UK News

from Matt Falloon:

Brown soldiers on

If a car slams into a bus stop just yards away as you launch a last-ditch election offensive, you might be forgiven for thinking that the gods are not on your side.

But even after the nightmare week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has had, such portents of doom have little visible effect on the self-proclaimed underdog in this, one of Britain's most closely fought parliamentary elections for 25 years.

Brown and his cabinet colleagues, unveiling campaign posters in a windswept car park on Friday when the sound of screeching brakes made everyone jump, ploughed on with their attack on the centre-right Conservatives, warning that a vote for the opposition would put British economy and families at risk.

"You have got to have this inner reservoir of resilience to fight back when anything happens to you," the Labour leader told students later in an athletics hall at Loughborough university. "That's what I've got to do in the next few days anyway."

Even a man who has survived two coup attempts from within his own party since taking over from Tony Blair in 2007 could not have expected such bad luck in the days before the May 6 election.

Behind in opinion polls for much of his three-year tenure at the top, this was meant to be the week Brown fought back.

The third, and final, televised leaders' debate was on the economy -- a godsend for a man who helped spearhead the response to the global financial crisis and served as finance minister for a decade before taking over from Tony Blair in 2007.

Opinion poll raises spectre of hung British parliament

The latest opinion poll in Britain showing the opposition Conservatives six points ahead of the ruling Labour party has raised the possibility of a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority and a return to the kind of political uncertainty not seen since the 1970s.

Kenneth Clarke, the Conservatives’ business spokesman, said earlier this month that a hung parliament at this point in the economic cycle would be a disaster, an assertion his boss David Cameron was quick to try to play down after the latest survey.

The fact is that a landslide Conservative victory, which at one point had appeared inevitable with polls showing Cameron’s party 20 points ahead, now looks far less likely after Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s best opinion poll showing in almost a year.

The Ipsos MORI survey in the Observer newspaper showed Labour on 31 percent, the Conservatives on 37 percent and the Liberal Democrats on 17 percent. The last British election to deliver a hung parliament was called in February 1974 by Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. His decision to call a snap poll in the face of labour unrest and economic turmoil disastrously backfired. A second election in October 1974 allowed Labour’s Harold Wilson to turn a minority government into a small working majority.

The fresh glimmer of hope for Labour came against a backdrop of confidence in economic recovery, a Labour by-election victory and signs the Conservatives were struggling to win over floating voters. Labour, in power since 1997, has suffered from the longest recession on record, a scandal over lawmakers’ expenses and military losses in Afghanistan. A general election must be held by June 3. 

“I do think that in the middle of an acute national crisis a hung parliament would be one of the biggest disasters we could suffer … that would be a bigger danger than a Labour victory,” said Clarke, one of the heavyweights of the Conservative party and a former finance minister.

“Fear of City Turmoil if Election Delivers Hung Parliament,” was the Daily Telegraph headline prompted by Clarke’s comments over an article that referred to the “potentially devastating effect such a result could have on the financial markets at a time when the economy is on a life-support machine.”

Tories and Trotskyites

Chalk and organic cheese would be an understatement.

There is a surprising public perception that there wouldn’t be much difference between a Conservative or Labour government, but there couldn’t be fewer similarities between the supporters of both movements and the two party conferences.

It would be hard to imagine union activists sipping on cocktails from the Knightsbridge luxury store Harvey Nichols stand at the Labour party conference in Brighton, but in Manchester thirsty Conservatives can enjoy an HN gin ricky.

They can also buy soft, pastel cashmere jumpers from Marks & Spencer or get a suit fitted in the market place. Cufflinks and chalices await those who visit the elite Carlton Club stall, along with limited edition portraits of icon Margaret Thatcher.

At Labour, union stands tend to dominate — reflecting their influence over the movement and the party’s reliance on their funding. The closest you can get to a Harvey Nichols cocktail by the main hall is a pint of tepid bitter from the hatch.

Beans on jacket potatoes, stewed tea and bacon buns with butter and brown sauce on sale in Brighton; fairtrade white chocolate muffins, herbal tea and organic, homemade sandwiches in Manchester.

And it doesn’t stop there. Outside the Labour party conference, radical socialists march past crying “Revolution!”, pro-Palestinian supporters picket. In Manchester, the anti-European UK Independence Party rally against the European Union and a few protest against hunting.

Is powerful Mandy talking up the euro?

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffled his cabinet last week, fending off a challenge to his authority, a significant outcome was the creation of one of the most powerful ministerial jobs Britain has seen in years.

Peter Mandelson, a former European commissioner who has twice served in British governments in the past and twice been forced to resign, was reconfirmed as secretary of state for business, but also given greatly expanded authorities that make him a powerful if unofficial number two to Brown.

Much fun has been made of Mandelson’s new title, which because he has been elevated to the House of Lords in order to serve in the cabinet now officially reads as:

MPs Kirkbride and Moran fall on swords

The expenses scandal has claimed two more victims – one from each side of the House.

Labour MP for Luton South Margaret Moran has announced that she will stand down at the next election, while Conservative MP Julie Kirkbride will no longer represent her Bromsgrove constituency after the likely 2010 poll.

Both MPs have defended the expenses they have claimed, arguing they have taken the decision to step down as a way of ensuring their respective political parties’ chances are not damaged at the next general election.

But Moran has claimed the stress and “health problems” the furore has caused her, while Kirkbride is worried about the effect the intense media spotlight has had on her family.

Which begs two questions.  Have Moran and Kirkbride been given rougher treatment by the media because there are women? And will Parliament struggle to find candidates of a suitable calibre to stand as MPs in the future?

Playing the blame game

President Barack Obama had barely settled into in the White House before he was happy to admit he had “screwed up” over one of his choices for a cabinet job after Tom Daschle withdraw his nomination as health secretary over an income tax controversy.

Even Britain’s leading bankers were moved to apologise to parliament last month over the sector’s indiscretions in the boom years.

But sorry is clearly not a word in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s political lexicon, even though he was Chancellor for 10 years and arguably his “light touch” approach to the economy created the environment for  the current economic mess we are in.

Brown is happy to talk of the need for humility, but that’s as far as he will go. He reminds you of a cyclist caught doping, endlessly pleading their innocence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Whether Brown believes an act of contrition is simply unnecessary as he has done nothing wrong or that to say the word “sorry” would provide the opposition Conservatives with a stick to beat him mercilessly ahead of a general election is unclear.

Commentator Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday’s Guardian makes the case that until Brown admits some degree of culpability for Britain’s economic woes the Labour Party will not get a hearing at the next election.

Why are politicians so loath to say sorry? And could Brown revive his electoral hopes if he does accept fault for Britain’s economic crisis?

Labour: Your time is up. And not just in Crewe

If the message on the streets up here in northern England is anything to go by, Labour will be sent packing at the next election.

Yes, it was just a by-election. Yes, Labour is suffering from severe mid-term blues. But the swing was a massive 17.6 percent and it wasn’t the Liberal Democrats who gained from Labour’s troubles, as is traditional in by-elections.

From speaking to people on the ground, the Labour vote has collapsed and the Tories are out in force. When pensioners who’ve voted Labour all their lives switch to the Conservatives, it’s time for Labour to worry.

Rising living costs and the perception that Labour has encouraged a benefits culture that is bleeding taxpayers dry were high on voters’ grudge list. Then there was the 10 pence tax ”fiasco” as one called it, or Labour’s “cynical, condescending” campaign against Tory toffs, as another said. 

Overwhelmingly, though, there was a sense that people had just had enough. That Labour had had 11 years and what had they done with it?

On top of that, there was a whiff of victory that pervaded the Conservatives’ campaign and got many apathetic Tories or people who had never voted before out in support for Edward Timpson.

David Cameron just needs to maintain the sense that the Conservatives are on track to win and he could see thousands more floating voters jumping on his bandwagon.

Brown and out?

As much as stunned Labour MPs wander around like Corporal Jones telling each other not to panic after the dreadful result for them in Crewe, many of the newspapers believe Gordon Brown’s days are now numbered.

The Guardian, under the headline “Brown faces meltdown,” says he is facing the gravest crisis of his premiership in the run-up to the Autumn party conference. Like many other newspapers it says the decision to dress Labour activists in top hats and deride the Conservative candidate as a “toff” was a fundamental mistake, albeit one endorsed by Brown.

“Deciding who was responsible for the approach will be a central part of any Labour inquest,” the paper said.

The Daily Express says Brown is now likely to face a “stalking horse” leadership challenge in the Autumn, possibly from a former minister like Charles Clarke or Alan Milburn, with a view to getting rid of him well before the next general election.

Any attempts to unseat Brown will not be forgiven, the Daily Mirror says potential rebels have been told. The paper says Downing Street fears Blairite supporters will be giving interviews this weekend trying to undermine the leader.

Several papers believe Brown will have difficulty coming up with a raft of new policy announcemenets to rejuvenate Labour, having already unveiled many plans in last week’s draft Queen’s speech and moved to defuse the 10p income tax row.

A snap cabinet reshuffle looks unlikely for fear of appearing a panic measure, comments the Independent.

The Great Clunking Fist needs to say it better

Hearing Gordon Brown say he’d made mistakes yesterday almost made me jump. Could the Great Clunking Fist really be admitting he’d got something wrong?

I’ve been covering Brown for more than ten years — both at the Treasury and now at No 10. And in all the interviews, international trips and news conferences I have never heard him say sorry.

He’ll usually quotes a blizzard of figures or just repeat what he said, just more emphatically. He certainly would never concede anyone else could be right.

That was much the case when the whole row over the 10 pence tax row started. Brown wouldn’t accept that his abolition of the lowest tax rate could hit millions of poor people.

Fairly or unfairly he maintained that people losing out from scrapping the 10p rate would benefit from other allowances or tax credits. People would come to understand this was a major tax reform — he also cut the basic rate of tax to 20 pence from 22 pence in the pound. Nor were there too many rebels in his own Labour Party.

That changed last week though when nearly 50 Labour MPs looked ready to vote against the government. The Treasury quickly said it would make some concessions in the form of handouts to anyone losing out.

And then on Wednesday, Brown admitted he had made not just one, but two mistakes. He had not thought about the low-paid who didn’t get a tax credit and there was no help for some of the elderly who don’t get pensioners’ tax allowances.

Brown’s tax U-turn: new beginning or beginning of end?

Gordon Brown on Wednesday made what the British media and opposition parties widely judged to be the most humiliating and embarrassing policy change of his short career as Prime Minister: a climbdown over concessions to those made worse off by his scrapping of the lowest, 10 pence income tax rate.

Conservative leader David Cameron, hoping to oust Brown and Labour in the next election, branded Brown a “pathetic” figure. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg called him “increasingly pointless”.

Brown, they crowed, was an isolated figure, forced into what the Daily Mail said was a “humiliating U-turn” over tax policies he introduced last year in his final Budget as Finance Minister. Cameron said it was a “massive loss of authority”.

So, is he — and was it?

Undoubtedly, Brown has courted a lot of very bad press over the 10 pence issue. Claims the Labour government have done more than any other this century to help people out of poverty sounded hollow when it became clear that by abolishing a tax band he introduced, Brown was making five million households worse off. The subsequent open rebellion from Labour backbenchers over the issue just made matters worse.

In the end, however, Brown did — although not admitting a mistake — make changes, stressing he had listened to people’s concerns and acted.

And if Brown can play it right, he may be able to convince voters increasingly turned off Brown and the Labour party that this is the mark of a good leader. “On 10p tax, he listened and acted. That is a sign of strength, not weakness,” the influential Sun newspaper said in an editorial.