument for new nuclear. Good. He also said, in strong terms, that if the energy companies did not act on unfair prices and pre-payment meters the Government would legislate.

I also went to a public services seminar with Alan Milburn - who still remains a great thinker and passionate advocate of public service reform. It was good to hear him and Liam Byrne make the case for a personal, bottom up NHS - although this will require a big shift of power away from Westminster and to local communities - and I am not convinced the Government or the Party gets that yet. Why isn't Alan Milburn back in a role though? It doesn't have to be a Cabinet position - but he is wasted on the backbench.

This year's conference was much better than last year's which in my opinion seemed a bit flat. The Party is certainly united behind Gordon and I think we probably feel that we have a momentum behind us all of a sudden. Certainly, Progress people seemed positive and upbeat which is half the battle.

I hope that now translates itself into better electoral prospects.

The Cream of the Crop

Barack Obama is filling his Administration with former LSE Graduates, so the FT reports today.

According to the newspaper, there are more LSE graduates about to become Obama Administration figures, than any other university except Harvard.

I think this is quite interesting. Most American students who make it to LSE tend to be highly educated, latte-drinking, liberal, international-looking, fashionista lefties who like to party.

President John F Kennedy was a General Course student at my old university, for example.

What does this tell us about who Barack Obama will surround himself with?

Well, I think it probably shows a President who has a diverse selection of friends and advisers. Smart, liberal people, with different backgrounds who have spent time abroad and probably have a background in economics – quite helpful, you would think, at the moment.

Maybe, this will encourage even more Yanks to come across the pond to experience the joys of a LSE education!

Cameron: Must Do Better

This is very good: http://www.labour.org.uk/economics_homework

Exceptional times call for exceptional measures

So the battle lines are drawn.

It is a return to the usual politics.

On the one hand, are the Conservatives sticking rigidly to a policy of monetarism and on the other hand sits the Labour Government - social democratic to its core.

The choices couldn’t be clearer. The consensus politics of the last few years has disappeared in a flash.

Yesterday’s pre-budget report was Labour at its best. Exceptional times call for exceptional measures.

The Chancellor introduced a fiscal stimulus which will help families and businesses through the tough times ahead. Some of the announcements were eye-watering:

• £775 million for investment in social housing

• An extra £100 million for energy efficiency measures, as part of a £535 million “Green stimulus” package – help for people suffering from fuel poverty now

• Extra money to help pensioners in the New Year - £120 extra for a couple on top of the Winter Fuel Allowance

• Child Benefit increases brought forward

• A £3 billion capital spending programme brought forward to be spent on motorways, housing, GP refurbishments and a school building programme

The Government has chosen a simple, clear approach to help families and business now.

More to the economy.

More to the public finances.

And more to society.

It is a stimulus which is supported by the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the IMF to name but a few.

At the same time, the Chancellor announced that VAT would be cut from 17.5% to 15% - helping business now and putting £12.4 billion back into the economy.

Alastair Darling’s best line of the speech was when he tackled head on the Conservative line of attack. “We did fix the roof when the sun was shining,” the Chancellor said. “And we fixed the roofs of the hospitals and schools up and down this country”. It quite rightly got a big cheer.

Some newspapers this morning have talked about the end of New Labour but news of its death is premature.

One of New Labour’s strengths was its essential pragmatism and the wielding together of middle class and working class voters into a grand coalition.

I thought yesterday’s budget fitted into the New Labour narrative. It was a pragmatic response to the economic problems we face, with something for everyone: business, the City, middle England, low and medium income voters and even the green lobby.

This pre-budget will revitalise New Labour – give the Party a sense of purpose and direction which it has sometimes lacked over the last year.

On the other side, George Osborne gave a shrill performance which at times made him sound slightly unhinged. The Conservative backbenchers didn’t take the occasion seriously enough either – there were far too many interruptions.

But at least, after weeks of dither and delay, the Conservatives have settled on a position.

And that seems to be “do nothing”.

Osborne and Cameron don’t look like leaders. They look out of their depth.

The electorate now faces a simple and stark choice. In nine months time, we will know which side was right.

After yesterday’s announcement, I wouldn’t bet against Mr Brown.

We must listen to Hazel

Writing in yesterday’s Guardian, Hazel Blears the Communities Secretary, said that the rise of the BNP had been made possible because the political parties have abandoned sections of the white, working class.

She is absolutely right.

Since 1997, the grand coalition of middle class and working class voters that elected the Labour Party has broken down. We have lost about one million voters.

In her article, she urges the Party to take the fight directly to the BNP. We need to devise a long-term strategy to win back support, she says. Estates that have been ignored, voters who are taken for granted, services that are failing in some of the poorest communities and a political class which looks like it’s from a different planet, lead to voters who are primed and ready to listen to the BNP’s message of pure poison.

As one of the few genuine Labour MPs who comes from a working class background and who represents a working class community, Hazel Blears is the best person to lead this fight.

She ran a great Deputy Leadership campaign, which was admirable for the fact the she stuck doggedly and correctly to a new Labour message, when ‘Blairism’ - lets be frank - wasn’t that popular. She is a great campaigner with sound political judgement and in one hustings famously said, “I don’t need a sociologist to tell me about the views of the white working class” and meant it. Her brother still drives a bus in Manchester.

I would argue that the way for the Party to win back the working class – white or from any community – is to remember what motivates working class people in the first place and that’s ‘aspiration’. Working class people are aspirational to own their own homes, to send their kids to great schools and then university and to have the tools at their disposal to feel empowered. And yes this does mean more academy schools, greater choice in public services and more devolution of power to local communities.

Blears understands this. She instinctively gets it. We need to listen.

I would also add two other areas.

First, until the Government takes the legitimate and genuine concerns of working class communities seriously when it comes to immigration, we will continue to cede ground to the BNP. Communities are worried about the effect immigration has on housing and local services. I am still not convinced that the Government has found a Labour way of making a case for immigration that would eliminate the need for voters to turn to the BNP.

Second, whatever happened to the Respect agenda? We used to own that. Working class communities suffer disproportionately from anti-social behaviour. It is people like my grandparents on their estate who fear yobs and hooligans and worry about petty street-level crime. I can’t remember a single government minister who has spoken out about it over the last eighteen months. By not doing so, we have totally ceded ground to the Tories and more worryingly to the BNP on this issue.

It is time Labour sorted this out. This weekend, Hazel Blears kick-started that debate.

We must listen to her.

Hillary for Secretary of State!

If the rumours are to be believed then Hillary Clinton will be offered the job of Secretary of State by Barack Obama this week.

She should take it.

There are strong reasons why she would be the best person for the job.

First, she is qualified to do it. Her knowledge, experience and judgement make her the best candidate.

Second, she demonstrated her energy and ability in the gruesome primary campaign. It marked her out as an important and serious political and intellectual street fighter in her own right. She would be a strong advocate of American foreign policy abroad – helping to take on America’s foes and win back its allies.

Third, she would be competent. She has an excellent grasp of the issues and her experience working in the Executive and the Senate will help her to navigate “foggy bottom” (the State Department).

These reasons easily trump a) the sense of dynastic politics that would be created by her ‘return’ b) the foreign policy differences with Obama that she exhibited during the primary season and c) the argument that she isn’t enough of a change.

President-elect Obama has already united his Party, but by bringing Hillary on board he gets unconditional support from the second most powerful Democrat in the country. Together, they look like the sort of strong team that would enhance America’s profile abroad and reverse President Bush’s disastrous decisions.

On a personal level, Hillary should heed the lesson of F. Scott Fitzgerald: “there are no second acts in American lives”.

With Barack Obama looking like a two-term President (fingers crossed), Hillary would be past her prime in eight years time and she isn’t mad enough to challenge him in 2012 anyway. She had her go and she didn’t do it. There are no second chances in politics anymore. So the best she can hope for, if she really wants a “legacy role” is to take the job of Secretary of State and do it well.

It would be a mistake for her not to.

Yes he can! Labour romps to victory in Scotland

Labour’s surprising by-election victory in Glenrothes this week is the first indication that Gordon Brown’s political fight-back is beginning to work.

The Party – which only a few weeks ago looked set to lose the seat in spectacular fashion – defied the odds and romped home with a majority of 6,737.

The candidate, Lindsay Roy, proved to be an excellent campaigner too. A street-fighter with impeccable local credentials and a strong grasp of the issues, Roy proved adept at winning over sceptical voters and shoring up the base.

And on this occasion, the Prime Minister led from the front. Defying convention, he visited Glenrothes twice during the election campaign and Sarah Brown visited over seven times. The victory will be a boost to their morale.

Labour opted for a long campaign. This proved an effective strategy. The Party, which had suffered in Glasgow East because of poor organisation and low voter identification, had time to organise effectively. As we have just witnessed in America with Barack Obama’s victory, the importance of grassroots organisation should never be underestimated.

Secondly, Brown’s handling of the economic crisis undoubtedly played a part. Of course, it helps that he is a local lad, but voters recognised that in an economic downturn what they wanted was a safe pair of hands and Brown has proved adept and assured.

Labour activists on the ground said from the start that the mood up in Glenrothes was good. Party campaigners outweighed SNP activists by a significant margin. The mood and the atmosphere was all good for Labour and attempts by the SNP to work Obama’s message don’t seem to have come off.

Of course, we mustn't get carried away. A bounce is different from a sustained lead and there is more for Labour to do. Let's wait until the local and European elections next Spring to see if there has been a reversal.

However, as Nick Robinson’s blog notes, today politics is all about momentum. Labour’s victory has given Brown a huge boost. It has given the Party north of the Border a huge bounce.

Could the ‘Big Mo’ - as the Americans call it - be with Labour again?

Obama Seizes Victory!

Cometh the Hour, Cometh the man.

Change has finally come.

Barack Obama's stunning victory on Tuesday night has changed America and the world irrevocably.

It is a testament to his outstanding qualities as a leader and a testament to the American people for embracing change and hope, rather than the politics of fear.

I was lucky enough to watch the night unfold from the US Embassy in London. The atmosphere inside was electric. Obama supporters predominated, although the McCain contingent was sizeable too. Everyone was wearing campaign badges, bunting was dangling from the ceiling, there was a real carnival atmosphere. There was even a Starbucks, Subway and Burger King inside the Embassy! Lots of celebrities and lots of politicians mixed with political anoraks like me. It was great.

There were some spine-tingling moments from the night - like when you saw Jesse Jackson crying or Obama's girls ran on the stage at Chicago. That sort of took my breath away as you realised for the first time that actually the image of that family in the West Wing will be incredibly powerful.

In the end, Obama won an electoral college landslide and took a comfortable majority of the popular vote.

6 million more African Americans voted Democrat than they did last time.

3.5 million more under 30's voted Democrat than they did last time.

These are the beginnings of a new electoral alignment in American politics.

People feel it is their victory. They are energised and engaged.

McCain made a gracious and moving concession speech, characteristic of the dignity that has always been a feature of his personality and politics. He is a good man but he wasn't right for now.

Obama made a brilliant speech. Uplifting, powerful and strong. Perfect.

His greatest problem now is how to manage expectations. He is not a miracle worker and the problems facing America are daunting. It is a difficult task but I believe he has shown he has the qualities necessary for the challenges ahead.

The whole night reminded me of the void we have in British politics though. Where is our Obama?

Ouside the White House, crowds had gathered and were apparently chanting "goodbye, goodbye". Brilliant.

Why I'm supporting Barack Obama

This is the most important election of my lifetime.

What happens tonight in America will reverberate around the world for decades. And have huge consequences for all of us, everywhere. Will America slip backwards for more of the same? Or will it embrace change and become the leader we so desperately want it to be?

It has been the most exciting General Election campaign of my life so far. I remember when no-one, other than my dad and I, had even heard of Barack Obama – but we have followed his progress from the start. And tonight we will be watching from the US Embassy in London as the results come in.

I will be looking, in particular at three states: Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Virginia used to be the most important state in the union. All the early Presidents came from there. It has not been Democratic though for decades. Republicans have dominated state and national elections.

Tonight it could all be different. The demographics of Virginia have changed. It is younger, richer, more liberal than ever before and there is a large chance Obama will take it. Results for this state should be in by midnight our time. If Obama wins it, I think he is on course for a landslide.

Ohio is the stereotypical bellwether state. In the election of 1828 when Andrew Jackson became President, it was a fiercely fought, close contest even then. The polls show Obama is ahead but I think things are finely balanced. If Obama wins this state he will be President.

Pennsylvania is a real fight. The polls show Obama leading here, but each campaign says things are much closer. In the last two weeks, both candidates have traversed the state up and down. In the primary campaign, Obama struggled to win over white, working class voters. But over the last few weeks, as the economic crisis has deepened, he has really connected with them, while McCain’s efforts have been lacklustre. If McCain wins this state, it will be a major setback for Obama and probably create a frisson of nervousness in every Obama supporter’s living room. However, if Obama wins he will be President.

All of these results should be in by 3am our time. I predict turnout will be huge – particularly amongst African American voters in places like Georgia and North Carolina.

And they will be voting for a candidate who offers real change and real hope.

I do not just support him because he is an eloquent, brilliant speaker, nor because he is ferociously bright – he is all of those things by the way - but because he offers a real antidote to the cynicism and spin we have come to associate the Bush Presidency with.

He is authentic. He speaks with passion and conviction. He appeals to our better natures.

He is inspirational yet thoughtful – capable of making momentous decisions and let’s not forget he has an awful lot in his in-tray when he enters the Oval Office.

His campaign has tested him and proved his metal. He grew up through the hard knocks school of Chicago politics. He had the Clintons and the Republicans throw everything at him, but he remained cool and measured and determined. Important qualities which make him fit for the White House.

His election would truly be transformational and have huge symbolic value for African Americans living in the States who still remember what it was like to grow up under segregation.

In one important way though, his election would also prove an age old truth: The politics of change and hope will always triumph over the politics of fear.

Come on Barack!

Who is Best for Britain?

Does it matter to the ‘special relationship’ which man is next elected US President?

I think the answer is most definitely yes.

First off, neither McCain nor Obama should be thought of as the British candidate. The relationship between Britain and the United States is founded on national interest and personality. It really doesn’t matter which party is in power on either side of the Atlantic. Harold Wilson and Lyndon Johnson never got on, Thatcher and Reagan got on well but weren’t afraid to disagree with each other and Tony Blair just got on well with everyone!

But personality is important and John McCain does seem to have more sentimental attachment to Britain than Obama does.

At the end of the day though McCain will only ever be concerned with what is in the national interest of the United States.

We also don’t know whether Obama’s Kenyan father has given him a view of Great Britain either. Maybe he has, but the candidate has not said much.

This leaves two questions.

Which man is more likely to work with Britain on the issues that matter to us like Afghanistan, Climate Change and the Middle East and be more agreeable to our goals?

And which one is more personally suited to a role which requires calm and serious decision making under pressure?

The answer to both of these questions is Obama.

He has calved out a distinct position on the Middle East through his proposed policy of talking to Iran. It may not work, but relations cannot possibly be worse between the US and Iran than they are right now, so why not try it?

He has promised to engage with the Middle East peace process and he has vowed to do more to win the ‘just’ war in Afghanistan.

McCain, on the other hand, seems to think the solution to Iran is to bomb it. He thinks international organisations can afford to be ignored and he argues that the way to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan is to leave troops there for a hundred years and forget about a political solution.

On climate change, Obama’s policies are the genuinely interesting ones. He proposes greater carbon trading, a more activist approach from the US administration in setting up a post-Kyoto framework and he hasn’t pandered to the lobbyists and big business either.

McCain, on the other hand, did once have a good record on the environment and climate change but with every passing day of this election campaign he has run further to the right. He does not have an admirable green agenda anymore. At one point the slogan of his campaign was "Drill, baby, drill!" Enough said.

This finally leaves us with the question of personality.

Whoever takes over from George W. Bush will have the legacy from hell – financial, political, diplomatic, military.

We need a President who has the temperament and judgement to deal with all of this.

McCain loses his rag every minute. His pathetic, panicky and destructive attempts to involve himself in the financial bail-out a few weeks ago looked like the last acts of a desperate man and hardly inspired confidence.

His decision to choose Sarah Palin as candidate for VP shows a recklessness and contempt for ordinary people which should bar him from the White House.

Obama, on the other hand, has had the Clintons and the Republicans throw everything at him. He has risen up through the hard knocks school of Chicago politics and all the time he has remained cool, calm and collected. He has never lost it. If this is any indication of what he will be like as President, then it is a bloody good one.

Britain should be rooting for Obama.

Obama and I

Here's how I could have lost the election for Obama.....



object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="360" height="300">

Mandy is back!

George Osborne is on very dodgy ground.

The revelations yesterday and today that the Shadow Chancellor supped champagne on a Russian oligarch's yacht and, it is suggested, solicited a donation from him have created a bit of a media frenzy.

The accusations have been vigorously denied.

Whatever the truth, the whole sorry saga has the fingerprints of Peter Mandelson all over it.

Basically enraged that Osborne went public a couple of weeks ago with the claim that Mandelson had "dripped pure poison" into his ear about the Prime Minister, the new Secretary of State for Business has bided his time and told his mate, Nat Rothschild, to go public.

What does this tell us?

One simple thing: Don't cross Peter Mandelson.

Ever since the announcement he was to return to the cabinet, there has been a conservative witch-hunt, fuelled by their friends in the media, to get Mandy.

This attack on Osborne is a warning shot: if you try, I will come after you too.

It is classic politics.

It says, "I'm back" and now that the Tories are on the run for a change, the Labour Party should be very grateful.

Shares in Gordon Brown are up

It was Harold Wilson who famously posited “a week is a long time in politics”.

Only a few weeks ago, at the Labour Party conference, all talk was of leadership change.

Since then, there seems to have been a miraculous reversal in the Prime Minister’s fortunes.

An Independent on Sunday poll today sees Labour narrow the Tory lead. It is possible we might even win the Glenrothes by-election – unthinkable only a few weeks ago.

The Prime Minister’s handling of the financial crisis has been assured and decisive.

The £500 billion bail out of Britain’s banks is a big gamble, but it had the support of the opposition and no one, least of all George Osborne, is offering a credible alternative.

Mr. Brown has put all his cards on the table and now we must wait and see.

But surely no one can accuse him now of dither, delay and indecision?

If anything, this financial mess has galvanised him and Labour backbenchers. There is nothing quite like an international crisis to improve a government’s prospects.

Of course, this is no comfort to all for us who will end up paying for the mistakes of others. The next couple of years are going to be hard, very hard.

But politically, it has given Brown an opportunity to revitalise his government.

Take a look at Paul Krugman’s article in the New York Times. Even Americans think Mr. Brown has saved the world financial system.

He seems to be the only leader who is genuinely interested in solving the current financial crisis on an international level, rather than retreating to nationalist solutions.

He has also been calling for reforms of the world’s banking and financial structures for years. Now, would seem a perfect opportunity to put that into practice.

And no longer does he have to pretend to be happy or flash. Serious times call for serious men. The ‘novice line’ he used in his conference speech the other week is beginning to work.

So for now, Brown is safe. There is not going to be any leadership challenge. There is not going to be any plotting.