Ivan Lewis: 1) Labour "overspent without delivering sufficient value for money." 2) Er, I withdraw that.

by Paul Goodman

The fallout in the Labour Party from the Scottish and local election results continues.  Yesterday, Ivan Lewis put the boot in.  According to the Financial Times (£) -

"Ed Miliband has been warned by one of his senior frontbenchers that Labour is still seen as the “party of the north” and is struggling to regain its toehold in the prosperous south of the country.

Mr Lewis said in a speech that the public had “stuck with the Tories” despite deep cuts and tax rises, a situation which – “if sustained” – would mean general election defeat for Labour.

The party was still seen as being for “the poor, benefit claimants, immigrants and minority groups”, Mr Lewis said, in what will be seen as a plea for a more Blairite agenda."

The Guardian, however, leads on a line that didn't get delivered in the speech rather than one that did -

"A member of the shadow cabinet was forced last night to amend a speech in which he planned to warn that some voters believe the party is spendthrift.

The shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, made the changes after an early draft of his speech, which appeared in the London Evening Standard, was seized on by the Tory chair, Lady Warsi.

The newspaper said Lewis planned to tell the Blairite Progress group that some voters regarded Labour as a "party which overspent without delivering sufficient value for money". The remarks were removed by the time Lewis delivered his speech in Westminster last night.

The F.T also quotes the independent-minded Tom Harris - a great loss to Twitter since his departure - as saying that his party “deserved to lose” in Scotland because it had been arrogant and “insulted the intelligence of voters” by making the Holyrood elections about the Tories in London.  As the old saying goes, why doesn't he try telling us what he really thinks?

10.45am UPDATE As several readers point out below, Harris stopped blogging, not tweeting.  The news of the first came as such a blow to me that I confused the two.  So to quote my own headline above: "Er, I withdraw that."  And will start following him immediately.

How's Ivan Lewis's call for an inquiry following England's World Cup bid failure getting along?

by Paul Goodman

If political parties assail their opponents, they're accused of wasting time and money.  (Or of getting the attack wrong.)  If they don't, they're charged with not having lacking the will to win, not going for the jugular, failing to fight back, and so on.

Even so, Ivan Lewis's call yesterday for an enquiry into England's World Cup bid failure was a spectacularly inept call.  He said  -

"Despite the impressive efforts of Team England, supporters will be bitterly disappointed at England’s failure to land the 2018 World Cup. This follows on from the England team’s poor performance in South Africa. Serious questions have to be answered as to how we can learn lessons from these significant setbacks to build a better future. The Coalition and the football authorities should now set up an independent root and branch inquiry into all aspects of how our national game is run."

If we want to host the World Cup, the only lesson to be learned next time round is: censor the media and bribe FIFA officials.  That, at any rate, is the media's judgement today.  Rightly or wrongly (I think rightly: unambiguously so), David Cameron isn't shouldering the blame.

Which Labour must have thought yesterday that he might.  Which is presumably why Lewis's press release was issued.  My hunch is that it wasn't his idea, but was a "strategic decision", if there is such an animal in Unready Eddie's Labour Party.

But perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps Lewis is in deadly earnest about the need for an inquiry.  If so, we'll soon know - when Lewis suggests who should conduct the enquiry, Labour tables a Commons debate on the matter, Miliband raises it at Prime Minister's Questions...