clawsfour

Can Labour emulate Tories' 1992 victory?

Well yes, obviously.

But here is a nice piece by Will Woodward, the Guardian's Head of Politics, which poses the question quite neatly. And points to a possible answer.

An arresting attitude

It is certainly true that the Metropolitan police could have handled the investigation into the theft (why do we continue to use plumbing jargon? Leak?) of documents and information from the Home Office with a great deal more sensitivity. They may have been able to investigate the issues at hand without arresting a Conservative MP, they may not.

There are probably questions to be asked about why the Mayor of London was told of the decision to arrest and not the Home Secretary.

What is not in any doubt are two things. Firstly we are not living in a police state as claimed by the increasingly swivel-eyed Tony Benn.

Secondly the stomach churning hypocrisy of the Tory Party. The outrage that the police have arrested a Tory in the conduct of their investigations does not sit well with their attitude to arrest of Labour politicians and members of staff during the cash for honours investigation. This was summed up quite neatly at the time by Conservative MP Nigel Evans who said the arrests were a "seismic" development, adding: "It is important, we have to realise that the allegations are very serious indeed.

"Nobody is above the law, not the prime minister and not Lord Levy either, and this is something I think that we all have to learn."

Pity the Tories didn't learn it, then. Or, maybe nearer the truth, they didn't learn it because they still don't care. The age old truth of the Conservative Party is that it one rule for the common man and no rule for them. And that is the absolute dividing line when it come to the next general election. Recession or no, the Tories are, and always will be, in it for themselves alone. The class war, unfortunately, is still alive and well, but it's the Tories who keep breathing life into it.

Sound economics is always sound economics

Another quote for you. Gordon Brown? Alistair Darling? Some lefty economist after the Pre-Budget report?

Now what really gets me is this, that it is very ironic that those who are most critical of the extra tax are those who were most vociferous in demanding the extra expenditure. And what gets me even more is that having demanded that extra expenditure they are not prepared to face the consequences of their own action and stand by the necessity to get some of the tax to pay for it.

Actually, Margaret Thatcher being very old Labour in 1981, defending her budget (against the even more right wing or her Conservative Party) to the Guardian Young Businessman of the Year Award Ceremony. 

And clear blue water

If you ever need to know how out of touch with the real world and real people the Tories are, look no further than Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley MP, who said yesterday,

On many counts, recession can be good for us. People tend to smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at home with their families...

Today that quote has been withdrawn from its original posting on the Conservative Party's Blue Blog web-site. Now there's a surprise. Unfortunately for the Tories one of the delights of the web is the imprint you leave by posting something lasts a long time, so Lansley is now spread far and wide. Something Cameron would like to do to him no doubt.

James Purnell MP, Labour's Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, responding to Andrew Lansley's comments that the recession can be 'good for us', said:

Now more than ever it's important to help people who are sick to stay in work so that they can support themselves and their families. During the Tory recession people's health suffered as they were abandoned to long term unemployment or thrown onto incapacity benefit. Yet today the Tories think a recession will be good for people's health.

The Conservative Deputy Chairman may already regret letting the cat out of the bag when he said 'the recession has to take its course' but it remains Conservative policy. Now we know that not only would the Conservatives do nothing but sit back and watch the recession ‘take its course' - they actually believe it would be ‘good for us'.

There is a clear choice for the British people: Labour's approach will give real help now for families and businesses to help Britain come through these difficult times stronger and sooner; the Conservatives would sit back and watch as the recession became longer and deeper.

Clear red water

Well if anyone thought the Pre-Budget report was going to be the usual, slightly pointless, Pre-Christmas report about the state of the economy then a quick glance along the newspaper shelves this morning will disabuse you.

The right wing media are mourning the death of new Labour (didn't care much for new Labour previously, I seem to remember) and pointing to a Britain on the edge of bankruptcy. The centre ground cautiously suggest a brave move (although most reserve their positon to change this to a foolhardy move if it all goes wrong). And the left media........ oh, I forgot.

What is certain is that there is now the sharpest political divide since Cameron tried to rest the centre ground from Labour by claiming the inheritance to Tony Blair. Rather than being swept into insignificance by accepting the need to support the government when the country is facing economic difficulties, Cameron has gone for the high risk separation. The Tories have set their stall out against  the economic package announced yesterday in a very stark way. The clash between a government which believes intervention is necessary to help stimulate the economy and an opposition which will leave everything to the markets (just remember the last time they did that) could not be more clear.

And the game is now on for the General Election. if the measure announced by the Chancellor gain some traction in the next 12 months, then labour will be home and hosed. If they fail, then Gordon Brown will have gift-wrapped an electoral advantage to the Tories.

Getting pumped up

The real scandal about George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, is not that whether he did or didn't solicit a donation from an impermissible donor - although his own admissions seem to bring the decision down on the did rather than didn't side of the fence - but his scandalous economic policies.

George Osborne says "high petrol prices are a scandal". But what the Tory hypocrite in waiting doesn't say is that he wants to pump up the prices at the pump himself.

The real question Osborne and Cameron should be answering is not "Why are you touching up Russian oligarchs for cash? Has Lord Overseas Ashcroft run out of money?" but "WHY DO YOU WANT TO PUT 5P TAX ON UNLEADED PETROL TODAY?"

With BP anouncing profits of £70m PER HOUR, it is mind-blowing that the Tories want to squeeze the ordinary hard-working families with this new Tory Tax.

Cameron's (oil)slick PR machine thought a green tax would win headlines but it would in fact add millions of pounds to British families’ tax bills because of changing oil prices. If Mondeo man is still the person politicians want to win over to win elections, then Cameron and Osborne may want to explain why Mondeo Man will be paying £3.50 a tank more at the pump under the Tories.

As the Labour Party say, "When times are tough and people are worried about their cost of living, this just shows the risk of putting a headline-seeking novice in charge".

It's either inappropriate or it isn't...

The most important thing about the mega-yacht-gate affair that is engulfing soon-to-be-ex Shadow Chancellor Osborne, is not the fact that he didn't solicit a small donation from one of the world's wealthiest men. Or that he did. Neither scenario is particularly important.

The key thing, and the reason he is most likely to lose his job, is the spotlight Osborne has turned on Lord Ashcroft, the Tory Party's campaign bank-roller. Once again questions are being asked about whether Lord Ashcroft is a UK resident. The deputy chairman of the Conservatives is accused of using a chain of companies originating in his home country of Belize to donate nearly £5m to Conservative Party campaigns. Osborne has denounced such activity by his robust defence of his own position in recent days including......

"At the end of that conversation Mr Rothschild mentioned that Leyland Daf, a UK trading company owned by Mr Deripaska, was interested in making a donation to the party. Leyland Daf is well known to be a company recently purchased and owned by Mr Deripaska.

Mr Feldman said that he was not sure if such a donation was appropriate. He told Mr Rothschild that he would have to seek advice on the matter. Later that day it was decided after consultation with senior party officials that it would not be appropriate to accept such a donation. There was no futher contact from Mr Rothschild or Mr Deripaska and the matter was considered to be at an end."

Either it is inappropriate to channel money through UK registered companies - the reason Osborne says neither he nor the Conservative Party Chief Executive considered accepting a donation from a Russian Billionaire through his his UK registered and trading company - or it isn't. Which means either Lord Ashcoft's money is inappropriate - or it isn't.

Which means George Osborne is either Shadow Chancellor, or (as now seems increasingly likley) he isn't.

Maybe the decision of Lord Ascroft to bequest £900m to charity will also include the Tory Party - a charity case if ever there was one.

Cameron talks piffle

Conservative leader David Cameron has said he will be as radical a social reformer as Margaret Thatcher was an economic reformer.

In a book about him due out on Monday, Mr Cameron pledged to heal what he called Britain's "broken society".

Glad to see Boris Johnson, Conservative mayor of London is backing DC to the hilt - or is that the hilt in his back.

"If you believe the British press, the youth of today is aimless, feckless and hopeless, addicted to their PlayStations, lacking in respect and lacking in the emotional discipline needed to cope with a big match occasion.

"If you believe the politicians, we have a broken society, in which the courage and morals of young people have been sapped by welfarism and political correctness.

"And if you look at what is happening at the Beijing Olympics, you can see what piffle that is. Do not adjust your set: that really is a collection of smiling, well-balanced young British people, giving pleasingly self-deprecating accounts of how they have managed to haul in medal after medal after medal."

Boris Johnson

100 days is a long time in politics

100 days of Boris. Who would have thought it?

I am appalled to hear that Ken Livingstone has already started on his campaign with some of his former Tankies to be reselected by Labour to run again as Mayor (will he run as an Independent AGAIN?). However, it is worth just reflecting of his first 100 days compared with Boris. It would be even more interesting to compare the first 100 days of Ken as a Labour Mayor.

I've taken the Ken list pretty much unedited from the archives of the Mayor's office. He obviously struggled to make it to a nice round 100 achievements in 100 days. That's why you find things like "Appointed Nicky Gavron Deputy Mayor" creeping in as an achievement.

For Boris I've had to rely on Conservative Home. And even there I had to leave out the more platitudinous (if that's not a word it should be) - Boris turned up for work, Boris brushed his hair without help, etc.

Some blogs appear fascinated by the fact that some of the 100 days list from Ken's time have disappeared from the current site. Who gives a shit. If I was an incoming Labour Mayor I would certainly remove  information referring to the previous incumbent. It's available on the archives - if I can find it, so can you - if you need it.

More interesting in some ways is what Conservative Home consider as achievements during Boris' first 10 days. Not much in quantity, for sure. And in quality? 7 out of the 22 achievements are appointments. No bad thing in itself. Bringing in your team is probably the single most important thing a Mayor can do in his or her first few weeks.

But the rest is littered with not very much. The two stand out items are probably increasing the living wage, and cancelling the oil deal which has been funding cheap fairs for the poorest on London transport.

Anyhow here's the list. Anyone with Ken's list for his first 100 days as a Labour Mayor.....

The world turned upside down

Johnson endorses Obama campaign

Says it all really.