Daniel Hannan made an interesting in last week’s Sunday Telegraph. Could Peter Mandleson in his elevated role, be saving the government until October to enable the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified? Certainly he seems to have rallied both the cabinet and the PLP when they seemed to be distintigrating. Labour seems to be back on course feeding the agenda, rather than being battered by new revelations on expenses and resignations. However, there are two weaknesses to this arguement.

Firstly, if Labour had continued to disintegrate, then it would have further destroyed it’s own prospects in the forthcoming general election. Saving Gordon Brown’s Premiership helps the Labour Party, as a new leader would have to call an election soon afterwards. Labour will stage some sort of recovery, so the delay will save a few Labour seats.

Secondly, for Lord Mandleson, he has reached the pinicle of his power. If the government collapses, he will be cast out in the wilderness.

The interests of the Labour party and the European Federalists coincide at the present time. They are not in conflict as Hannan would suggest.

The election of John Bercow as speaker of the House of Commons was achieved with very little support from MPs of his own party. Whether you accept is was with 3 or 4 conservative votes (per Nadine Dorries) or might be at high as 20, it was still with a 10% or less the consrvative votes. Hopefully John Bercow can rise above this and become a strong and impartial speaker. But he has a mountain to climb, as his support could well be based upon a cynical attempt to make life difficult for a future Conservative Government. T o quote Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.

“History has been made, insofar as Mr Bercow is perhaps the first Speaker ever to be chosen on account of his unpopularity and lack of authority. And this is, in itself, a deeply revealing insight into the late-stage Labour game plan. A retreating army still has plenty of options, if it is imaginative enough. There are bridges to be burned, landmines to be laid, earth to be scorched. And Speaker Bercow is merely the most visible of the many shackles with which Labour hopes to burden a Tory government.”

Another example of a Labour Government planning for opposition?

John Redwood points to a small victory for the Conservatives in the Commons yesterday in a vote on Regional Assemblies.

It may be a small victory, but a failing government ploughs on. Why should they do this when the opinion polls would show little enthusiam for the idea of another body of bureaurats?

Might I suggest that the New Labour spin-doctors have re-grouped under Lord Mandleson. The brief now is to destroy the incoming conservative government, by crippling them with commitments and providing daily headlines about Consrevative cuts. In so doing, the most destructive part of the alternative reality of properganda spin is revealed.

UPDATE

Englishman’s Castle provided a blog about the death of the South-Western Regional Assembly. It shows the lack of purpose in having such entities. The fact that the Government is still promoting the assemblies when they serve no distinct and useful purpose either suggests that

EITHER

The government does not have a measure of their lack of purpose,

OR

They are keeping them, expensively, on life-support, so that it is the Tories who will lkill off  “a brilliant initiative in decentralisation”

Either way, it does not show a government serving the people.

Iain Dale has posted an e-mail sent to a former labour supporter, inviting him to rejoin. Dale’s comment is

“Note that people are being asked to rejoin three times. If the BNP line doesn’t get them, then maybe the threat of cuts will. And note that there’s not a single positive reason to rejoin – it’s all attacking the Tories.But it’s the BNP line that will enrage right minded people.”

Again, the line being taken by Labour is that “we must prepare for opposition”

Ed Balls has continued the preparations for post-election opposition with an attack on the Tories education policies in today’s Guardian.

This oppposition mentality is shown by the Labour Government’s policies merely form an unquestioned measuring-rod from which to evaluate the Tories.  Like any opposition with no hope of forming a government, consistency is not required. In the current circumstances, when spending needs to be squeezed, if something is raised up the list of priorities, we need to know what has fallen down the league table. In particular, those areas which are no longer required, so can be dropped. Or there might be areas can be reduced.

Unfortunately the Ballsian approach tends towards an extremist party that knows that they will never form a government when he says

“David Cameron is playing the public for fools and, frankly, the centre-left have let him get away with it too long.”

In other words, the Tories have a conspiracy to make things worse. Labour needs to expose the “truth”. 

Hat tip Dan Hannan

FOLLOW UP – John Redwood stated yesterday that

“It is pathetic that we are still stuck in this idiotic sound bite culture, where Mr Brown seriously believes he can frighten people from voting Conservative by continuing to fib that Tories want to sack teachers and nurses.His main reason for wanting Balls in place of Darling apparently was to have someone as Chancellor who would spend his time rubbishing the Opposition instead of tackling the serious productivity and deficit problems in the public sector.”

Well perhaps Ed Balls is trying to do the attacking role from his current position?

The Labour government is now trying to tie the hand of a future Consrvative government. In launching a The Child Poverty Bill puts a legal obligation on local authorities and other public bodies to work towars the irradication of child poverty. In the words of Yvette Cooper (new Work & Pensions Sectretary) “The reason for having this legal framework is to say that this is not something that you can just walk away from. Future governments, future agencies shouldn’t just be able to turn round and say OK it’s got a bit too difficult…..”

So a new Labour government in 1997 sets an impossible standard. Twelve year later, having not gotting close to fulfilling it, they then tie future Governments into their targets. The reason that it is impossible, is that the measure of child poverty involved is a relative concept. So even if we get Chinese rates of growth for the next generation, if income distribution remains unchanged, we will get policy failure.

The Bill is aiming to tie a future government into a socialist concept. It is putting in place laws which cannot be met, for which to breate a future Conservative government.

See Today Programme on Fri 12th June at 7.52. At 3 mins to 3.15 Yvette Cooper explains that it is a relative measure, and gives a backhanded dig at the previous governements. At 3.15 mins is the above quote.

Have you noticed that the Labour Spin Machine has kicked into life again? Problem is that instead of promoting government policies, they concentrate on attacking the Tories.

This excellent interview on the Radio 4 Today Programme (at 8.10 on 11th June) has Liam Byrne attacking the prospective Conservative cuts, whilst failing to admit that Labour need to do similar cuts. John Humphreys asks a number of times for a clear answer to whether Labour in Government will cut expenditure. He does not give a straight answer. The reason that Liam Byrne does not give a straight answer is that the Labour Party no longer expect to win the next election, so have no plans on how to sort out the current Brownian mess. They election campaign is already underway.

Listen in particular after 1.45 mins and 2.30