Labour's 'Southern challenge' explains why New Labour reform matters

The current issue of Progress includes some fascinating articles about the importance of Labour keeping hold of its existing seats in the South, including my constituency of NE Somerset, where the excellent Dan Norris faces a challenge, bizarrely, from Jacob Rees-Mogg. The articles are an important reminder of why New Labour was - and remains - so important. The silly gesturism of Harriet Harman praising Castro or backbenchers singing the Red Flag after the Northern Rock nationalisation suggest that too many in the party have forgotten the lessons of the eighties and early nineties. I can still remember how we felt on the day after John Major - a man clearly regarded as an indecisive lightweight by his colleagues, if Michael Portillo's excellent documentary on BBC 4 is any guide - won the 1992 election and we failed to win the Mitcham and Morden constituency which I then chaired.

Gordon Brown has shown some understanding of this, particularly since Christmas with his cabinet shake-up, but he and his ministers should not allow the notion to spread that the Tories are more radical than Labour on public services reform. Despite the impressionability of Fraser Nelson in the Spectator, the fact is that Labour has opened (not talked about opening) 83 academies already; has given parents a legal right to request feasibility work on schools that they would run themselves; has insisted on competitions for new schools open to the same providers of which Nelson and Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove clearly approve; and has delivered substantial improvements in school standards.

At the same time, the Tories have simply caved in to vested interests on the NHS - as Iain Dale concedes - when Andrew Lansley, Cameron's shadow health secretary for life, chooses the day that the NAO reveals how the BMA conned us all over GP contracts to announce his plans for another vast increase in NHS spending, presumably on terms entirely dictated by the BMA. Labour must reassert the radical credentials - that have not only won it three general elections, but have delivered real reform - if it is to retain the coalition of Southern voters so vital to a fourth victory.

Cameron's rubbishing of Auschwitz visits

David Cameron has clearly lost the plot today. He has attacked an imaginative programme whereby some British schoolchildren have the opportunity to visit and reflect at Auschwitz as a 'gimmick'. Under the programme, up to 200 students from across the country will visit to Auschwitz each year to see first hand where the atrocities occurred. Surely, providing such first-hand experience is a vital part of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive, and to be applauded?

Perhaps it is Cameron who has lost most direction?

I wouldn't argue with Charles Clarke that the government could do a better job of explaining where it is going (though I do wonder whether his aggressive interventions will help them to get there); Progress is right to say that 'safety first' won't win us another term; and Jackie Ashley is right to argue the importance of better delivery. But the latest polling figures suggest that David Cameron may have an even bigger task on his hands, with a one-point deficit on Mori and a relatively small ICM lead (even if it is a little bigger than the Guardian ICM poll). The Sunday commentariat certainly thought the Conway affair hardly helped in this regard, not least Matthew D'Ancona in a bullish piece for the Telegraph and Miranda Green in the Observer.

Dissembling Dave ditches his EU referendum

Naturally the BBC is wanting to downplay the news that George Osborne has been concealing the funding - worth nearly £500,000 - for his office from his fellow MPs (and it is not the same thing to publish the information in the Electoral Commission files) but David Cameron had a hard job keeping a straight face on the Andrew Marr show telling us that Osborne's omission was 'totally different' from Peter Hain's failure to publish his deputy leadership donors on time.

But then Dissembling Dave also had to concede that there would not, in fact, be a referendum on the EU Treaty if he was elected, assuming (as is likely, unless my fellow countrymen try again to prevent poorer Eastern European countries from enjoying the benefits that Ireland gained from EU membership) that all the other EU states had ratified it by that stage. Quite right too, but I'm not sure all his MPs will agree. So, to be clearer than Dave was to the likes of John Redwood and his fellow Eurosceptics, there will not be a referendum on the EU in the still unlikely event that the Tories win the next election.

Good for Gordon?

What is it with newspaper front pages these days? Today's Times proclaims that its poll will wipe the smile off Gordon's makeover. Really? Given that it places former PR-man Dave Cameron's 'new' Tories just four points ahead of Labour - a fact buried at the end of a tendentious story - and that much sampling was done before the PM's impressive New Year foray began, why should that be? Peter Riddell has a rather more sensible take - as one would expect - within the paper. It is true that Cameron does well on some personal characteristics. But with a strong new chief of staff in no 10, whose role includes strategic communications (something I have argued was needed) and some very strong messages on the NHS and pay policy over recent days, Cameron is the one who should be worried. In fact, given how his elevation has hit the Tories, all we need is for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg to do something popular and the Tory lead could be wiped out.

Time for Dave to face a few tough questions

Former PR man turned Tory leader David Cameron knows a good thing when he sees it. So it is no wonder he has taken to sharing his increasingly unoriginal thoughts with Radio 4 Today listeners on an almost weekly basis, in the sure knowledge that the questioning will be little more threatening than had he been doing the exercise for a Tory PPB. I'm with Ben Brogan on this: or is it only Labour ministers who get a tough time on Today?

Cameron flunks PMQs

David Cameron was the clear loser of PMQs (video link) this week. He lacked the focus and self-assurance that he had shown in previous weeks. He didn't seem to know what subject to focus on - perhaps mindful of the questions increasingly being asked about Lord Ashcroft and his tax status. Meanwhile, despite - or because of - the problems he faces, Gordon Brown seemed finally to have acquired the self-confidence he had lacked in earlier bouts. He had a good line on the party funding affair, which left Cameron looking shifty and surprisingly unsure of his ground. Brown even had a good putdown for last week's creator of the Mr Bean jibe, Vince Cable.
UPDATE: Tom Watson has helpfully published the full exchange between a Tory frontbencher David Ruffley and Andrew Neil over the Ashcroft question on his blog.

Recovering from another worst ever week in the history of politics

What is it about journalists in the Westminster village? Having been close to the political scene for some twenty years, I have lost count of the amount of hyperbole that passes for serious commentary at the end of a difficult week for the government. The loss of the child benefit computer disc clearly ranks high in the civil service stupidity stakes; and nearly as high on the ministerial embarrassment stakes. But if the disc has not fallen into the hands of fraudsters, it is utterly absurd to compare the last week either to the petrol crisis of 2000, or particularly to Black Wednesday in terms of its long-term political impact. Jack Straw is right about that. Equally, the crisis at Northern Rock reflects (a) a rather risky business model and (b) a series of unpalatable choices for the Chancellor, but is hardly a sign of his incompetence.

That said, there is no question that the government has got itself into a hole. The polls are not good (though they are not as good for the Tories as they should be either and voters blame civil servants not ministers for the loss of the disc). And the silly decision to keep public options open on an autumn election has been compounded by an appearance of incompetence since. That's why the government needs to do two things.

First, it needs to be bolder in its approach to reform. The idea that you can get a clear message across while trying to be all things to all men hasn't worked. We have, for example, just had a Tory schools policy that is largely a carbon copy - with one or two exceptions - of government policy that is already in place. Yet the Tories are being allowed to appear to be brilliant innovators. It is time to shout not shirk from what the government is doing successfully and to worry more about winning over parents that silencing the teaching unions. The same applies across the government's policy agenda. Second, I hope reports in today's Observer are right and the PM is widening his circle of advice. He has good people in no 10, but he would benefit from a more open approach to policy development. And third, the government needs to find a narrative that shows how it is successfully delivering on a lot of fronts. The Prime Minister's delivery unit needs the sort of empowerment it had when it was first set up to ensure that policy is delivered, not just announced. That may produce guffaws from the government's opponents this weekend. But there is plenty of evidence around of successful delivery on once difficult areas of policy. Delivery matters as much as policy development.

Conservative 'interventionism' at work

David Aaronovitch characteristically gets to the heart of the matter in his dissection of David Cameron's attempt to replace liberal interventionism with conservative interventionism, otherwise known as isolationism. Of course, this is nothing new. John Major and his cronies happily sat idly by while they allowed what even Malcolm Rifkind admitted were the worst crimes in Europe since the Holocaust to proceed unabated in Bosnia, while enforcing the deadly arms embargo that denied Bosnians the chance to defend themselves. As Margaret Thatcher remarked, this was a ‘killing field the like of which I thought we would never see in Europe again - it is in Europe's sphere of influence. It should be in Europe's sphere of conscience.’ And through this, Cameron's Conservatives would once again sit on their hands.

Level pegging

Today's Ipsos/Mori poll for the Observer suggests that Labour has recovered some ground from recent polling setbacks, and is now one point ahead of the Tories on 41-40, with the Lib-Dems badly trailing on 13%. What is worrying for Gordon Brown is that his personal ratings are level-pegging with David Cameron, as Brown has badly lost as much ground as Cameron has gained in the last month. But Brown is hoping that a concerned policy drive will regain lost ground. However, it is important, particularly over PMQs, that the PM treats Cameron as a political opponent and loses the personal animus described in the Observer. He needs to give as good as he gets on Wednesdays, and that is about more than good briefing (though when I was in no 10, it was certainly part of my job to make sure the then PM had punchy to the point briefing on education issues on a Wednesday regardless of the quality of the original product from the Department.) The PM must recognise that levity is as important in PMQs as facts (though having good ones are vital too).

Prudence will win out

After today's move by David Cameron to turn the government's consultation on school funding into a major national story, it would be astonishing if No 10 didn't order a retreat in the school surpluses row once the consultation on the regulations has come to an end. The idea was certainly not popular in the consultation about the concept, which ended in June. Of course, this silly idea would never have seen the light of day had the Treasury not been so keen on it in the first place. But it has a long history: Nigel de Gruchy, when he was running the NASUWT teaching union used regularly to complain about the surpluses. The idea was never taken up before because it is hard to justify why a school which puts aside £60,000 or £70,000 for a rainy day should be fined £6,000 for doing so, while a school that goes into deficit can often end up seeking a bailout. But Gordon Brown is also right to point out that it is on his watch that - in an idea originally proposed to a sceptical Treasury - schools have received significant sums through School Standards Grant and Formula Capital for schools to spend as they choose on revenue and capital, which were not available in the Tory days.

Cameron, not Brown, is the Euro-loser

The Europhobic press remain upset that Gordon Brown has not given them a referendum over some relatively minor structural changes in Brussels to accommodate the widening European Union. And the consensus seems to be that Brown has been damaged by the combination of not calling an election and not granting this referendum. But I'm with Tim Hames in The Times in wondering why some centre-left commentators have allowed themselves to get so excited about the absence of an election. And Steve Richards is absolutely right in The Independent when he says that the Tories should be celebrating not castigating this Treaty:

Here is Margaret Thatcher in her famous Bruges speech, the address that heightened the Euro-sceptic fervour in her party. It was the shrill tone that roused the passions of her ardent followers, rather than much of the substance. Her section on the wider Europe was modest and beyond dispute. "We must never forget that, east of the Iron Curtain, peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots," she said. Now the peoples have got their freedom and identity as members of the EU..... The Tory Euro-sceptics should be raising a glass over this latest treaty, rather than spitting blood once more.

And Richards is right too to believe that when this fuss has died down, it will be David Cameron - forced onto territory far removed from his modernisation agenda - who is likely to be the real loser from this whole debate, not Gordon Brown.

Brown's challenge

Today's polls, giving the Tories leads of 4 and 7 points cap a bad week for Gordon Brown, though his personal ratings remain stronger than David Cameron. Contrary to the excitable reports on some of the media, as Anthony Wells points out, it puts the Tory lead back to their March levels, and is not quite the 'biggest lead in 15 years'. Moreover, these figures are truly woeful for the Liberal Democrats, as Labour's vote at 36-38% is higher than earlier this year when it was 30-33% - Labour needs a Liberal Democrat recovery at the Tories' expense to win in key marginals.

But that isn't the main message of the last week. Polls are very volatile at the moment, and it is possible for Brown to recover. But as John Hutton told Andrew Marr this morning, this will require him to set out a very clear vision of where he wants to take Britain and his government in the months ahead. And it needs to be about more than neutralising his perceived weaknesses of the Blair years or his opponents' tax plans, though the latter was probably good politics and in a better week would have been seen as such. Brown showed he could deal with crises during the summer, and he probably owes his continued strong personal ratings to that; he must now show how is proactively going to lead the country as a reformer at home - focusing not just on those areas he championed as Chancellor, but on wider public service reform - and as a force for change in the wider world, championing environment and global poverty issues. As Andrew Rawnsley puts it in today's Observer

He needs to prove that he can be a good governor. That means spending less time obsessing over how he can wrong-foot his opponents and much more time thinking
about how he can put the country right. That demands more statesmanship and less gamesmanship. It's a strange thing to say about a man who waited for the job for so long, but the thing that Gordon Brown most needs to do is act like a leader. If he wants to be a long-term Prime Minister, then he needs to start behaving like one.

His ability to meet that challenge will decide whether the last fortnight was a blip or the beginning of something more serious.

To call or not to call

John Rentoul in today's Independent has clearly not been quite so intoxicated as many other hacks by the combination of Blackpool sea air and the Cameron 'look no script' trick. Cameron gave a reasonably good speech, though as on education, it relied on half-truths and prejudices to stay afloat. And there is something about party conferences that reduces capacity for rational thought among the media: I was at enough Labour conferences in the Kinnock years to know how a party starts the week gloomy but invariably ends up on course for victory. But Rentoul is also right when he describes Gordon Brown's dilemma over an election thus:

His speech....did not change the calculations about when that election will be. It did not bomb and thus tempt Brown to press the button. It was not a belter that forced the Prime Minister to hold off. Next week's decision is still finely poised....The problems for Brown are those of substance. If he does call an election next week, what is it about? What are the pressing challenges requiring difficult decisions that were not in the 2005 manifesto? In the longer run, an early election, even assuming Labour wins by a reasonable margin – and a majority of 66 is harder to obtain because of boundary changes – could hasten the decay of Brown's authority. The moment the election is over, the question moves on to: "Are you going to fight the next one? Who will be the next leader, Ed Balls or David Miliband?" David Cameron's so-so speech leaves Gordon Brown just where the Conservative Party wants him: between a rock and hard place.

Cameron's conceit

I have been watching David Cameron talking about education. Maybe the absence of notes is addling his brain, but he can't be allowed to get away with his crass assertions about what has and hasn't happened in education. He says 'if we don't understand why Labour has failed, we won't get it right'. Labour has certainly not failed, but if he doesn't know the facts, he won't get it right either. First, there are not 50% of pupils not getting level 4 in reading, writing or maths. That was true in 1997. It is not today. In fact, almost 80% reach the standard in English, and 76% do in Maths. I don't know how they taught maths at Eton, but that suggests 20% not 50%. Since Labour is already introducing synthetic phonics this year and remedial lessons in the 3Rs, he is not offering anything new here.

Second, on discipline, there are twice as many pupils excluded and in pupil referral units now as there were in 1997, and only 120 excluded pupils are returned to schools each year. I have great respect for heads (and some sympathy with the idea of requiring parents to sign home-school contracts) but the idea that these cases would not end up in the courts is fanciful nonsense.

Third, on diversity, Gordon Brown has actually accelerated academies - contrary to expectations, maybe - but he has done so. And the legislation already requires new schools to be open to competition from new providers - again a Labour innovation. There are a small but growing number of bodies getting involved, but there is unlikely to be an explosion of such schools. And finally, doesn't David Cameron know that far more special schools closed under the Tories than under Labour, and despite the best efforts of Tory councils - yes, those bodies who we should leave alone to spend 'their money' (not ours, I note) - Andrew Adonis has imposed an effective moratorium on their closure? Perhaps if Cameron understood these facts, he might then stop talking down our increasingly successful schools.

Cameron's continuing collapse (3)

Two more polls this morning confirming the trend in the Channel 4 News poll, and suggesting that not too much can be read into Thursday's by-election results. A Populus poll for the Times gives Labour 41% to the Tories' 31%, while YouGov in the Telegraph puts Labour on 43% and the Tories on 32%. If Gordon Brown is looking for good polling data to help decide on an autumn election, he won't be disappointed. As Peter Riddell notes in the Times, Brown has a clear edge in Populus over Cameron on key leadership attributes: by 59 to 30 per cent on having what it takes to be a good prime minister, and by 60 to 45 per cent on caring about the problems faced by ordinary people. The Yougov poll is particularly devastating for Cameron: substantial majorities of voters brand him as out of touch, a bad leader and insubstantial. Even on the environment, fewer than a third of people think his plans to tax their holiday flights brave and courageous. To say he faces an uphill struggle at Blackpool gives new meaning to the concept of an understatement.

Cameron's continuing collapse (2)

Continuing, before I was rudely interrupted, the latest Yougov poll for Channel 4 News gives Labour an 11-point lead, putting the party on a remarkable 44% to the Tories' 33%, its biggest lead since 2005. However, few people want an autumn election: a plurality of voters from all parties favours 2008 over 2007 (pdf). Funny enough, the group least keen on an autumn poll are Tory voters who must live in hope. Yet David Cameron's woes just keep on coming as he approaches the never terribly enticing prospect of a week in Blackpool. Norman Tebbit has made his views known on his leader (and Gordon).

No Northern Rock effect

A new Yougov poll in today's Daily Telegraph shows that the majority of people thought the government handled the Northern Rock situation well, and Labour remains six points clear of the Tories going into the party conference, at 39-33%. David Cameron remains 22 points behind Gordon Brown, who is on 42% as best prime minister (though for those LibDem fantasists who think Ming has shone this week, he scores a mere 6%). Most importantly, asked to choose between a Brown-led Labour government and a Cameron-led Tory government, Brown beats Cameron 47-32%, a recipe for an extraordinary landslide. I still find the idea of an autumn election unlikely, though it must be very tempting. And it is time for an inquest at Tory Central Office into how they so badly mishandled their response to Northern Rock, surely?

A question of trust

"Is it any surprise -after Iraq and ten years of spin and lies - that the public don't trust Labour on Northern Rock?", asks Stephen Glover with a mixture of synthetic anger and wishful thinking in today's Daily Mail. Sorry, Stephen, better luck next time. First, today's ICM poll for the Guardian records Labour on 40% and the Tories on 32%, with Brown enjoying huge public confidence as PM and Cameron sinking below Ming Campbell in personal approval ratings. Then, a Times/Populus Poll not only finds that most voters blame Northern Rock or the American mortgage market for the problems of the last few days, it shows public trust for Brown/Darling on the economy at 56% compared to 18% for Cameron/Osborne. Clearly the public still trust Labour in a crisis, and were deeply unimpressed with Cameron's pathetic attempts to talk the economy down last weekend.

Deja vu for Dave

Ben Brogan has some worrying news for David Cameron: Graham Brady, who helped spark the grammar schools fiasco for the Tories earlier in the summer, will be speaking at a fringe meeting in support of grammars at the party conference. What was the policy again? No new grammars, except where there are existing grammars (maybe). That's clear, then.