³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

The Tories boast that they're being honest about the need for spending cuts but are they being honest about what they'll cut and what the impact will be?

That's a question I've been pursuing in an interview with the shadow chancellor George Osborne.

He claims that the prime minister is denying him the information he needs to decide where the axe should fall. A request for access to the detailed spending information available to ministers has been turned down.

The Tories wanted to see the COINS database - that stands for Combined Online Information System - which contains information about what's been spent in over 12,000 category headings.

Mr Osborne tells me that:

"Gordon Brown is denying to the opposition the information on individual spending items in the government Budget that would help us plan for government, help us plan for dealing with the debt crisis. He has denied us access to that information. That makes our life as an opposition more difficult, but more to the point for the country, it means the country doesn't know the truth about where their money is going."

Neverthless he promises that the Tories will in future "provide more and more details and examples of specific schemes" they'll cut.

The shadow chancellor also makes clear that the Tories are not committed to protecting spending on schools or the Sure Start programme. Earlier, the shadow schools secretary, Michael Gove, insisted that the Tories would protect what he called "front line spending" on schools.

Pressed on why the country should trust him - a young and privileged man - with this task, the shadow chancellor replies:

"We're going to protect the poorest, we're going to protect the vulnerable, but we're going to deal with the debt crisis because, let me say this, I've got young children, many people watching this programme have got young children, and it is not fair to leave them with our debt. We have to deal with the situation now and not leave the problem to another generation."

PS. For those who want the full quote on spending priorities:

Osborne: "We've taken a tough decision, which is to protect health spending - I could have put health spending into the pot - I'm also protecting international development spending because we've made some moral commitments to the rest of the world. That means..."

Robinson: Are you protecting schools?

Osborne: "I'm not protecting other areas at this stage."

Robinson: Are you protecting Sure Start?

Osborne: "I'm not protecting other areas. I'm not going to go into specific details of individual programs but I've made a positive decision and this is part of the choice that David Cameron and the modern Conservatives have made to protect health spending, to protect international development spending because we think those are important commitments for the kind of society we want (interruption)."

Update, 18:35: The Cabinet Office insist that the decision not to give the Tories the spending information they requested was taken by the cabinet secretary and not ministers after normal pre-election contacts between civil servants and opposition leaders.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Stick a red rose on the front and it could be a Labour manifesto."

So said a Whitehall mandarin about the document which is widely-known in Whitehall as Gordon's "National Plan" - a title dropped to avoid any unfortunate Stalinist overtones.

Look at the eye-catching headline-grabbing proposals in the more forgettably-titled and you can see what he meant:

"Take a job or lose benefit"

Young people who refuse the offer of a government-created job - after being unemployed for more than a year - will face having their benefit docked.

The Budget unveiled the "Young Person's Guarantee" which promised that that everyone under the age of 25 who'd been out of work for 12 months would be offered a paid job or a training place designed to get them back to work.

The chancellor pledged that the government would work with employers to create or support as many as 250,000 jobs in local services and social care.

As a result of today's announcement, those who refuse a suitable job offer could lose two weeks' benefit (or up to six months if they continue to refuse to participate). Where a suitable job isn't available, they'll be offered a choice of either training or community work experience. Failure to complete a 13-week community task force without good cause would will also result in benefit sanctions.

"Local homes for local people"

The rules governing council housing will be reviewed to allow councils to favour local people or those who've been on the housing waiting list for a long time, instead of new immigrants.

Add to that evidence that he might not quite get round to part-privatising Royal Mail and that there'll be no spending review before the election, and it's clear that this document's real title should be "Rebuilding Labour's Future".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

An inadvertent glimpse this morning of what David Cameron fears and is preparing for.

His own words at his news conference: "riots on the streets".

This is what he said would follow if the next government made public spending cuts having failed to prepare the public for them. And that is what he says the government is failing to do and used every word for dishonest other than "liar" to describe the prime minister.

It is also a glimpse of what Labour has been hoping for. They are counting on the fact that the public will come to associate cuts and their consequences with the Conservative party. They hope that, if the economy recovers before the next election, voters will regard cuts as ideological rather than based on economic necessity or good house-keeping.

Whoever correctly judges the public mood on this issue will hold the key to winning the next election.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Why does Will Lewis, the editor of the Telegraph, think that Michael Howard, the former Tory leader, has lost it?

And what does Mr Howard say about him and his paper?

I'll give you a hint: it's none too polite.

They and I have been reflecting on the lessons learned from the reporting of .

And you can hear us all in my Radio 4 programme Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem, produced by Martin Rosenbaum. It's broadcast on Sunday at 1330 and again on Monday at 2000 and is, I believe, also going to be available as an episode in the Radio 4 Choice podcast. Let me know what you think of it.

PS: The controller of Radio 4, Mark Damazer, has written about the programme on the Radio 4 Blog.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The governor of the Bank of England has said that government borrowing needs be reduced faster than ministers are currently planning.

He has called on them to show "greater ambition" and to publish a plan to deal with the debt in the chancellor's pre-Budget report due this autumn.

Asked at the Treasury select committee about plans set out in the budget to cut deficits Mervyn King replied: "I don't think it's clear enough" and remarked "it is an awfully long time to wait".

Nevertheless Mr King made clear that now was not the time to start fixing Britain's borrowing problem and that the speed of any deficit reduction programme would depend on the speed of recovery.

Under pressure from the Conservative MP Michael Fallon - who knows how to spot and create a news story - Mr King tried to dampen "King attacks Darling" headlines by insisting that "I don't think the chancellor is remotely relaxed " about the problem.

This comes on the day when the prime minister repeatedly refused to explain or apologise for his inaccurate claim at last week's PMQs that capital expenditure was going up between now and the Olympics.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I've just interviewed the new Speaker about how he will seek to win the confidence of both the public whose anger he has acknowledged and his own colleagues in the Tory party, many of whom are horrified by his election.

Speaking in the palatial splendour of Speaker's House, John Bercow told me that he will not - in future - claim an MP's second home allowance. He defends his own past expense claims insisting that he paid back money voluntarily to cover the tax he had saved after "flipping" his home designation.

The new Speaker told me that he favours greater transparency over MPs' expenses when I asked him whether he would reverse the decision to black out much of the information about who claimed what.

Mr Bercow insists that more Tories backed him in a secret ballot than the three or four prepared to say so publicly. He suggests that most in his own party were used to someone of a different generation holding the position and insists that he can win their backing with the way he handles his new responsibilities

As for the day-to-day business of running the Commons, the new Speaker says that he wants to see "brisker business" with shorter questions and answers, and a "more considered" approach. Asked if he was prepared to discipline the prime minister and the leader of the opposition to achieve this, he answered simply "yes".

For the new Speaker to do a round of TV interviews is itself an innovation. Beyond this, though, I was struck by the fact that a man who's spent 10 years plotting to get this job was very cautious - one might almost say conservative - about the changes he promised.

His style will become apparent this afternoon but it will be intriguing to see when - or if - he unveils the changes which justify his billing as the reform candidate.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

By tradition, Speakers, like royalty, are meant to be respected and revered for their office, even if the occupant does not command widespread support.

They are by tradition never criticised. The felling of Michael Martin put an end to all that though. And now one Tory, the MP Nadine Dorries, has described the election of the new Speaker as "a two-fingered salute to the British people and the last hurrah of a dying Labour government."

What is it then that makes so many Tories loathe (and that is the right word) John Bercow?

It is his extraordinary political journey which has made even observers of it feel travel sick: Moving from anti-immigrant Enoch Powell backer to Thatcherite fanatic and finally to occupant of Labour's big tent.

At every stage Mr Bercow spoke with the same apparent lack of self-doubt.

Those who can forgive the journey can often not forgive the style with which it was taken. One Tory, as I reported the other day, suggested that Mr Bercow would read the weather forecast or the phone book as if he was Henry V on the eve of Agincourt.

Another has suggested that he's the sort of referee who thinks the crowd has paid to see him.

Mr Bercow's spent almost a decade planning his run for Speaker. If he can convince the wider public that he is indeed the reform candidate; that he can be an ambassador for Parliament; that he can mark a break with the past, he will have nothing to fear from Conservatives. They will simply have to bite their lips and get used to him.

If on the other hand, like his predecessor, he is seen to stumble, I'm in little doubt that many Conservatives will try to remove him as Michael Martin was removed.

PS. I am interviewing Mr Bercow later today.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The first round of voting confirmed my first impressions of the Speaker hustings. Sir George Young did better than many expected.

The vote confirmed John Bercow as the man to beat although Margaret Beckett did much worse than many had anticipated.

Mr Bercow's performance reminded many MPs I've spoken to why they had never planned to back him. It alienated a few that were planning to.

Sir George Young's witty and politically astute speech wooed a few who'd not previously been tempted to back him.

For Young to win, a lot of Labour and Lib Dem MPs will have to hold their nose and vote for someone they regard as "a Tory toff". What's more, the Tories cannot afford to be split between Young and Beckett backers.

Intriguing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Given the failure of a single candidate to emerge, given the system of multiple ballots, the speeches by the candidates for the Speaker really matter.

On that test, Sir George Young is an early winner. His speech began with "hear, hears" from the Tory benches alone but ended with them from all sides. He mixed humour with an attack on party leaders for their "bidding war" of toughness in response to the expenses scandal and a recognition that the Speaker "was more referee than player".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Speaker is dead, long live er, erm, someone who'll do it better.

Ever since Michael Martin was dragged back out of the Speaker's chair, Westminster has waited and watched in the hope that someone would emerge as a strong consensus candidate to fill his seat. No-one has.

In part, this is because the Speaker is being asked to fill a bewildering array of roles - parliamentary figurehead, presiding officer, protector of parliament's rights, reformer, backbench shop steward, public spokesman, chief executive and saint.

In part, it is because many Labour and Tory MPs appear to be governed by entirely negative factors.

Many Labour MPs are telling me that they're...

• NOT going to vote for one of their own party as then they get the blame for the mess

• NOT going to back another Old Etonian - Sir George Young - after all, they say, aren't the Mayor of London and possible next PM enough?

• NOT going to back a Lib Dem - Alan Beith - as his party brought down Michael Martin

That's how many end up backing John Bercow.

Many - perhaps most - Tories say they're...

• NOT backing Bercow because he's NOT really a Tory at all and, as I reported before, they find him objectionable

That's how many end up backing Margaret Beckett.

With the Commons due to spend the whole of today on choosing their next Speaker, I hope MPs begin to focus on the positive.

The next Speaker's powers are, in truth, limited. He or she will not transform the expenses system since it is likely to go to an outside body. He or she will not be able to lead reform or increase the power of backbenchers on their own.

The public power they will have is rather like that of Prince Charles - to use the status of their position to speak out occasionally to stop something they don't like or demand attention for an issue that's being ignored.

HRH used that power to and to warn us about the threat to the environment.

Speaker Martin failed to use it to warn MPs about their expenses system or to block police access to Parliament.

The next Speaker is likely to be judged by the public by whether they speak up for those who send MPs to Parliament and how they stand up to the powerful on their behalf.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Well, well.

Lord Butler and the generals may already have .

Downing Street has just announced that the prime minister has written to the chairman of the Iraq inquiry urging him to consult other parties about how he should go about his business. What's more Gordon Brown wants him to know that it will be up to him to decide what format hearings will be held in.

What we'd all like to know is whether the Schools Secretary Ed Balls gave his boss a nudge when he declared on TV yesterday that the families of those soldiers killed in Iraq would be able to have their say at the inquiry.

PS: The best guide to what's been blacked out and what has not in today's MPs expense database is my colleague Martin Rosenbaum's blog (MPs: The missing information and Filling in the blanks).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The author of , Lord Butler, will accuse the government of "putting its political interests ahead of the national interest" in a speech in the House of Lords later today.

The former cabinet secretary will argue that there should be a public element to . He believes that the inquiry to be chaired by Sir John Chilcot must do more than "learn the lessons" from the war. There must, he will say, be a "truth and reconciliation" element to it as well.

He will criticise ministers for failing to get the agreement of the opposition parties and the approval of Parliament for the membership, remit and format of the inquiry, contrasting their approach with that taken by Margaret Thatcher when she set up .

PS: Sorry to Ann Widdecombe: yesterday, I misheard and therefore misquoted her as saying she wished to be "queen" in comparison to "trusty old senators". She in fact said - as the metaphor should have made me realise - that she wanted to be tribune.

Update, 12:19: See also my new post - Consulting other parties.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I've just attended the hustings for the new Commons Speaker to be elected next Monday.

At the start of the meeting, there were more candidates than MPs who'd come to listen and - though I didn't count - probably more reporters too.

When the room filled up (only a little), the couple of dozen MPs who attended would have enjoyed:

• Ann Widdecombe declaring that it was not time for a "trusty old senator" but for a tribune;

• the bookies' favourite John Bercow warning that ministers are like "a driver going at 100mph with no brakes" and that Parliament needed to control them;

• and what caught my eye: Margaret Beckett, making a new argument instead of parroting the fashionable one.

The next House of Commons might, Mrs Beckett said, have to construct a new relationship with a reformed House of Lords and might have a minority government with a significant number of MPs from minority parties.

She said that she'd seen a previous Speaker, , deal with a similar situation and that she could do it. I came away thinking she just might.

That is certainly the wish of a growing number of Tories who loathe their own man Bercow - indeed one remarked that he was a vain man who would read the weather forecast as if he was Henry V at Agincourt.

When I asked one leading Tory who he'd be backing, he pinched his nose, looked pained and remarked "It'll have to be Ma Beckett".

Update, 18 June: Sorry to Ann Widdecombe: yesterday, I misheard and therefore misquoted her as saying she wished to be "queen" in comparison to "trusty old senators". She in fact said - as the metaphor should have made me realise - that she wanted to be tribune.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.

Tonight, to become the first major party leader to argue that Trident should be scrapped at the end of its lifetime.

Every hour of every day, one of four submarines able to launch 16 Trident nuclear missiles is on patrol somewhere in the world.

Ministers warn they'll be obsolete by 2024 unless the country spends £20bn upgrading the system.

Under Sir Menzies Campbell's leadership, the Lib Dems argued that that decision could be postponed.

Now his successor insists that, given the squeeze on public spending, a "like for like replacement" is out of the question.

He argues that Britain's aim should be to scrap its nuclear weapons as part of a multilateral disarmament deal.

Meantime, Mr Clegg has asked Sir Menzies to look at cheaper alternative systems which, he concedes, will be less of a deterrent.

Rather curiously Nick Clegg was elected Lib Dem leader two years ago after clashing with his opponent Chris Huhne over his call for Trident to be scrapped - a policy he then warned was "in my view possibly illegal, costly and unstable".

Tonight, the Lib Dem leader told me that he had " changed my mind".

Not since the 1980s has an argument about nuclear weapons divided the major political parties. Not since then has it featured at an election.

Tonight it is clear that nuclear politics is back.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The next time the Telegraph runs a story about the prime minster's expenses could be interesting. Gordon Brown's new official spokesman will call the editor of the paper. They will speak on first name terms. No wonder, the two men are brothers.

Simon Lewis (left), who once worked for the Queen, is taking over as director of communications at No 10 at the end of July. His main task: to repair the dreadful damage done to his boss's reputation, in part by the actions of brother Will (right) over at the Telegraph. The long-suffering and ever-professional Michael Ellam gets his just reward with a return to the place he loves - the Treasury.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After six years, the deaths of 179 British military personnel and countless more Iraqis, the government has finally agreed to that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Yet before it has even held its first session, it faces the charge that it will be an establishment stitch-up held behind closed doors whose conclusions are timed to come out after the next general election.

The prime minister can reply that he has granted just what the Conservatives have spent years demanding - a private inquiry by the great and the good - just like the into the Falklands War.

He deploys the vastly expensive and interminably long to argue that public inquiries all too often focus on the defence of individuals rather than the search for truth or lessons to be learnt.

Ever so quietly, some in Whitehall add that the into the death of David Kelly proves that no inquiry - however public - will ever satisfy some.

Nevertheless, today's announcement is already facing criticism from keen advocates of the conflict as well as from its bitterest opponents.

The Chilcott Inquiry is being presented as an examination by experts of the lessons to be learnt from the Iraq war. The men Gordon Brown has chosen are familiar with the complexities, the compromises and the uncertainties involved in British intelligence, diplomacy and military planning.

It will not be a naming of the allegedly "guilty men", nor an opportunity for a public airing of the political wounds opened by the Iraq war. Nor a healing process.

The reaction to today's announcement suggests that may never actually be possible.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The NHS Confederation says that after 2011, leaving the NHS in England facing a real-terms reduction of between £8bn and £10bn.

Yet the new Health Secretary Andy Burnham refuses to say where the cuts will fall.

Meantime the shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley promised that they too would keep health spending rising in real terms but appeared to blurt out Tory plans for cuts elsewhere :

"We are going to increase the resources for the NHS. We are going to increase resources for international development aid. We are going to increase resources for schools. But that does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in the departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."

Now a Conservative party spokesman claims - somewhat implausibly you might think - that what their spokesman was saying was that : "If cuts in the health budget are to be avoided Labour are planning to cut other departments' spending by 10%."

In truth, aren't both Burnham and Lansley guilty of not spelling out the truth about what the huge deficit means?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I appear to have set the cats among the pigeons. I reported earlier that the prime minister is set to announce tomorrow that changing the voting system for general elections will be examined as part of a package of proposals to reform Britain's political system.

Just to be clear: the prime minister's statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system. It will instead call for a debate on whether the electoral system should be changed and which new system could be adopted.

In a statement to MPs tomorrow, Mr Brown will say that there would have to be a referendum before any change could be made. Earlier today, he chaired a meeting of the new Democratic Renewal Council - a group of ministers - which agreed to consider moving towards a new system.

Key ministers are known to favour a system in which voters could list their preferences - the so-called Alternative Vote or AV system - rather than simply voting for one candidate as they do now. Peter Mandelson backed it in a book which he co-wrote with Roger Liddle. Jack Straw - who opposes proportional representation - is happy to consider a move to AV.

The new Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, recently called for a referendum on electoral reform to be held at the same time as the next general election. However, sources have told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ that it is very unlikely that the necessary consultation and legislation could be carried out in the necessary time. Some ministers also argue that it would not be electorally helpful to have the referendum on the same date as the election.

I also understand that the government plans to push ahead with legislation to make the House of Lords largely or fully elected in the autumn. Although it will not be possible to complete reform before an election, ministers argue that "it is time to see the colour of the Tories' money" on this issue and that public pressure for reform will grow, once the allowances of the House Of Lords are examined in the way in which MPs' have been.

One cabinet minister told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ tonight :

"There is a strong feeling in the cabinet that we should have a bold programme of reform. We don't want to end the next year with a whimper."

PS: For the political trainspotters among you, AV is not proportional representation. Indeed, it can be less proportional than First Past the Post. It is the same as the system that was used in the London Mayoral elections. Voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an "X" against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting "1" next to their favourite, a "2" by their second choice, and so on. If a candidate received a majority of first-place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However, if no single candidate got more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom would be redistributed. This process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority.

UPDATE, 09:13, 10 June: Just to be entirely clear, the vote for London mayor is actually conducted under a variant of AV called the supplementary vote system, where you can only express a first and second choice. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates are retained, and the rest eliminated. The second-preference votes of the eliminated candidates are then added, if appropriate, to the tally of the top two candidates to decide the winner.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

No prime minister who appears to be taking his party to electoral annihilation can ever truly be considered safe.

Nevertheless, Gordon Brown is safe - for now. He has seen off all the plausible plots to unseat him.

Today not enough Labour MPs were willing to sign up to a demand that would have forced a leadership election.

So, instead his critics sought to shame him into resigning by saying to his face in front of their colleagues that he was leading his party to certain destruction.

Privately, many fear that that is true but they fear more the consequences of a divisive contest now and a general election which would, they think, have to follow soon after.

In reality, the threat to Gordon Brown's leadership began and ended on Thursday night.

The was meant to inspire others to follow.

It was meant to lead to either his friend David Milliband or to Alan Johnson becoming leader.

It was meant to make the debate about whether to back or sack Gordon Brown unavoidable. In that sense it succeeded.

Hence the curiosity that as Labour nurses its wounds from the worst election results in decades the party today decided to back the leader who took them to defeat.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There will be no e-mail. There will be no . Not tonight. Perhaps never.

Ever since there has been what one of those working to unseat the prime minister describes as "a battle of the bodies". It is a battle that Gordon Brown is currently winning.

Not only did no cabinet minister follow Mr Purnell's lead but also few junior ministers have done so.

Today a number of those thought most likely to jump ship have in fact accepted new postings on the Good Ship Brown.

This, even after, election results worse than the bleakest predictions which have left Labour MPs talking openly about whether they can avoid a landslide defeat at the next election.

No wonder many backbench MPs have proved unwilling to sign a call for their leader to go.

So, is Mr Brown safe?

The rebels insist not. At tonight's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party they hope to re-write the usual script for what are always inaccurately billed as "make or break" meetings.

The prime minister is always said to have given what's called the "speech of his life". Loyal MPs and veterans of past divisions call on the plotters to show some loyalty and stop talking to the media. Desks are banged in approval. The leader is said to be out of the woods.

Not this time. A number of Labour MPs plan to tell the PM to his face that he needs to go if the party's to avert disaster.

So, after the failure of the cabinet coup and the backbench e-mail the aim is to repeat the tactics that successfully led to the removal of Michael Martin as Speaker.

Gordon Brown will, I suspect, prove a harder man to move.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Nick Griffin is now a Member of the European Parliament even though he won fewer votes than he did five years ago.

That's right, fewer.

, the BNP in the North West polled 134,959 votes. , they polled 132,194. So, why did he win?

In short, because of a collapse in the Labour vote from 576,388 in 2004 to 336,831 in 2009. In Liverpool, Labour's vote dived by 15,000; in Manchester by almost 9,000; whilst in Bury, Rochdale and Stockport, its vote halved.

The switch away from postal votes for all in the last Euro election in the region also led to a fall in turnout.

Thus, the BNP could secure a higher share of the vote whilst getting fewer votes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was .

The first time that Labour has been .

The first time - since 1918 - that the party has .

The first UK-wide election in which .

The first time that to a parliament or assembly in areas where Labour's vote collapsed.

Those who dedicate their lives to the party will feel the pain and, looking at the success of the BNP, the shame of a night they will wish to forget.

Individual Labour MPs will now ponder what it means for their future in their patch.

That is unlikely in itself to restore enough momentum to unseat Gordon Brown.

It will, however, ensure that the leadership question will not be closed today, this week or next.

The prime minister may now be given the chance to unveil the policies he believes can dig his party out of the deep hole it is in - but, if the polls don't budge, his party will keep on talking about budging him.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Brown leadership crisis may not produce a change of leader, but it is already producing changes in policy.

David Dimbleby has just asked Labour's Chief Whip Nick Brown about slowing down the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Mr Brown said that he wanted "to find a way through" the problem which would carry "the support of the majority of the parliamentary party".

Translated, that means "it's on the back burner".

The public excuse? It's a tricky time in the markets.

The real reason? Brown's survival.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In an article in tomorrow's Times, Charlie Falconer does make the case that any likely alternative leader would do better at an election at any time than Gordon Brown.

He writes that:

"My view is that the painful step of changing our leader, a leader who has given his life to the Labour Party and to public service, would be best for the party and the country. The choice is for the prime minister and the party. I believe that if we change, then we would go into the next election, whenever it was, so much stronger."

And this is why he argues that, to avoid electoral wipe-out, they need a new leader:

"It needs the leader to be the driver and the agent of very big change. This needs highly developed leadership skills. Gordon Brown has not displayed those skills. Whatever the length of time under this new leader, we would be more strongly united around both a new leader and an agreed programme, rather than clinging, disunited and dissatisfied, to the present position."

Update 0814: The piece is online at the Times site: .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What a difference a weekend makes.

Gordon Brown, who looked strained, emotional and tetchy at his news conference on Friday, looked relaxed, happy (well, almost) and confident at his hastily arranged party love-in this afternoon.

This was not simply because a hand-picked audience told him what a great job he was doing.

There are at least five other good reasons for him to be smiling today:

(1) There is no plan to unveil a list of backbenchers calling for him to go tomorrow morning. Many MPs, one rebel tells me, are weighing up their desire to see Gordon Brown out with their dislike of public in-fighting. They will, I'm told, want to see tonight's election results and talk to their colleagues. Many also want to hear what Gordon Brown has to say at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting tomorrow evening. All this before signing up to the "Go now" letter or e-mail. This sounds to me like a long-winded way of saying "we haven't got the numbers".

(2) James Purnell is not planning a resignation statement. He believes that he's said enough and now it's up to others. So, no from him.

(3) Hazel Blears' resignation statement will focus on policy. This may explain why Peter Mandelson aggressively asserted this morning on the Marr programme that there was no evidence that Hazel had any criticism of Gordon Brown. Interesting to note that there are rumbles of discontent in her new (post-boundary changes) constituency party - perhaps she calculates that to lose her cabinet post and her constituency in one go would be not just unfortunate but careless.

(4) Caroline Flint is is not planning a resignation statement. Implausible assassin though she is, she too will not provide a Geoffrey Howe moment.

(5) Jon Cruddas says it would be "madness" to throw Gordon Brown overboard. Actually, the leader of Labour's thinking left said that it would be "madness" to suggest that Labour could solve its problems "simply by chucking Gordon Brown overboard". He's calling for policy changes - an end to Trident and Royal Mail part-privatisation - and may calculate that he's more likely to get it from a weakened Gordon Brown than from a leader with a fresh mandate.

There's been much talk about how "It woz Mandy that won it" while "Miliband or Johnson or Hutton [delete where applicable] bottled it". This was, however, more about an argument than about personalities. The new first secretary of state has not won an argument for Gordon Brown. He won an argument against removing him.

His case was that a change of leadership would force a damaging internal battle and an early general election at which Labour would inevitably be annihilated.

The rebels have got bogged down in a debate about whether there would or should be a contest or a coronation - which is better? - and whether a general election could be delayed or could be won if held in the autumn.

They will only succeed if they can make the case that Brown is taking his party to certain annihilation and that any of the available candidates could do better at whatever time an election is held.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Survival. That was Gordon Brown's sole focus on the morning after the night before.

Hours after James Purnell's shock resignation from the cabinet and his call for his leader to stand down, the prime minister did persuade Labour's leading figures to back him rather than sack him.

He has though won it at quite a price. Alistair Darling stays as chancellor having made plain that he would rather resign than be moved as the prime minister had once planned. It was a sign not of Mr Darling's strength but Mr Brown's increasing weakness.

Peter Mandelson has a new title first secretary of state and a new role to match the reality that he is in effect Gordon Brown's deputy.

He is one of the growing number of unelected hand picked appointees that Mr Brown has come to rely on. It is hard to see how this lives up to Lord Mandelson's description that "we've seen the creation of a new government", it looks instead like the emergency filling of an unprecedented set of cabinet resignations.

Nevertheless Mr Brown has seen off the ministerial revolt and it is now up to backbench Labour MPs to decide whether they accept that verdict or conclude that their weakened leader should be finished off.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On the one hand, the Conservatives will be relieved that - just for the moment - Gordon Brown seems secure as leader.

They believe that a new leader - say, Alan Johnson - would be a more formidable electoral threat.

On the other hand, they will be nervous. While they're likely to end the day having won overwhelmingly and having taken a handful of councils, their projected share of the national vote is not as good as it might have been.

They also know that there are swings in politics and that, having had a bloody few days, Gordon Brown has an opportunity to reassert himself.

At his Downing Street news conference, he is likely to address criticisms that he has no support by indicating that key members of his cabinet are still around him.

He is also likely to point to documents to be published in the next week - one on political renewal; another one on what are described as achievable and measurable targets on the economy, health and education - a kind of mini-manifesto for the next six months, if you like.

David Cameron has been around long enough and seen enough ups and downs to regard this as another marking post on the route to possible power - and to know that Gordon Brown has recovered before and he might just do it again.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So there are some interesting shifts in the lower ranks of the cabinet. But at the top, this government still looks remarkably similar to the one we were talking about a day or so ago.

I'm clear that Alistair Darling was sounded out about a move to the Home Office and that James Purnell was sounded out about a move to Education so that Ed Balls could go to the Treasury.

This is not the reshuffle that Gordon Brown wanted, the one he hoped would form a "firewall" between the past and the future.

The key figures - chancellor, foreign secretary and business secretary - are the same. The one big addition, of course, is the man who could have sought to replace Gordon Brown as leader and who is still the most likely successor if he goes - Alan Johnson as home secretary.

And so the attention now moves entirely to the back benches and whether they will make the same raw calculation as some cabinet members appear to have made - that the party faces a choice between a slow but inevitable death at the next general election, or instant death if there's a change of leader.

Even if the backbenchers decide to force a contest, Gordon Brown can still fight it - and he could still win it.

As for the round robin e-mail asking Mr Brown to step down? Those behind it are waiting and hoping that another piece of bad news will persuade people to sign it today. On that front at the moment, things are ever so quiet.

Update 1426: You can watch my lunchtime interview with the business secretary Lord Mandelson below.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This morning, I interviewed John Hutton, .

I asked him why he took a decision which delayed what many see as the inevitable fall of Gordon Brown and whether he's given up fighting for the Labour Party.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Three extraordinary personal decisions have shored up Gordon Brown's position as prime minister.

• First, the decision of his obvious successor, Alan Johnson, not only to rush to the prime minister's defence, but also to declare that Brown would be a better leader than him.

• Second, David Miliband's call late last night condemning the resignation of his close friend and ally James Purnell and to back the man who he contemplated toppling a year ago.

• Third, the judgement of John Hutton - once one of Gordon Brown's fiercest critics - that he would leave the cabinet but would make clear that it was for family and not for political reasons.

Each could have helped Mr Brown down. Each chose not to.

Many Labour backbenchers who were ready to call for a change of leader will now be asking themselves: "If they're not willing to act to end this, why should I?"

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

John Hutton is standing down as Defence Secretary and is leaving the cabinet, but is making it clear that he is backing Gordon Brown's continued leadership.

Friends say that he has been genuinely considering this for many weeks, and that he told Gordon Brown that he wanted to step down some weeks ago.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As I told at 0828, the indications are that Gordon Brown is to keep Alistair Darling as chancellor. Updates to follow.

Update 0938: "Will he get on quietly and doggedly with his job at the Treasury?" I was asked by someone very close to Gordon Brown before being given the answer "Yes, he will."

His earlier problems with expenses, I was told, were footling. And so the prime minister, despite having considered the case for refreshing the post of chancellor, had decided not to.

Let me decode that.

Earlier this week, it was clear to me that the Mr Brown's allies were sounding out ministers about possible moves in the reshuffle. Often, the PM elects not to do this himself, to avoid any possible rebuffs.

Alistair Darling was, I believe, sounded out about a move to the Home Office. James Purnell - before he resigned - was sounded out about a move to Education or Health. The significance of Education is that it's a post currently held by Ed Balls - a man who Gordon Brown was interested in moving to the Treasury.

Those moves will not now happen.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

This changes everything.

to Gordon Brown is clear, it's explicit and it's a direct challenge to the prime minister to go for the sake of the party.

There is no code, no nudge or wink but one of the Labour Party's rising stars is now publicly telling the prime minister that he is the problem, that he will stop the Labour party winning the next election and that he will ensure a Conservative victory.

Mr Purnell, a former adviser and a current friend of Tony Blair's, has acted with the ruthlessness of his mentor.

He is telling the rest of the Labour party that they should now stop their private chats and make their minds up about Gordon Brown's leadership.

Lots of the party has been waiting for someone else to make the first move. The problem they faced was that many MPs felt they would be better off without Gordon Brown as leader, but all of them feared individually the cost to them if they were the first to say so publicly. James Purnell has now taken the decision to go first, to take the flak, to force others to make their choice.

The party cannot now move on and pretend that nothing is happening.

Gordon Brown may now rush forward his cabinet reshuffle in an effort to demonstrate that he has the support of the key figures in his party.

They now face a choice - agree to back their leader or join Mr Purnell in trying to sack him.

The man facing the biggest decision of all is the man who's stayed silent throughout this crisis - Mr Purnell's friend and the man he wants to lead the Labour Party, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

UPDATE 2346 BST: Well well. David Miliband has moved very fast to say that he does not agree with his friend James Purnell and will not be resigning.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Hazel Blears wrote two letters to the prime minister yesterday. The second she wrote having watched Prime Minister's Questions in her Commons office. It was a handwritten thank you for the way he had spoken about her contribution to government.

If, instead of condemning her repeatedly, he'd said anything like it in recent weeks she might never have resigned as she did yesterday.

It is telling to compare her actions with that of Jacqui Smith. The home secretary rushed to endorse Gordon Brown yesterday. When she faced embarrassment, humiliation and condemnation over her expenses claims the prime minister had been understanding in public and consoling in private.

This episode may form another chapter in the book I may write one day entitled "How the small snub made history".

The other chapters include the tale of how Peter Mandelson was forced out of Tony Blair's cabinet after failing to invite to his flatwarming party the man who'd funded his mortgage and how Jeffrey Archer ended up in prison after humiliating a friend at a party who knew he'd lied in court.

Many others have been or may be about to be snubbed by the prime minister.

Top of the list is Alistair Darling who's faced constant interference at the Treasury and was rewarded with precious little public support when he faced questions about his expenses. He is, friends say, ready to leave the cabinet rather than move jobs.

Other ministers fear that their private financial data - which Cabinet Office officials are combing through - is being deployed to damage them by Gordon Brown's allies.

Angry though many are with Hazel Blears, few like the style of politics which leads some close to the PM to put it about that "she's cracking up".

The prime minster may soon discover that being nice about someone after they've resigned from your government is leaving things much much too late.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Deliberate, calculated and with intent.

That is the only possible interpretation of just before Prime Minister's Questions and on the eve of the last big electoral test ahead of the general election.

The Communities Secretary Blears has issued a statement in which she makes no mention of Gordon Brown's leadership. That will come though once the polls have closed.

A year ago she was one of five cabinet ministers who discussed resigning to force Brown out but never followed through. Today there is no sign that her resignation is part of an organised plot.

She decided to resign last night after meeting the prime minister yesterday afternoon in Downing Street.

At the meeting, I'm told, she "ventilated her anger" at the way he had publicly described her expenses claims as "totally unacceptable". They did not, however discuss whether she would resign from Cabinet or be moved in a re-shuffle.

Last night after the meeting she consulted allies and friends and drafted her letter of resignation. This morning she asked to see the prime minister again and informed him of her decision. I am told that the issue of his continued leadership was not discussed.

She has, though, now fired the starting gun on a leadership contest whose outcome is unknowable.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The home secretary is the most high-profile victim so far of the scandal over MPs' expenses.

She has, I'm told, because that's the "right thing for her family" who had been at the "forefront of the row" about the claim she made for the cost of watching an adult movie at her constituency home.

The pressure was felt not just by her husband - - but by their school age children and her mum and dad.

Her allies say that she met the prime minister during the Easter recess to tell him that she would like to stand down in the next reshuffle. They're making it very clear that she remains committed to his leadership of the Labour Party and to fighting her marginal seat at the next election.

One told me that though the home secretary still deeply regretted her mistake, she felt "vindicated" in her overall approach to her expense claims in the light of what has since emerged in the Telegraph's drip-drip torture of the Westminster classes. She may, I was told, have claimed for "a kitchen sink" but, unlike many of her colleagues, she didn't "claim for the whole kitchen".

The prime minister now has a home secretary on the way out, , and .

With potentially painful election results this Friday and Sunday the cabinet reshuffle now looks set for Monday.

It is Gordon Brown's last chance to prove to his party that he has a plan to get them out of the hole they're now in.

Update 1806: Surely it's no coincidence that a series of high-profile MPs are letting it be known that they're leaving the government or leaving parliament? It must - some mutter in Westminster - be a conspiracy, and that is what some close to the prime minister fear.

After all, why else would so many risk distracting and embarrassing their party on the eve of the last big electoral test before the general election?

The truth is probably simpler, but no less worrying for Gordon Brown.

The signs are that the decisions of ministers to stand down and of MPs to retire are a reflection of a widespread despair felt in Labour's ranks at the personal vilification that individuals have suffered and at the political defeat that they increasingly anticipate.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Never in the past two turbulent years has the chancellor looked more distressed or looked more likely to lose his job at the Treasury. More so even than after having to tear up his economic forecasts or admit to record falls in growth and rises in borrowing.

Alistair Darling's first response to was to robustly deny the charges that he had simultaneously claimed for two homes or "flipped" his house claims to make a profit or inappropriately claimed the cost of an accountant to manage his tax affairs. The prime minister too declared that he was sure that his "friend" had done nothing wrong.

By the end of the day though, Mr Darling had paid money back and apologised for another - and he claims inadvertent - mistake altogether, not repaying his claim for the service charge on his second home after he'd rented it out.

Though he still has the prime minister's public backing, there is a sense in Whitehall that Mr Darling's time as chancellor may be coming to an end. Long before the expenses saga, some close to Gordon Brown had argued that Labour needed a more political and more aggressive man at the Treasury.

It will be a source of huge frustration and personal sadness to Alistair Darling if, after he leaves the Treasury, people assume that it is because of some abuse of the expenses system. Perhaps that is why he was visibly upset through much of my interview with him.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The cartoonists have relished portraying Gordon Brown as a political equivalent to Susan Boyle: an awkward, inarticulate Scot who's feeling the pressure. However, the prime minister shows no sign of walking off the stage, let alone agreeing to be escorted away for a rest cure.

that "I am in the best position to clean up the political system", just as he insists that he is the man to get Britain out of the deep economic hole it's in.

"People know", he went on, "that I'm determined... I work hard... and I get on with the job". This was a pre-emptive plea to his party ahead of election results which they all expect to be dire.

His warning to those dreaming of putting Alan Johnson into No 10 is that they'll have to drag the prime minister off the stage first.

In Westminster's answer to Britain's Got Talent, Gordon Brown is telling the audience: you may like the cheeky cockney postman more than me, but I've got the talent to run the country.

Now all we have to do is wait for the verdict of the people and of the party.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?