An early election or not?

According to Nick Robinson, The Code for Fiscal Stability rules out the possibility of a March election:

The date of the Pre-Budget Report was announced today as 9th of December. The Code for Fiscal Stability, which Gordon Brown put into law in 1998, states that there must be "at least three months" between the Pre-Budget Report and the following Budget.

Thus, the earliest possible date for a 2010 Budget is the 9th of March. That is after the latest possible date - 1st of March - on which Gordon Brown could call a March election.

This is the relevant clause:

If, as is usual, there is only one Budget in a financial year, the Treasury shall publish a Pre-Budget Report (PBR) at least three months prior to it, unless this is the first Budget of the Parliament, in which case a PBR shall not be required.  In addition, if there is more than one Budget in any financial year, only one PBR shall be required.

What the clause doesn't say is if the Budget following the PBR has to be in the same Parliament.

So, it would seem that Brown does have the option to call an early election, which would take place before the previously announced tax rises kick in.

Why David Miliband is staying

Daniel Finkelstein, making the assumption that Labour has already lost the election, misses the point as to why David Miliband has turned down the job as the EU’s foreign minister.

To quote Hugh Gaitskell:

Some of us…will fight, fight and fight again to save the party we love.

That is why David Miliband is staying.

Ken Clarke goes off message

Team Cameron will not be best pleased with Ken Clarke's latest outburst:

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.

Lord Mandelson, who Ken Clarke has much respect for, will no doubt agree.

That is not all.  There is this wonderful exchange with Boris Johnson:

Boris: "Ken, I really should give you a job, you know. How about deputy mayor?"

Ken: "Weeeell, I don't think so. Most of your deputy mayors only last about four months"

What fun we will all have with Ken Clarke during the election campaign. 

A small sign of an early election

Our elected representatives will have little to do in the run up the election.  The Guardian is reporting that there will no electoral reform bill in the Queen’s Speech.  Some Cabinet members are not happy:

They argue that a paving bill – setting a date for a referendum on a new voting system, to take place after the general election expected in May – would be supported by the Liberal Democrats and so and put the Conservatives on the back foot. They hope Gordon Brown may change his mind, but admit the chances are slim.

What's Brown up to?  It is not like Our Dear leader to miss the opportunity of creating one of his famous dividing lines with the Tories.  There is plenty of time to get this bill through Parliament if the election is to be on May 6.

Maybe he is planning of an early election on March 25, not so much to wrong foot Team Cameron, but to destabilise any attempted coup that could well take place in January.

However, if Brown is thinking along these lines, it makes the ‘Bob Hawke scenario’ even more attractive, where a new leader would be installed and then call an immediate general election.

Labour’s leadership election – The rules

Having asked the question of John Rentoul to which the answer is no, a simple Google search (Tory party members in Norfolk please note) finds Leadership Elections: Labour Party:

4B.2e Procedure in a vacancy

(i) When the party is in government and the party leader is prime minister and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out.

Therefore, either Miliband or Johnson could be appointed on a temporary basis and a ballot postponed until after the general election.

AJ or DM: A leadership election?

Following David Miliband’s decision, John Rentoul has this to say:

This is good news for the country and the Labour Party. It suggests that Miliband thinks that there is a serious chance that there will be a change of prime minister before the election. As chairman emeritus of the AJ4PM campaign, all I can say is: the more top-quality candidates for the succession the better. I think there has to be a leadership contest if there is a change, even in the short time before the general election, and to have two excellent alternative leaders available is better than one. The speculation about Miliband's European future has enhanced his reputation and made the Labour Party realise how disastrous it would have been had he abandoned it.

Agreed.  However, there is one point that the “chairman emeritus of the AJ4PM campaign” should take on board. 

How is a leadership election going to be organised in the time remaining before the election?  It would be a distraction when resources should be focused on attacking the Tory party.

An alternative would be to suspend the leadership rules and for the Cabinet to nominate either Miliband or Johnson.

If Brown does depart in rather unique circumstances, this would surely be acceptable to the Labour party?

The election is far from over

Another poll and yet more evidence that a hung parliament is a real possibility:

CON 39%, LAB 29%, LDEM 18%

Peter Riddell offers this analysis:

According to the UK Polling Report’s ready reckoner, which assumes a uniform switch of votes between the parties, these figures would give the Tories a majority of only two.

There is a growing perception that the Tories may not win the election with an overall majority:

The number expecting a Tory overall majority has slipped from 57 to 50 per cent in the past month, the lowest level since the question was first asked in April. By contrast, the number expecting a hung Parliament with no overall majority has risen from 17 to 26 per cent. However, 65 per cent still expect the Tories to be the largest party, against 27 per cent for Labour.

Alastair Campbell was right to say, “Labour needs more of the winning mentality”

Too many Labour people are talking and behaving as though the game is over, when whatever the polls and the media say, it is not.

Because everywhere you go, you get the same message - that whatever problems people may have with Labour, they are not rushing to embrace the Tories.

His point has been discussed many times and this is starting to be reflected in the polls.

Maybe, just maybe, David Miliband’s decision will send an important message to Labour MPs; that the game is not over and with a change of leader there is a realistic possibility of denying the Tories a majority.

Miliband “sees his future in British politics"

That is what “a friend of the foreign secretary” has told Nick Robinson:

David Miliband has turned down the possibility of a new career as "Europe's Foreign Secretary" - the post formally called EU high representative

Mr Miliband's decision follows lobbying from colleagues who have urged him not to desert the Labour Party and who regard him as Gordon Brown's natural successor.

This is more definitive:

I have learnt that he told the president of the Party of European Socialists (PES), Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, that he was not interested in the job when the two men spoke yesterday.

Robinsosn’s timely revelation may do enough to close down the speculation that Miliband will not be off to Europe, but it will do little to dampen the possibility that he will succeed Brown before the election.

AJ4PM: Straws in the wind

On a day when Alan Johnson’s interview didn't get the attention it deserved, it is worth noting:

1. The tensions between between Brown and Darling;

2. The Independent’s latest “poll of polls” where John Curtice has this to say:

David Cameron must still be concerned that he has still not ‘sealed the deal’ with sufficient voters so that Labour could not at least claw its way back to hung-parliament territory.

3. That David Miliband has made an unexpected trip to Berlin; and

4. Labour’s female MPs are not happy over the proposed changes to childcare benefits.

Just small matters that are worth keeping an eye on.

So, AJ does want the job

In a further sign that Alan Johnson does want to lead Labour at the next election, he has given an interview to the Indy where we calls for a “real debate” on immigration:

People think we have shied away from a debate on it. They may well be right.  My post bag is bigger on immigration than any other issue. It is a major public concern. The public deserves a rational debate on this, rather than what they sometimes get, which is at the extreme end of the scale.

He admits that the lack of a proper debate has played into the BNP’s hands:

Part of its attraction is that it is raising things that other political parties don't raise.  It would take the absence of a national debate as the green light to distort the debate. It has absolutely no inhibition about lying about these issues.

On drugs and immigration Johnson is showing leadership and saying what the country want to hear.  If the BNP do hold their deposit in the forthcoming Glasgow North-East by-election, it will further underpin his views on the need for a debate.

Not only that, but it will strengthen the argument that he is the best alternative leader to take the fight to the Tories during the run up to the election.

MPs’ expenses: Facebook to the rescue!

Sir Ian Kennedy, head of the newly formed Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is not happy being told what to do by Sir Christopher Kelly.  Sir Ian is to carry out yet another consultation exercise with the aid of Facebook.

Perhaps these distinguished gentleman, along with one of two others involved in sorting out this scandal, should be reminded of what goes on in the private sector.

People who live away from home during the week happily live in hotels or rented accommodation, they are not allowed to make a capital gain and, with very few exceptions, are not allowed to employ a spouse or family member.

What is needed, if that is possible, is the smack of firm leadership.  Sir Ian should be told to implement Kelly’s proposals.  If is he fails to do this, he should be replaced by somebody who will.

MPs should be exposed to real world and sample how a large proportion of the electorate go about their daily lives.

Enough is enough.  It is time for action, not further delay.

Another Brown Monday

You know the game.  You are shown a picture and then you are asked, “What happens next?”.  The answer is that Gordon Brown had his ‘Michael Foot moment’ at the Cenotaph yesterday.  After laying his wreath, he stepped back without physically tripping up and forgot to bow his head.

 

Next up, we have letter Brown sent to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.  Not only is his name mis-spelt, but the letter is full of errors. Downing Street has been forced to put out a statement.

 

 

Then we come to Jackie Ashley’s headline grabbing article.  She goes through the motions describing Cameron’s little difficulties over Europe before moving on to the party she loves:

Some Labour people may think I'm sounding too gloomy, but those who have been privy to recent private polling are a lot more than gloomy. This suggests that Labour could return to the Commons with just 120 MPs or thereabouts, taking the party back to 1930s territory.

Good grief.  Can this be true?  So taken aback is Mike Smithson that he just posts the quote on his blog without offering any analysis.

The best that can be said is that the well connected Ashley wouldn't have put this information out there without knowing this poll was accurate.  However, there is not one public poll that supports these findings.

But, for the moment, Brown goes about his work.  He is off to Berlin today where he will make a speech to mark the 20th anniversary of the wall’s collapse.  While Brown is there, he will have a little word with those who matter about one Tony Blair's still unannounced job application to be President of Europe.  Once Brown has failed in that little task all eyes will fall on David Miliband.

The European version of musical chairs should end later this week.  The sooner the better.  Hopefully, we can then move on to bring the curtain down on Brown’s performance as Prime Minister.

One way and another, it has been quite a spectacle in ‘how not to do it’.

Remembrance Sunday

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Cameron’s strange bedfellows

David Cameron may not have ‘sealed the deal’ with the electorate, but two eccentric members of the Labour party have suddenly become enthusiastic about all matters Tory.

Clare Short has been along to give a little pep talk to Team Cameron on overseas aid policy:

The Conservatives have committed to keeping up the budget and keeping up the commitment on poverty and keeping a separate department, so I am pleased about that.

Now, wait for it.  Tony Benn, who almost destroyed the Labour party in the early ‘80s, has taken a liking to Our Dave:

There are issues I find myself in agreement with some of the Tories on, particularly on civil liberties.

With loyalty to colleagues not being one Benn's priorities in life, and having succeeded in making the most horrendous political misjudgements down the years, he proceeds :

Some of the new Labour people might be tempted to support Cameron as the best way of having influence within the new power structure if there was a hung parliament. Some new Labour people might be sympathetic to some of the things Cameron did.

On hearing these remarks, Our Dear Leader will be more than justified in ending the life of another mobile phone.

The fat lady has yet to sing

Our illustrious Sunday commentators all sing the from the same hymn sheet this morning but with slightly different tunes.

Messrs Ivens, d'Ancona and Rentoul are convinced that Cameron’s statement on Europe was a watershed moment and although, as John Rentoul suggests, the Tories are not prepared for government, Cameron is now the Prime Minister-in-waiting.

Alan Watkins correctly points that a few Prime Ministers have fallen “because of foreign policy”and suggests there could well be a change of policy.  He goes on:

Mr Brown might be thrown out by his party because of his stubborn support for the war in Afghanistan, started by Mr Blair, but supported throughout by Mr Brown. And where would Mr Cameron be then, obediently following Mr Brown? I am not saying Labour would win again on a cry of bringing the boys home from a savage land. But ending the war, if necessary under a new Labour prime minister, would almost certainly dent any Tory majority.

With Obama yet to speak on the small subject of Afghanistan, who knows what may happen in the coming months.  One thing is for sure, there has to be a general election.

There is a consensus that we will go to the polls on May 6 2010, although the possibility of an earlier election should not be ruled out.  The Sun picks up on on this.  However, it is a report in the Yorkshire Post that is most interesting:

They [the Tories] are increasingly worried at the prospect of Labour going to the country on March 25, rather than the first week of May, as has been widely assumed.

The reason is simple. It would mean Labour having to put off the Budget until after polling day – a move that would make it easier for the Government to attack George Osborne's record as Shadow Chancellor, and how, rightly or wrongly, he has positioned the Conservatives on the wrong side of the economic argument.

It would mean Labour could be vague about the scale of the cuts that they would have to implement after the election.

And, it should be noted, that if there was a early poll the already announced tax rises would not have kicked in.

Now, we get to the heart of the matter:

The polling evidence suggests that the anti-Government vote will split so many ways, to the benefit of the Greens, UKIP and the repugnant BNP, that the Tories will not win sufficient seats in the North.

And there's another reason for the Tory concerns. They're still not ruling out the possibility of Brown stepping aside, or being forced out of office by Lord Mandelson, and an interim leader leading Labour into the election.

The tearoom talk, evidently, is of Alan Johnson, the Hull MP, becoming Prime Minister and running the country until polling day – while Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, runs the election campaign.

Let’s not get bogged down with Harriet Harman.  The important point is that Labour may well make the change in January and then call an early general election, which would be a variant to the ‘Bob Hawke scenario’ originally advocated by John Rentoul many months ago.

Cameron may well be the Prime Minister-in-waiting, but he has yet to win the election.  The show is not over yet.

Another day, another speech falls apart

A pattern is emerging during Brown’s final weeks in office.  Each day he will make a speech at the crack of dawn, only for it to fall apart before the sun sets.

The details of his latest effort need not concern us.  However, the US, Canada and the IMF have already put the speech into the shredder.

The quote of the day goes to Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman:

Gordon Brown looks humiliated and isolated, a bit part player on the world stage.

Only weeks after his own Treasury rubbished the Tobin tax he's pulled it out of the hat like an old conjurer desperate for a new trick.

Murmuring generals

Well, that didn't take long.  No sooner had Brown finished his little speech, up pop three ex-generals to give their considered judgement on how the Prime Minister is conducting himself towards the armed forces.

Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003, said:

It is too much to hope that the present government will provide the necessary cash to allow its aspirations to be realised properly or honourably.

Government does not realise we are at war.

Lord Guthrie, who proceeded Lord Boyce:

I do think that military services, the people in the front line, are questioning whether the government is really, really committed to making progress in Afghanistan.

Lord Inge, who proceeded Lord Guthrie:

They [armed forces] have felt he [Brown] has never really been on their side and they have not had his support.

Nor is the present Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, together with the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, that happy with the Prime Minister. 

The Times has conveniently obtained a copy of report where they state we are in Afghanistan for the long haul:

Planning within Defence should be based on the assumption of a rolling three-year military commitment to Afghanistan, reviewed annually.

Their unequivocal statement of commitment appeared out of step with a more conditional speech on Afghanistan given by Gordon Brown yesterday.

This confusion lead Downing Street to issue a clarifying statement:

Mr Brown’s words did not mean that British troops would be withdrawn if Mr Karzai failed.

So, there we have it.  Our troops will be there for some years unless Obama decides otherwise.

Short-term tactical Brown was just attempting to buy time and appease public opinion.  As with so much else, he failed.

Desperate times

How to force Brown out?  That is the question that increasingly occupies the minds of Labour MPs.

The latest wheeze is for a large number of the comrades to absent themselves from the Commons at the time of the Queen’s Speech:

Someone who is not a "usual suspect" but a serving government minister has offered this scenario. When the Queen's Speech is put before the Commons in two weeks, large numbers of Labour MPs will fail to be there for the vote, so many that it will be defeated, Brown will have no parliamentary programme, so he will have to go.

There is one small problem with this cunning plan apart from it being in the newspapers.

If a vote on the Queen’s Speech is lost then there will have to be a vote of confidence when, presumably, a new leader would face the Commons.  Just how is this going to be achieved in super-quick-time under the full glare of the media?

Let’s all relax and wait a few days until we find out if Mandy has worked his magic in favour of his old boss or if David Miliband is off to Brussels.

The ducks are nearly in a row, but we’re not there yet.

This will catch on

Politics UK has a discussion (starts at 5 mins 15secs) between John Rentoul and Ben Brogan on the political fallout from the expenses scandal.

Our esteemed chairman of the AJ4PM campaign describes Cameron as being:

Fleet to foot.

It doesn't take long for Ben Brogan to pick up on the sound bite of the week.

That's it. Dave has “sealed the deal”

Brown has just uttered these dreaded words in an interview with the Daily Record:

I'll do what is the best for the country and I'll be standing at the election to stand for a full parliament.

Cameron can put the champagne on ice.  Brown has just won the election for him.

Typical Brown

We get all the usual platitudes from Brown in his speech on Afghanistan, then:

We cannot, will not and must not walk away.

But, on the other hand:

I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.

Well, which is it?

As with any Brown speech, it falls apart as soon as he sits down.

Just like Blair

Here is Roy Jenkins recalling a conversation he once had with Tony Blair:

On one morning I wake up and think I've lost a general election, therefore totally fluffed it - and on the other morning I wake up and think I've won the general election and become Prime Minister and discovered I'm no good at being Prime Minister.

Here is David Cameron during in his interview with the Evening Standard:

Unusually for a politician seeking to become Prime Minister in six months, he candidly admitted that his greatest driving force was the fear of making a mess. “Fear of getting things wrong inspires me more than the wonder of getting things right”

Cameron is the heir to Blair.

Brown fails to “save the world” (again)

Just a few weeks ago Brown stood up and said we have “50 days to save the the world”.  Well, it not going to happen.  There is no hope of signing a legally binding climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

Our Dear Leader’s last chance to save the world has gone.  Are we all doomed?  Probably not but for Brown, “The End is Nigh”.

Brown’s near impossible task

The latest poll provides the backdrop for the speech Brown will make today to justify our continued presence in Afghanistan:

Only 5% of people think British troops are winning, and 57% of people think victory is not even possible, up from 48% in the previous poll. 35% of people think British troops should be withdrawn immediately, and a further 38% within the next year or so. This compares to 25% and 37% a week and a half ago.

With public support for the war rapidly draining away, Brown has to set out a clear and precise strategy as to why we are remaining in Afghanistan and demonstrate how this is going to achieved.

According to The Telegraph he will speak about a “conflict of necessity not choice” and that “we cannot, must not and will not walk away”.

Brown is helped that a political consensus still exists across the three main political parties, but is hindered by the continued dithering from Obama.  Both the UK and the US should be setting out an agreed strategy, but this is not going to happen:

Janet Napolitano, the US Homeland Security Secretary, insisted there could be no "rush to judgement" over a question that "deserves full consideration".

As discussed, Brown’s task is not made any easier by his ‘failure to demonstrate leadership on any matter outside his comfort zone and his inability to communicate’.

It remains doubtful that he convince an increasingly sceptical public at this stage.  Furthermore, the weakness of his position is that whatever he says could well be overtaken by ‘events’ on the ground in Afghanistan.

Shock horror! The Tories need Brown

If you think Europe is Cameron’s biggest headache, think again.  What concerns the Tory party even more is the keeping Brown in power.

Over at The Spectator, James Forsyth argues that the expenses scandal has ‘killed leadership speculation’ but now this is being resolved Labour MPs are focusing on the future:

Electoral reality is now catching up with them. One well-connected figure in this wing of the party says that the prospect of knocking on a door and having to explain why people should vote for five more years of Prime Minister Brown is ‘terrifying, chilling’. They know there is no answer to the Tories’ planned closing argument: do you want five more years of Brown?

The Labour leadership issue distils into two questions: what mechanism would depose him, and who would replace him? The view is that one way to force Brown out would be for departing MPs to do one last service to the party and deliver enough names in the New Year to make Brown’s position untenable.

On the other hand, the Tories are dependent on Brown staying:

The Conservatives, to a man, know that they need Brown to stay. His departure is the single biggest risk factor in the Tory game-plan. Glasses are raised to him in Westminster bars. He is called a ‘treasure’ and ‘our greatest asset’. Without Mr Brown the Tories would, as one shadow cabinet member puts it, ‘be back in hung parliament territory’

What a weak position for the Tory party to be in less than six months from an election.  They know that Cameron has failed to ‘seal the deal’ and without Brown they could well be denied a majority at the election.

All it needs is for Labour MPs to focus on what has to be done.

So, is Miliband off to Europe

Mike Smithson is so concerned about David Miliband’s career development that gets up at 3am to trawl the internet for the latest news.  His efforts are not in vain as he stumbles across on article that says that Miliband has accepted the role as the Europe’s foreign minister.

This is good news of for us AJ supporters who still have faith that he is best man to replace Brown sometime soon. 

John Rentoul detects that Johnson is now showing signs that does want to be Prime Minister:

On drugs and immigration, Johnson's positions are popular to the point of populism, absolutely right and sincerely felt. They are what the Labour Party and the country want to hear. If David Miliband does take the European foreign affairs job, the possibility that I discussed on Sunday, Johnson will be even more pre-eminent as the alternative leader that could deny the Conservatives a majority at the election.

Matthew Norman, who takes great delight in shooting down Cabinet ministers week after week, is not convinced by Alan Johnson’s ‘addiction to power’.  What would Norman prefer, to see Brown lead Labour to defeat at the next election?

Whatever, with the treaty signed and jobs to be filled in Brussels, we will not have long to wait to find out if it will be David or Alan who leads Labour at the next election.

Afghanistan: Brown needs to make the case

Lord Ashdown makes these telling remarks before setting out what failure would mean if we pull out of Afghanistan:

The clamour is growing for us to withdraw from Afghanistan. And the tragic loss of five British soldiers at the hands of one of those we are supposed to be fighting alongside will make that clamour louder.

There is a real chance we will lose this struggle in the bars and front rooms of Britain before we lose it in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan — particularly as we have a Government that has completely failed both to make a cogent case for this war or to convince us that it has a strategy worthy of the sacrifices being made.

He concludes:

Our own Government needs to make this case and make it powerfully. The British people are not squeamish and if they understand why we are fighting, they will back the cause. But being half-hearted is not an option in war. Afghanistan must become the nation’s No 1 priority or the people will withdraw their support.

Three issues come to mind.  One, Gordon Brown’s failure to demonstrate leadership on any matter outside his comfort zone and his inability to communicate.  Two, we have in Bob Ainsworth an incompetent Defence Secretary who is not in control of his department.  Three, the government is being increasingly undermined by influential colleagues.

Brown has to make the case not just to his own party but to the country.  It is not made any easier because of the weakness of his own position, but he is Prime Minister and has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of any war and for our troops.

We have not reached the ‘tipping point’ yet, but soon will unless a clear and well defined strategy is convincingly set out as to why we should remain in Afghanistan.

They still don’t get it

Here is Tim Montgomerie on his blog earlier:

I'm going to take a vow of silence on Europe for the next few weeks.

The few weeks has turned into a few hours:

Triple whammy hits Cameron on Europe

‘The-not-serious-about-power’ element of the Tory party is still alive and kicking.

At last, Cameron tells his party to grow up

So, we get the statement from Cameron that he should have delivered weeks ago. This was the telling phrase:

We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament.

Which means that Europe has been kicked into the long grass; there will be no bust-up with Brussels and the Tory party should grow up and move on.

Will it work?  With Cameron presently comfortably ahead in the polls, it probably will.  Even ‘the-not-serious-about-power’ element of the Tory party are reluctantly swallowing the home truths put up in neon lights by David Cameron today.  They have little choice if they want to see their party returned to power.

Brown was only partially correct the other day when he described Cameron as a “very good politician”.  He is more than that.  Cameron is now the Prime Minister-in-waiting.

PM4PM: For one last time, NO

The Great Man speaks:

Enough said.

A telling remark from Kelly

Sir Christopher Kelly, blaming the party leaders of leaking his report on MPs expenses, had this to say:

There was a culture of entitlement among MPs and a culture of deference in the Commons, which made it hard for Commons Fees office to challenge claims.

Let us hope that MPs accept his recommendations in full so that we can finally move on.

Cameron’s big day

A common theme will run through the day.  We will get told what we already know.  First up is the leaked report from Sir Christopher Kelly on MPs expenses, followed by an entertainment interlude called PMQs.  Then follows Cameron's big moment when he tells us that there will be no referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Unfortunately, we will not get the speech Cameron should make as Prime Minister-in-waiting where he tells the Tory party to grow up, but we will get a statement from a party leader as he attempts to keep his troops united this side of the general election.

He will have to avoid disappointing the electorate, whist at the same time sending warm words to the European leaders who he has to form a working relationship with.  It will be a difficult balancing act.

There will be words about clawing back certain powers from Brussels, but there will be little detail on how this is going to be achieved.  He will have to tread carefully as the 26 other countries have no wish to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty.

Cameron has also got to be careful that he doesn't lock himself into a future referendum on an amended treaty that could rebound badly on an unpopular government.  Any announcement on a future treaty would be meaningless as it will not happen for many years, presumably after Cameron has left office.

His task today is to realistic with his party and the country over what can achieved now that the treaty has been ratified.  Cameron’s priority remains dealing with the economy and he should say this today.

How the largely Eurospectic Tory party react to Cameron’s statement is vital.  They must demonstrate they united behind their leader and his policies in this critical pre-election period.

Speechmaking the Brown way

“It’s very expensive being prime minister”, said Brown to GQ magazine.  Well, now we know why.  Prudence, the name he was once so proud of, has added to our public debt to the tune of $40,000 in his bid to excite the US electorate.

When Our Dear Leader drafts one of his forgettable speeches, West Wing Writers are called in to tailor the words of wisdom for American audiences.  As an example, $7,085 was spent on Brown’s speech to the US congress in March to give it a non-authentic Churchillian tone:

The bravery and valour of the Americans who gave that last full measure of devotion.

During his final few weeks in office, other items of wasteful expenditure will be laid before you.

Will Cameron show the leadership that is required?

That's it.  The Czech constitutional court has cleared the Lisbon treaty and all that remains is the signature of President Vaclav Klaus.

Cameron will make his not-very-shocking announcement that there be no referendum when he is good and ready.  Apart from the usual suspects, such as Bill Cash, it would appear that Our Dave has done his homework and the Tory party will close ranks behind him.  Of course, it will be all be rather synthetic.

To keep the Eurospectics' onside Cameron will promise to “repatriate” certain key powers from Brussels, which will not fly as this will require a treaty change.  His priority has to be rebuilding his relationship with Europe's leaders, if he wants to be taken seriously as a Prime Minister-in-waiting.

Maybe Cameron will surprise us all, show the leadership that he should have done when the Irish voted yes and tell the Tebbits of this world to get lost.

If he wins the election, Cameron has got to spend his waking hours concentrating on the economy rather than fighting futile battles with Europe that have little chance of success.

He should take the opportunity that Klaus has provided to finally close the matter of Europe down.

AJ4PM: Is it over?

The Tory party must be enjoying Alan Johnson’s handling of the sacking of drugs advisor Professor David Nutt.

Cameron, obviously hoping that Johnson's poor performance during his TV interview with Adam Boulton sticks, had this to say:

Having the Home Secretary shouting on TV doesn't actually inspire confidence.

However, Our Man did have rather a good day.  His thoughtful and well timed speech on immigration received wide coverage and wasn't drowned out by the Nutt affair.  Then, AJ went on to give a confident performance in the Commons where, for a variety of reasons, he received widespread support.

Alan Johnson is no novice and presumably would have thought through the repercussions of sacking Nutt.  Maybe it all part of the cunning plan.  However, as discussed, he could have managed himself and the process in a more competent way.

Has Alan Johnson scuppered his unadmitted ambition to become Prime Minister?  That is certainly the view at the height of this media firestorm, but how it plays out with the Labour MPs and the voters over the next few weeks is equally important.

If Johnson is fatally damaged, as the Tories and Brown hope, then Labour have an alternative in David Miliband.

The small matter of who leads Labour at the election is far from over.  In truth, it hasn't really started.

Brown: “I can’t change”

Our Dear Leader has given one of his “I’m an OK guy” interviews to GQ magazine.  He describes Cameron as a “very good politician” and dismisses Boris Johnson as a “subset of the entertainment business”.

Brown admits that he is not suited to the 24/7 media age:

I accept I have to do better in the presentation area. I've got my strengths and I've got my weaknesses.

I could present our message a lot better, I'm actually shy by nature rather than extrovert, someone who feels that your actions should speak for themselves, but that's not the way politics works these days.

Hmmm.  An interesting remark.  Is he admitting that under his leadership the next election is lost because of his failure to communicate? 

PM4PM revisited, again

Last week William Rees-Mogg had splendid article on the probability of a hung parliament and the possibility of one of the Milibands or Harriet Harman becoming Labour leader.

This week all that is forgotten.  Miliband is off to Europe, Cameron is heading for Downing Street and Mandy will become leader of the Labour party.  It is this small matter that needs to be dealt with.

For Mandy to become an MP, Labour leader and Prime Minister, the Constitutional Reform Bill, allowing life peers to resign from the House of Lords, would have to become law.  This Bill is currently at committee stage in the Commons, meaning there are weeks of procedure remaining.

Of course, some fancy footwork could be done to get the Bill through, but the Lords and the Tories will do their best to halt the process.  There is simply not the time for Mandy to become an MP, let alone Labour leader before the election, but it will not stop the speculation.

Alan Johnson should have handled this better

Alan Johnson’s argument is right:

You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions.

Leaving that aside, there a few concerns that have to be addressed.

AJ did not come over well in his interview with Adam Boulton.  The body language was poor and did he really need to get so angry.  On this occasion, AJ’s confident easy going self-deprecating style was absent.

Next, why did Johnson not confer with Lord Drayson, the Science and Innovation Minister, responsible for co-ordinating scientific advice across Whitehall before Nutt was sacked?  That appears to have been ill-judged and smacks of a decision taken with undue haste.

Then, why was Nutt sacked by sending him a letter by e-mail?  It would have been wiser for Johnson to call him in for a little chat and then send the letter.

Sir Liam Donaldson was right when he said:

These things are best sorted out behind the scenes so that the Government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front.

Indeed so, but this didn't happen.  Johnson is now involved in a controversy that should have been avoided and better managed, so the sacking of Nutt did not lead to further resignations.

The Home Secretary may have acted decisively and shown firm leadership.  However, the fallout could well damage Johnson politically unless Nutt’s sacking can be closed off quickly, without further developments.

For obvious reasons this is critical time for Alan Johnson.  He should be smiling, nodding and doing very little.

This ‘little local difficultly’ should have been handled more competently, and in a way that didn't allow it to dominate the weekend and the Monday morning news agenda.

Brown is “mesmerised” by Cameron

Frank Field, no friend of Our Dear Leader, launches a scathing attack on Brown’s handling of the expenses scandal:

This dismal state of affairs is compounded by a total failure of political leadership. David Cameron has mesmerised the Prime Minister over this issue. Anything Cameron does Brown tries to do better. Each time he fails miserably.

It worth keeping an eye on Frank Field, who may well lead a backbench rebellion against Brown in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, Brown goes for a cheap publicity stunt ahead of the publication of Kelly's report on Wednesday:

Gordon Brown will meet Sir Christopher on Monday and is expected to warn that the reforms must not turn politics into the preserve of the rich.

However, it is not clear why Mr Brown is issuing such a warning to the official watchdog – or why his feelings are being made public – as Sir Christopher’s report and recommendations have already been sent to the printers.

Not Flash. Just Gordon.

Miliband’s decision is one for the Labour party to make

Before we get to the column that does matter this Sunday morning, let us deal with with the latest poll:

CON 42%(-2), LAB 25%(-2), LDEM 21%(+3)

Mike Smithson points out that Labour are now in a far worse position than the Tories were in 1996.  He goes on:

We hear repeatedly that the Tories are not performing anything like as well as Labour were at the same stage. There is an element of truth in that but there is no parallel in a comparable poll from the period to Labour’s dire current position in the mid-20s.

You get the feeling that just like 96/97 voters have made their minds up. They might not like the Tories but they just want the election to happen so they can boot Brown out.

On one hand that is true.  On the other hand, it will not take much for the polls to move back into hung parliament territory.  Remember, Cameron needs a swing to secure a working majority that has only been achieved twice since the end of the war, by Atlee in 1945 and by Blair 1997.

We go to the polls in a little over six months.  The election will be called in early April, which gives only five months for Labour to do what has to be done and for the new leader to become established.  Two names are very much still in the frame, Alan Johnson and David Miliband, with brother Ed as an outside bet.

This bring us neatly to John Rentoul’s column.  After considering the options John concludes (Matthew d'Ancona makes the same point) that Miliband will, if the deal can be done, take the job as Europe’s foreign minister.  Although this is good news for us few AJ supporters left, it does raise a number of issues.

Firstly, the comrades may not take this news that well.  What the Labour party doesn't need, certainly not at the moment, is a row over Europe when it should be exposing Cameron’s weakness and his failure to show leadership over the treaty.

Secondly, there is the problem of a by-election.  Assuming Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, signs this week the treaty will come into force on 1st January.  Miliband, having been appointed later this month, would then have to resign his seat.  With the public not in favour of either Blair or Miliband taking the Eurostar to Brussels, an unnecessary by-election could well cause an upset so close to an election, even though Miliband has a safe seat.

Thirdly, John suggests that Mandy may replace Miliband as Foreign Secretary.  There is no logic to this.  Removing Mandy from the domestic scene before the election is hardly a sensible way forward, no matter how much he wants the job.

However, there is the more substantial question to deal with.  David Miliband’s chosen career path is one thing, but is his decision in the best interests of the Labour party?

Rentoul correctly dismisses Ed Miliband as a person “not likely to give Cameron sleepless nights”.  Then he turns his attention to Alan Johnson:

For reasons that are still slightly mysterious to me, many of those closest to Tony Blair tend to favour Miliband as the next leader and to be dismissive of Johnson. Perhaps Miliband would shine in a way that Johnson failed to do in the deputy leadership campaign two years ago. So Miliband could still be prime minister – not for long, but possibly earning the party's gratitude for avoiding oblivion and possibly even with some role to play in a hung parliament.

This is an important point.  If various factions within the Labour party have decided that Miliband is the better option than Alan Johnson, then, so close to an election, he should do what the party wants.  Miliband has the capabilities to be leader, even though his communication skills are lacking and he comes across as rather arrogant at times.

Although Brown has to formally nominate Miliband, the other key player in this is Mandy.  What he decides is crucial.  If the rumours are true and he has given up on Brown, then he has to make the choice of who will lead Labour into the election.  At this stage it is not clear if he favours Johnson or Miliband.

Finally, Rentoul has this to say:

There would probably have to be a leadership election this time, even in the short time remaining, in which anything can happen.

John is going to have answer this point.  If Labour decide not remove Brown until January, just how is a leadership contest going to be organised just three months  before the election campaign starts?  More to the point, anything can’t be allowed to happen.  The process must be quick, well executed with little blood left on the carpet.

So, the choice that Miliband has to make in a matter of days is not one for him alone.  The Labour party has to decide, possibly this week, which candidate is best suited to lead it into the next election, even if Brown is not replaced until January.

As discussed, the dithering of Vaclav Klaus could well have implications for both major parties in the run up to the election.

Blair would “charm the sharks”

That's it, he'll have to be forced out.  According to the gossip in the Mail on Sunday, Brown won’t go because none of his colleagues are up to the job:

David Miliband is “lightweight”, Alan Johnson is “lacklustre”, Harriet Harman is ”a disaster” and Ed Balls is “too aggressive”.

All is not lost.  Mandy is briefing against Brown and has come up with a “cruel joke” to explain why Our Dear Leader has coped so badly with stress:

If Tony and Gordon were stranded on a desert island surrounded by sharks, Tony would charm the sharks to carry him to safety. Gordon would sit there raging “Who sent the sharks?”

Ah, the sharks.  Sometime soon they will arrive in Downing Street. 

A very odd campaign

Like him or not, Blair has been a very successful.  Luck, of course, has had much to do with it.  He was well positioned when John Smith died and having dealt with Brown, took the Labour leadership with ease.  Blair then went on to win three general elections, very much helped along the way because the Tory party was unelectable.  As an individual he is not used to failure.

Now, we come to the little matter of who will be the first President of Europe and the goings on in Brussels over the last couple of days.  Both Brown and Miliband have lead a very public campaign to secure Blair the job, even though the post does not yet exist.  Merkel and Sarkosy would appear to have other ideas, with the French President saying:

The names that first come out of the hat are not necessarily those that are finally chosen.  With Chancellor Merkel, we completely agree that we are going to have the same approach, the same vision and support the same candidate when the time comes. I think it's very important that France and Germany, on a choice that is as important as this one, show their determination to walk hand-in-hand down this road.

Then, we get this from Brown at the end of the summit:

I recognise that there are many candidates who may come forward but I do believe that Tony Blair will remain an excellent candidate.

Fair enough, but has anyone actually checked with the ex-leader that he wants the job.  Mandy rather gives the game away in his yet-to-be-shown interview with Stephen Sackur:

SS: Have you talked to Tony Blair about it.

PM: Of course, I've talked to Tony Blair about it….not recently, but in the past.

How strange that tactically astute Mandy, a close and trusted colleague of Blair, hasn't discussed the matter with him more recently.

Then we come to the actual mechanics of how one would go about organising a successful campaign where 27 countries are involved.  Mary Dejevsky believes it has been a lesson in how-not-to-it:

If, as it appears, yesterday's EU summit spelled the end of Tony Blair's undeclared ambition to be the first President of Europe, you have to ask whether he really wanted the job at all.

It is not just in the arcane world of EU diplomacy, but in the diplomatic world generally, that the cardinal rule is to ensure the invitation will be accepted before you send it. Neither as a nation, nor as a minister, do you put your head above the parapet until you are pretty sure of a favourable reception. You quietly check the lie of the land; you sound out trusted intermediaries; you do nothing that would risk losing face.

It would not have been hard to discover that opinion within individual EU states was, to put it mildly, unconvinced by the merits of Mr Blair. Most journalistic outlets teased this out days in advance. Why did Britain's diplomats in Brussels not pass the message to London – or, if they did, why were they ignored?

If Blair was serious, then surely this so-called campaign for him to become President of Europe would have been executed along the lines that Mary Dejevsky suggests.  It is most odd that Blair, who knows a thing or two about how to charm people, hasn't been more closely involved. 

Then we come to the role of Gordon Brown, who has a history of winding up the media without knowing what the outcome will be, as the 2007 non-election proved.  Little doubt that our short-term tactical leader has used Blair to deflect attention from his more immediate political problems.

You have to ask why such a successful man as Blair has allowed himself to be identified with a campaign that looks like it will end in abject failure.  It doesn't fit the Blair mould.

A U-turn by lunchtime

Well, that didn't take long.  Following the report in The Times, Jack Straw has just issued a statement saying the proposals to close polling stations and cut voting hours are “simply unacceptable”:

I and other ministers had absolutely no knowledge about this exercise.

I make no complaint about that but now that it has gone public I make clear what I would have told officials privately: That these proposals are simply unacceptable.

The exercise has therefore ended. Democracy has to be paid for.

It must be the fastest U-turn on record.

A classic Question Time moment

Inevitably, Jacqui Smith’s sleeping arrangements came up on Question Time.  John Sergeant, who kept asking the other panellists’ questions, did enjoy himself when he put this to the ex-Home Secretary:

It is a puzzle to people, when you’re asked where your home was, and you were Home Secretary, and you didn’t seem to give the right answer

Was it a complicated question, that you therefore genuinely got wrong and took advice on? When someone says, ‘Where’s your home?’, I can answer that pretty quickly.

A replacement for David Dimbleby has been found.

Democracy on the cheap

Are you are looking forward to the election?  You remember the drill.  A polling card arrives, then on election day it is just a short stroll to the polling station to cast your vote.  Well, thanks to Mr Boom & Bust all this is about to change.

The Times (if you can believe what's in the paper these days) brings the news of Jack Straw's latest wheeze to cut public expenditure.  In this “Age of Austerity” polling stations are to be closed, voting hours reduced, and polling cards will be replaced by an e-mail.  In a bid to save £65m, other cost saving measures to increase voter apathy and make it harder for candidates to stand will be laid before you.

This cunning plan, of course, will make it harder for people in rural areas to vote where there are fewer Labour supporters.

If there any changes to be made to the democratic progress they should made with cross-party support after a period of consultation, rather than be rammed through by Brown.  He will never learn.

Not Mandy again

Speculation is obviously the media buzz word of the week.  Andrew Pierce has had enough of all the Tony Blair talk and devotes his column to the possibility of Mandy taking over from Brown.

Behind this latest wheeze is The Constitutional Reform Bill, which will allow Mandy to take questions in the Commons.  According to Pierce, logic dictates that this will lead straight to Downing Street.  He quotes a senior party figure close to Blair:

Peter is easily the most impressive [performer] we have got.  It's true many of us have been talking about finding a way that he could do it. He gets things done. He has credibility. He's the only one who scares the Tories.

Perhaps this Blairite is not up to speed with Mandy's role in postal dispute.  Moreover, there is no evidence that he scares the Tories.

Pierce has also worked out (briefed, more likely) how Mandy could be parachuted back into the Commons:

As caretaker leader, Lord Mandelson could, according to the plotters, soldier on to the election or pick his moment to fight a safe seat. Hilary Armstrong, the former Labour chief whip with a solid 13,443 majority in Durham North West, is standing down at the election, and the guarantee of a peerage might persuade her to go earlier. Other seats in Labour's heartlands could also be fixed in return for a suitable bauble for the retiring Labour MP.

So, we may have an unnecessary by-election in the middle of winter for the sake of Mandy’s career.  Pierce is obviously not old enough to remember what happened to Patrick Gordon Walker.

Oh, then there is the small matter of Mandy's lack of popular appeal with non-Blairite Labour MPs, the unions and the electorate.

It would be a much better use of Mandy’s time to manage the succession to Alan Johnson and then, with Alastair Campbell, planning the election campaign.  Mandy is a good number No 2, but is no leader.  The Gordon Brown experience should tell him that. 

If Brown had a flag

Mathew Norman has a wonderful writing style.  Having demolished Jack Straw last week he turns his attention to Our Dear Leader.  Norman is far from impressed with Brown’s performance and mentions the surrender over cutting the TA budget:

If Gordon had a flag, it would be a cream cross on a beige background.

He concludes:

Gordon is the Sadim of global politics, everything this reverse Midas touches turning straight to plutonium. There is no point asking how much more radiation sickness he can take. Endurance of suffering is the one strength he has left, and no disaster or torrent of them will send him to his study with the Glenlivet and trusty Luger now. But it isn't pretty to watch, and it feels immoral that it should continue. Killing a healthy baboon is a very different proposition, as his Cabinet still has a little time to appreciate, from mercifully ending the political life of an ailing buffoon.

Hopefully, sometime soon, he will turn his attention in a positive way to Alan Johnson.  His support would be most welcome.  There is still time left.

Tony Blair for el presidente

No, Blair hasn't said it nor has he given an interview, but it easy to assume that he had.  All we get, from the once great newspaper of record, is unidentified sources saying that Blair wants the job if the role is substantial.

In his never ending pursuit to wrong-foot the Tories, short-term tactical Brown is all in favour of the man that achieved so much for him by winning three elections. 

However, the Germans and other far away countries of which we know little are having doubts.

Within these damp islands, the Tories and Lib Dems have said no.  The great British public, who once so idolised him like a rock star, don't even want a President of Europe let alone Tony Blair.  Finally, there is the Iraq inquiry to come, which starts to take evidence towards the end of November.

Some Labour MPs are not keen and have tabled a Commons motion condemning the Government as “wrong and unwise” to champion Blair.  This is hardly an ideal time to cause the comrades further grief, a point that Brown, as usual, appears to have overlooked.

The media, of course, want him as he will provide endless stories, which could leave Blair open to ridicule.  Then there is small matter of Cherie to consider, hardly a popular figure with the press or the public.

Against this background you have to ask if Blair does want the job, if he is right person and what he will achieve.  Blair is used to a command and control sofa style way of working rather then being answerable to 27 heads of state.

The speculation will go on until the Czech president signs the treaty, which may have far greater consequences for David Cameron than it does for one Tony Blair.