Daily Mail

Is everything still being defined by the ex-leaders ?

The big news for Labour as we move into September should be the start of voting in the first contested election for a leader since 1994.

Instead the media remain obsessed with the Blair-Brown years and “what really went on”. Just look at this week. A couple of days ago the Mail on Sunday had the second part of the serialisation of the Chris Mullin diaries. Yesterday a short series began on Radio 4 with an abridged spoken word version of the same book.

And on top of that the big one - the publication on Thursday of Tony Blair’s book “The Journey” and the associated media hype.

It is Labour Past rather than Labour Future that the media is interested in.

Look at the the scheduling tomorrow evening in prime time by the BBC of a special programme devoted to an interview with Tony Blair. That’s already been recorded and, as the above piece from the Mail shows, a spin war has broken out over what Blair might or might not have said.

The report goes: “Mr Blair will defend his role in the Iraq War and pass judgment on Mr Brown’s handling of the financial crisis and the election campaign, and the performance of the coalition Government. Mr Brown’s allies are preparing a counterblast amid reports that Mr Blair will blame his successor for losing the election by turning away from his New Labour reforms.

He is likely to stress that his Chancellor and successor was solely responsible for the regulatory free-for-all that led to the economic crisis…”

My reading of Tim Shipman’s story is that this has come from the Brown camp and they are seeking to get their retaliation in early - a classic spin tactic from the whole Blair-Brown period.

The problem for Labour is that the Brown-Blair war gets more fascinating the more detail that comes out. The result - lots and lots of coverage.

In terms of the current leadership battle I wonder whether this might hurt David Miliband a bit - he’s the one contender who is most associated with Tony Blair. In the betting Betfair have DM at 1.39 with EdM having moved out to 4.

Mike Smithson

Guardian

Who’ll win the old-Etonian stand-off over Cross-Rail?

The big development over Boris that Morus only touched on briefly in the last post was the huge row that’s apparently developing between Johnson (Eton and Balliol College Oxford) and Cameron (Eton and Brasenose College Oxford) over plans by Osborne (St. Paul’s and Magdalen College Oxford) to force a 5% cut to the £16bn London CrossRail project.

According to the Guardian, though denied by the Mayor’s office, Johnson has let it be known has let it be known that if all the money is not forthcoming then he will stand for parliament at the next available Westminster by-election. This, of course, raises the possibility of mayoral by election in London involving the capital’s 6m voters.

What the veracity of this is we do not know but Boris is a wily political operator who could be a big threat to Cameron’s leadership if he returned to the commons as an MP.

This could have an impact on a range of betting markets. Even though he is not an MP Boris is the betting favourite to be the next Tory leader. Ladbrokes have him at 5/1 the same as Michael Gove but tighter than the 8/1 against William Hague who has seen an easing.

Boris is also the 4/5 favourite to win the 2012 London Mayoral race - though Bet365’s 13/8 against Ken winning starts to look quite tempting. He has, of course, to be selected as Labour’s candidate - a party election that is taking place in September.

The problem with the “Boris returning to Westminster at a by election” theory is that safe Tory seats don’t come up very often. In the past decade only one sitting Tory MPs has died causing a by election - the total of Labour MP deaths in the same period was ten.

If Boris was to try to get back then the best route would be if a current Tory MP decided to stand down to make way for him - and that is fraught with danger. Voters have a history of punishing parties that cause unnecessary by elections. The Tories also have a miserable record defending by election seats while they are in government.

Mike Smithson

The ICM approval ratings break-down

The above tables are from the detailed data in the latest ICM poll and show the three main approval findings breaking down the answers on current voting intention and, for the Lib Dems, an extra row on how those who supported the party at the general election are thinking.

It’s that gap that’s interesting showing quite a different response from current LD supporters and those who voted for the party on May 6th.

So less than half of general election Lib Dem voters now think the coalition is doing a good job - yet 61% give a positive rating Clegg rising to 78% amongst those who are sticking with the party.

The general election LD voters are also quite happy with Cameron - with a 58-38 “good job/bad job” split for the prime minister. With current party supporters that rises to 68-26.

Given they’ve lost a fair bit of support since May it’s not surprising that there’s a marked difference between general election LD voters and current ones - but the gap is not as wide as the current media and political narrative is suggesting.

This is, of course, the data from just one poll with all the usual caveats.

Mike Smithson

Guardian

Could Labour be wrong by “playing nasty”?

One of most provocative “Monday columns” in the the papers this morning is from Jacky Ashley in the Guardian in which she takes Labour to task for not reading reading the public mood right.

She argues: “Labour is playing bad politics. The leadership campaign is turning into a tin-ear, foot-in-mouth competition about who can be nastiest to the Liberal Democrats. As candidates desperately try to prove themselves more true Labour, more tribal than the next guy, they are in danger of missing the big picture about our changing politics. They could end up wrecking their party’s position for the next generation, which is their own.

Part of this is about an underestimated and under-discussed quality in politics: tone. The biggest tone change in politics has been the transition from the raw warfare of the latter days of New Labour towards the apparently collegiate and good-humoured attitude of the coalition. It’s true this is already fraying at the edges….but the crucial thing is that the public seem to like the spirit of co-operation.

If Labour goes into all-out war against Clegg and colleagues, betting on the Lib Dems breaking up, and loses the bet, they may well find British politics has realigned very differently. Put it another way: the behaviour of Labour now may decide whether its future is as an opposition party or the next government.”

I am sure that Jackie right but she is also unrealistic. There’s a battle going on out there to become leader of the party and the contenders’ rhetoric has to resonate with those who’ll be receiving their ballot papers in less than a fortnight.

Those who’ll be voting are not the public at large but signed up members of the Labour tribe - and the best way of appealing to them, surely, is to be tribal.

But one party acting in a fiercely tribal manner is leading to another one, the Lib Dems, doing the same. My reading is that the Labour onslaught is bringing the LDs closer together. It is very much like how Labour reacted when Gordon Brown was under sustained attack. The party gathered round to support the leader.

Mike Smithson